Christopher Anne Robinson-Easley (Auth.) - Leadership For Global Systemic Change - Beyond Ethics and Social Responsibility-Palgrave Macmillan (2017)

Leadership for
Global Systemic Change
Beyond Ethics and Social Responsibility
Christopher Anne
Robinson-Easley
Leadership for Global Systemic Change
Christopher Anne Robinson-Easley
Leadership for Global

Systemic Change
Beyond Ethics and Social Responsibility
CEO
Enlightening Management Consultants, Inc
South Holland, Illinois, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-38948-6 ISBN 978-3-319-38949-3 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016956586
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Cover image © Don Smith / Alamy Stock Photo
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
PREFACE
This book is written for individuals from all walks of life who want to under-
stand the dynamics of how to drive deep system change in a world that
continues to be fragmented; a change that incorporates the fundamental
constructs of ethics and social responsibility. However, before we begin,
please allow me to formally introduce myself and the structure of this book.
THE INSERTION OF SELF

I have had various roles in my career. In my last position, I was the Vice-
President for Academic and Student Affairs at a community college in
Illinois. I also reached the academic rank of Full Professor of Management,
and I served fifteen years at a state university in both administrative and
faculty positions. Prior to that time frame, I served five years at a Catholic
university; also in administrative and faculty positions. In addition to the
years I have spent in higher education and the corporate business sector, I
continue to consult to organizations in the private and public sectors and
internationally teach intercultural management.
During the twenty-one years I have spent in higher education, I have
taught ethics and related topics at undergraduate, graduate and doctoral
levels. Yet, what largely informs my perspectives in addition to my aca-
demic training is that I worked in corporate America in various manage-
ment and leadership positions for over two decades prior to entering
higher education.
My research, consulting, and training have afforded me the opportunity
to travel internationally, although the predominance of my experiences
v
vi PREFACE
has largely been in Europe and the French West Indies. But what is most
important about my background is the fact that I am a trained organi-
zation development professional, with a doctoral degree in organization
development, whose lens is focused on how to design and implement deep
and holistic change.
My personal and professional journey thus far has been rich and mod-
erated by other attributes. As you read, you will see the evidence of my
journey from a very personal perspective. My experiences have framed
my perspectives as to how we can produce change in our global commu-
nity; a change that is focused on ameliorating issues that have significantly
stretched the social fabric of our world.
Throughout the years, I have personally experienced and professionally
worked to address far too many of the issues I discuss in this book. Equally
important, as a researcher I have also learned that if we are to bring about
change, we have to consider the proposition that our world is not value
neutral. As a result, this book as well as others I have written is in first and
third person. You see, the social fabric of our global environment is being
torn, not just stretched at the seams. We cannot continue to marginalize
people, wreak havoc on our environment, and place far too many children
at risk daily. Our global village has to change.
Therefore, to understand the complexities of the requisite change, I
respectfully posit that our personal lens and experiences when juxtaposed
to, or working in concert with views from peer scholars serve as important
foundations for understanding how to bring about change that will take
us beyond our comfort zones.
So, mentally, spiritually, and metaphorically walk with me as I urge a
collective gathering to begin the change process. Across the globe our
tenets regarding ethical behaviors and sound social responsibilities have
to change, because if they do not, the social fabric of our society will con-
tinue to be torn to the point that we will not recognize our world—a fear
many now have.
South Holland, IL, USA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I continue to be grateful to my Creator as He continues to guide me in my

writing. And I am grateful to my children for their inspiration and encour-
agement and to the very special person in my life who has encouraged me
to keep growing and speaking my truth.
I am also thankful for friendship. As I have continued to write over
these past years, my friend, Mrs. Dortha Brown, has continued to be a
beacon of light, offering encouragement as well as tirelessly reading my
work and providing the constructive feedback I need.
I am also grateful for my experiences. The forty years I have worked in
business and higher education have been very enlightening. I have wit-
nessed as well as experienced events and situations that I wished I had
never encountered. Yet, they have been significant opportunities for learn-
ing. Through it all, the most important lessons I learned were my respon-
sibilities for righting the wrongs I saw. Each of us has a purpose in life and
a role to play.
We live in challenging times and as each day passes, the challenges
become more intense. When I began writing this book in 2014, the global
circumstances I addressed were intense. However, in between my begin-
ning this book and the final submission of the manuscript to the publisher,
our world continues to spiral into even more chaos—a situation that is
very similar to what was occurring when I wrote Beyond Diversity and
Intercultural Management. In between my beginning that manuscript
and submitting it to the publisher, our world experienced very chaotic
events that centered on issues of a failure to value humanity. In the USA
we were spiraled into an ugliness that centered on the killing of a young
vii
viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
seventeen-year-old man, Travyon Martin. In countries such as Egypt,

Turkey and Brazil people were demonstrating about issues that concerned
their basic human rights.
And now, as this book goes to press, in the USA we are in the midst of
a Flint Michigan scenario that brings new meaning to the concept of social
responsibility, a presidential race that has gone beyond the boundaries of
ugly (to the point where other countries are questioning the rhetoric that
is emerging out of the USA), along with continuing issues that are said
to challenge the basic human rights of people in Turkey, Syria, and other
Middle Eastern countries. Added into the equation is an organization,
known among other names as ‘ISIS’, that is taking international terrorism
to a new level.
Unfortunately, these are just highlights of some of the concerns we face
that challenge leaders, our ethics, morality and our tolerance of injustice.
In many respects, it is overwhelming. Yet, if we step back, breathe, and
assess each individual’s role and responsibility, we can produce significant
global change.
Everyone has a purpose and a role to play. For me, I am a teacher as
well as an organization development change agent and for many years I
have been a writer. I use to write according to the parameters set forth by
the Academy. That is what we needed to do to get tenure. Tenured and
promoted to the rank of Full Professor, I now write to teach and hopefully
inspire a level of cognitive dissonance that will move people to new levels
of action.
For many years, I have been privileged to teach ethics and social respon-
sibility from many vantage points and through many lenses. However, the
most important vantage point I have taken throughout those years is one
that has allowed me to teach my students how to understand the systemic
issues we see from a systems perspective and as an outcome … learn how
to change the system!
I am grateful for the graduate and undergraduate students I taught
throughout the years. I have been blessed to have students in the classroom
who represent our global society. Through the questions they asked and
the discontent they expressed throughout the years, we critically exam-
ined past, current and emerging issues. For many, they represented the
discontent they felt but may not have found a venue in which they could
articulate their feelings. Equally important, the way in which I forced their
view of the issues concomitantly forced the concept of systems thinking,
which resulted in their understanding and learning how to posit change
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix
from a more sophisticated perspective—lessons which I have incorporated

into this book.
The ongoing ethical violations and challenges to people’s basic rights
that we continue to see today call for a higher level of thinking. Changing
a system is not hard. What is hard is helping people come face to face with
their own insecurities that can and often do make it difficult for them to
untie that which holds them back in order to make the change.
As I wrote this book, I focused on engaging all audiences. I want to
be clear: changing how we treat people socially and responsibly across the
globe is everyone’s responsibility. Even those who are victimized should be
prepared to challenge themselves and deconstruct why they have accepted
their current state. Until we learn to stand up for ourselves, people across
the globe will continue to be victimized. As Frederick Douglas said (a
quote I will repeat again in this book):
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out
the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them,
and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or
with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those
whom they oppress.1
I pray that the words I write will stir souls across the globe. I pray that
I will continue to have the strength and wherewithal to be provocative.
Most important, I am grateful to all who have always encouraged me to
speak my truth.
Friends and family are truly gifts from our Creator!
NOTE
1. http://www.africanamericanquotes.org/frederick-douglass.html, Frederick
Douglass, Civil Disobedience Manual.
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 1
Part I The Issues and Parameters of Plausible Change 15
2 Our World, Our Lens, Our Choices 17
3 Through the Lens of Business Ethics 41
4 The Current Landscape 53
5 The Friedman Versus Korten Argument: Are These

Dichotomies Still Valid in the Twenty-First Century? 87
Part II Through the Lens of Ethics and Social

Responsibility: Imagine a World of Change 105
6 Reclaiming Our World: The United Nations Global

Compact in the Midst of a Vision of Change 107
xi
xii CONTENTS
7 Leaders as the Linchpins of Change 127
8 Living the Ideal: A Proposed Model for Change 143
9 Living and Sustaining the Ideal 177
10 Concluding Comments 181
Index 185
LIST OF FIGURE
Fig. 8.1 Evoking phenomenal global change 157
xiii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Since I began this book, countries all over the globe are facing crises that
are unprecedented. In my own country, the United States of America, we
are engaged in racial warfare that makes the 1960s and other pertinent
civil rights periods look mild. People are losing their lives as people are
walking the streets with guns and shooting arbitrarily—even shooting citi-
zens in their places of worship.
Yet, I cannot believe that we have not seen these events, attitudes and
resulting atrocious actions coming. I believe many have chosen to close
their eyes. When I wrote my book, Beyond Diversity and Intercultural
Management, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), and as I researched and wrote
this book, I became alarmed at a level I had not experienced before. So
many people are having their humanity desecrated while the rest of us can
be seen as idly standing by and watching.
The social circumstances of our global society have to push people to
rethink how we live; a question that is fundamental to a perspective of
normative ethics (Hartman et al. 2014). The framing of this question is
vital to understanding our values, which are defined by our moral systems.
Our morality, personal integrity and resulting attitudes which frame our
personal and business ethics have to come under scrutiny if we are going
to change our world (2014).
How we should live in community is a question posited for many diverse
organizations and institutions, such as our global corporations. Embedded
in this question are more questions regarding justice, public policy, laws,
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 1

C.A. Robinson-Easley, Leadership for Global Systemic Change,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_1
2 C.A. ROBINSON-EASLEY
civic virtues, organizational structure and political philosophies—areas in

which corporations have substantive influence (2014). These questions and
their underlying constructs also challenge the many projects that are already
underway. As this book has reached its final stages of production, we are
witnessing presidential candidates in the 2016 presidential race debate many
issues which are foundational to this country. Yet, dismally what we also are
witnessing is that many consider the rhetoric of the Republican candidate
to be antithetical to the basic foundations upon which the United States
was built; a rhetoric that is so offensive to national and international lead-
ers and citizens that one outcome has been the international community in
concert with many in the USA voicing concerns over proposed policies and
resulting actions (Hosenball et al. 2016).
In Turkey, which is situated very critically in a geopolitical sense, and
is in candidacy for entrance into the European Union, people are protest-
ing verbally and in person (often with support from outside the country)
to challenge the government’s apparent shutting down of press freedom
and the right to articulate disagreement. These are just a couple of current
issue examples. These global travesties, some of which are described in this
book, suggest a strong need for people to challenge how we have allowed
our society to deteriorate to a level where far too many cope by numbing
themselves to the daily affronts. Yet, just as difficult to understand is the
number of people that support the continuation of the status quo; an issue
we will visit in this book.
There are many efforts to bring about change already in place; efforts
which people have placed a tremendous amount of time and energy in
structuring and implementing. Yet the problem with these efforts is that
they do not entail enough organizational entities and members of society
at large to make the substantive difference required on a worldwide basis.
There are more than sufficient numbers of organizational entities to make
a difference… they simply are not all engaged. As a global society, too
many people are content to stand by and simply watch. And, from indi-
vidualized perspectives, many are afraid.
I recently received a civic award for contacting the police when I observed
a home invasion in progress. When the Chief of Police and I had a conversa-
tion regarding my accepting the award, I communicated my concern about
being recognized for something I believe is a fundamental responsibility
of citizens. Unfortunately, he confirmed that people for the most part will
not ‘get involved’. Interestingly, this is one of the first questions my under-
graduate ethics students addressed two years ago: why do people turn their
heads when others are in trouble? Why, as a society have we ceased to care?
INTRODUCTION 3
Where are our morals for ‘doing the right thing’? Needless to say, that lec-
ture and resulting student dialogue was very interesting.
These questions do not just reside on an individualized level, but
prevail on a global basis. The 2014–2016 goal of the United Nations
Global Compact Strategy is to increase corporate participation from 8000
corporations to 13,000 corporations and other participants by 2016.1
In the United States alone, there are an estimated 22 million corpora-
tions. 2 Equally challenging, many of the ‘engaged’ corporations do not
appear to engage at a level that evokes the requisite change—change at an
interpersonal and intrapersonal level. Yet these are critical change strate-
gies for promoting and sustaining any dynamic change processes.
Years ago, when I first began researching and writing on organizational
change, I kept in the forefront of my mind the proposition of one of our
pre-eminent organization development colleagues, Dr. Peter Reason, who
for years was on the faculty at the University of Bath in England. Dr.
Reason posited that orthodox scientific methods, typically found in the
psychological and sociological realm of inquiry, may systematically and
to a large degree intentionally exclude subjects from all choice about the
subject matter of the research or, in the case of change strategies, inter-
ventions (Reason 1988). As a result, a dangerous outcome is that tradi-
tional inquiry methods become not only epistemologically unsound, but
contribute to the continued decline of our world, continuing to foster a
mechanistic world view (Reason 1988).
The impact of these missing change components are evident in the cri-
tiques and criticisms of the Global Compact Strategy, which is by far one
of the largest and most aggressive change projects underway today, and
that has the intent to ameliorate many societal atrocities; an issue I address
later on in this book. While I sincerely applaud the efforts of the United
Nations and similarly focused organizations moving towards the end result
of global change, I also wonder if it is time to push the limits of engage-
ment with a different type of change model. In other words, is it time to
move beyond incremental change that is focused on addressing primarily
structural areas of concern and move towards a radically designed change
effort that includes people from multiple walks of life?
More importantly, is it time to move beyond structurally focused
changed initiatives and incorporate ways to engage the hearts and souls of
the people involved? There is truth in the statement that:
Liberation is thus a child birth, and a painful one. The man or woman
who emerges is a new person, viable only as the oppressor-oppressed
contradiction is superseded by the humanization of all people. Or

to put it another way, the solution of this contradiction is born in the
labor which brings into the world this new being: no longer oppressor
no longer oppressed, but human in the process of achieving freedom.
(Freire 2006, p. 49)
As an organization development strategist, I quickly learned that to

understand the hearts and souls of people from a very deep discursive
level, you have to go beyond even the most sophisticated change strategies
and engage the people at their core—insights which drove me to return
to school after obtaining my doctoral degree in organization development
and enter seminary.
The concept and constructs associated with ethics automatically raise
the questions as to how we live as a moral society and whether or not the
morality we (and ‘we’ is very inclusive) have embraced is contributing to
the tearing apart of our social fabric. We also have to question whether
or not organizations who supposedly engage in ‘business ethics’ have a
responsibility to the greater society (corporate social responsibility) that
goes beyond the limits to which they currently prescribe—and, concomi-
tantly, ask when organizations are perceived as duplicitous in their behav-
iors, why do consumers support those organizations?
It has been suggested that one way to engage corporate responsibilities
in change strategies is to insist that where there is severe deprivation and
suffering that can be alleviated, it is morally intolerable to maintain that
no one has the responsibility to help (Miler 2001 as cited in Kuper 2004).
Perhaps corporations do have extensive remedial responsibilities not just
because they are the cause of issues or are morally responsible for so much
global poverty, or because they have very close ties with local communi-
ties, but because from a local to a global level, they are the most capable
agents when it comes to seriously addressing the torn fabric of our global
society (Kuper 2004).
THE INTERMINGLING OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS ETHICS

Throughout this book, I will often simultaneously address business ethics
and personal ethics—and both of their relationships to social responsibil-
ity. Academically, I understand the difference with respect to their defini-
tions and how they are treated differently in the literature.
INTRODUCTION 5
However, my personal experiences, particularly through the lens of

leadership, have suggested that if an organizational leader is lacking in
his or her personal ethical behaviors, and the moral foundations from
which this leader operates lack substance, it becomes very difficult for
the organization to ethically behave. As a result, we will subsequently
have issues with the ‘business ethics’. Leadership behaviors and ethics,
organizational culture and its resulting ethical behavior are intimately
intertwined.
Let me take a moment to expound upon what I mean. In my book,
“Our Children Our Responsibilities: Saving the youth we are losing to
gangs” (Robinson-Easley, 2012), I suggested that there were direct rela-
tionships on a vertical level between personal vision, personal power and
personal change. I also suggested direct vertical relationships between
organizational vision, organizational power and organizational change.
But, equally importantly, I posited the direct horizontal relationships
between personal vision and organizational vision; personal power and
organizational power; and personal change with the capacity for organi-
zational change.
Fundamentally, I suggested that effective leaders have to possess per-
sonal vision, live in their personal power, and as a result, not be afraid to
bring about personal change. Or more, specifically:
The ability to see and inspire a vision will require a leader to reach in
the recesses of his or her soul in order to take people places they may
fear going. Even though the leadership trek may be wrought with trial
and error, when people feel the spirit and soul of a leader—in other
words their true essence—they will follow without fear or trepidation.
(Robinson-Easley 2012, p. 147)
Only then can a leader evoke an organizational vision, lead the organi-
zation to realize, actualize and effect its personal power to make that
vision a reality, which can result in sustaining phenomenal organizational
change.
Similar relationships can exist between ethical behavior, social respon-
sibility and leadership. For example, a leader’s personal ethics will impact
the organiation’s ethical foundations and moral principals. How the leader
internalizes his or her personal power can impact the organiation’s result-
ing business ethics. Equally important, if the leader does not engage in
personal change, typically, the organization’s willingness to create change

in order to alter it’s ethical behavior and social responsibility strategies is
unlikely.
It is very difficult for people to be effective leaders unless they engage
in self-exploration and confront the issues that block them from living
their lives with purpose while demonstrating competencies germane to
effectively leading organizations and engaging in sound ethical behavior
(Robinson-Easley 2012). Internally driven leaders challenge their moral
and ethical beliefs and are not afraid to confront their own personal decay.
It is not until they have dealt with their own issues that they can success-
fully lead their organizational members and others through actions that
will respect the humanity of all people (Quinn 1996; Robinson-Easley
2014). The same holds true for how a leader works through their ethi-
cal behavior and is not afraid to challenge their foundational beliefs and
morality.
In 2014, I suggested the following propositions:
As our lives grow more complicated, we often find ourselves engaging in

behaviors that begin to tear apart at our ability to live authentically. It is
not until we recognize those behaviors we have internalized for what they
are, will we become willing to question them and change. (Robinson-Easley
2014, p. 142)
Yet, what can complicate this introspective contemplation and questions

are varying perspectives associated with our ideas as to what constitutes
a moral point of view. For example, one perspective/definition of ethics
is that it is a dialogical academic discipline that strives to understand in a
rational and self-critical manner how people should resolve various kinds
of value conflicts (Cooper 2004). But, can we first understand and resolve
value conflicts, if the foundation for those conflicts lies within the ‘self’
and we have not critically examined the ‘self’?
At the core of this endeavor is the desire to discover which moral
systems are the most valid (2004). Moral values can be deemed as com-
mitments people hold that help us define those things that are right
and others that are wrong (2004). Yet, these definitions do not stand in
isolation. They are framed by a community context; a system of shared
intersubjective norms that give all members mutually understood expec-
tations of how they ought to treat one another (2004). And, when you
INTRODUCTION 7
take these concepts to the organizational level, it becomes much eas-

ier to understand how a leader can influence the ethical behavior of an
organization.
If we critically examine the relationship of the leader to the organi-
zation, he or she will often drive the culture, which encapsulates many
norms and behaviors. This same relationship can reside within multiple
forms of ‘organizations’—countries, communities, and the varying sys-
tems embedded with those entities. Consequently, if we deconstruct the
values that currently reside within these organizations, we should also
question if the people really believe that the moral values they have inter-
nalized are appropriate or is their acceptance framed by conditions (and/
or individuals) perceived to be beyond their control? In other words, has
the morality of the leader overshadowed the morality of the organiza-
tional members?
Perhaps a moral point of view should be impartial. But is it possible
given the plausibility of conditions described in the preceding paragraph?
A moral point of view is also typically defined as meeting publicly acknowl-
edged rational standards that satisfy conditions of universality, and are
examined from a self-critical lens versus ideological perspectives (2004).
Equally important, a moral point of view promotes generalized empathy
and respect among all people (Cooper 2004).
However, when we examine the conditions that exist in multiple global
environments, one has to question this definition. How can we explain,
from a deep discursive level, a moral point of view that will support pov-
erty, power, domination, racism, and violence? When examining the cul-
tural proclivity to accept what may be imposed moral values that people
buy into by default, are their theoretical sensitivities and perspectives,
which will generally emerge from a multidimensional interpretive schema,
critically questioned and examined? For example, within the USA, there
is considerable dialogue across multiple venues regarding the decline of
the middle class and the continued exacerbation of poverty. These dia-
logues and resulting realities come across as out of the control of people
who are impacted the hardest. Unfortunately, this acceptance becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Only a minority of the masses refuse to accept this
outcome as inevitable.
Yet, if we critically examine the issues through the lens of social con-
struction theory, we cannot help but question how the acceptance of
poverty and domination is inculcated into a community’s consciousness.
Researchers and theorists for quite a few years now have suggested that
our knowledge and relationship to self, others, activity, and our world are
constituted and mediated by our engagements in our world, our resulting
discourse, and our social practices (Cobb 1994; Packer and Goicoechea
2000; Piaget 1972; Ricoeur 1992; Steffe and Gale 1995; Tobin 1993;
Von Glaserfeld 1993).
Perhaps to understand the acceptance of these issues, we have to under-
stand how communities are influenced by the prevailing discourses that
are “spoken’ by the same institutions (or leaders) that impose dominance
and control. For example, when wanting to understand the impact that
corporations have upon impoverished communities, one only has to
understand the millions of dollars a year that are spent on advertising,
promotions, and in other forums that have the ability to construct a reality
socially. These media representations set forth a discourse that concomi-
tantly informs our moral values.
At this point, you might ask, why is understanding these issues germane
to questioning and/or changing global communities and why is there a
suggested relationship to ethics, social responsibility and global change?
The various ways in which language mediates perceptions of our world-
view are primary loci of analysis. Postmodern theorists cautioned against
the modernist assumption that rational processing lies behind or guides
one’s outward behavior. As a result, we should never assume that our
language is culture free (Gergen 1994). Our language has determining
capacities. As a result, when it is tied to social relations, identities, power,
culture, and social struggle, the language that permeates a society pro-
duces a particular version of social reality (Alvesson and Karreman 2000;
Chia 2000)—a social reality that then interrelates to how we view our
world morally.
Discourses from a community’s past can shape present and future
behavior in the form of established societal beliefs, theories, and stories
(Marshak and Grant 2008), and even acceptance as to what is morally
right or wrong. Equally important to understand, if a leader has the sphere
of influence, he or she can set forth a prevailing discourse that in may
have been completely antithetical to what the organization (however we
describe ‘organization’) believed in the past. The unfortunate aspect of
this socially constructed dynamic is that all leaders are not acting in the
best interest of their people, which is why a critical examination of the
‘self’ is important. If you, as a leader are in a position of power, you have
INTRODUCTION 9
an obligation to introspectively assess what drives your belief systems and

resulting moral behaviors.
When we fail to examine our discourse and the discourse of those that
lead us, we also fail to understand how we have allowed negative dis-
courses to inform our moral principles (one only has to re-review global
history to find validity in these propositions—e.g. Hitler, Mussolini, and
even current global leaders). However, it is very important that when
we look to understand the etiology of the conditions that represent our
global environment, we do not assume a reductionist role and assume that
the cause and effect are simple issues.
When we desire to understand how we develop and enact our moral
values, we should seek to understand how inequalities in power determine
the resulting language. This perceived disequilibrium most definitely will
impact one’s ability to control the production, distribution and consump-
tion of particular texts (Oswick et al. 2000), which can be viewed as reflec-
tive of our moral beliefs that underpin our behaviors.
The ongoing negative dialogues on issues of race and ethnicity within
the United States suggest that this country is in a serious moral battle. In
various forums, there are multiple discourses as to what should or should
not be considered socially acceptable when it comes to police brutality
and the multiple deaths of Black men and women. At the same time,
Muslims are being verbally attacked at unprecedented levels. Dialogues as
to which ethnicities should be allowed to immigrate into the country are
being articulated in multiple forums. Yet, in the midst of the discourse,
the important question is which ‘voice’ will prevail, and will that voice
be contingent upon how much power and domination those articulating
a particular view point possess. Equally important, will the domination
of that voice result in moral acceptance of the behaviors that have come
under close national scrutiny?
The USA, unfortunately, is not alone in having these issues. The same
scenario holds true for other countries undergoing varying levels of strife.
When world leaders chose to label a particular sector of people as bad or
terrorist and develop a prevailing discourse to support those proposition,
it is amazing to witness the buy-in. And, while I have discussed examples
on a larger level, I have also witnessed these same behaviors in smaller
organizational contexts.
But how often are leaders challenged or questioned regarding their per-
sonal agendas, issues, values, or ethics associated with their promulgated
discourse? In other words, do people recognize privatized agendas and

how often are those agendas challenged?
We have no choice but to engage in this higher level of integrated
thought and action. Dysfunctional moral values and the resulting failure
to act are issues that permeate institutions and society at large—issues I
will more closely examine in the following chapters. And, I respectfully
suggest that when these analyses are done, people will question what they
have accepted. They will emerge open to investigating their desires for
alternative realities with respect to their present social contexts. And they
may just say: enough is enough—and go on to insist upon change.
Leaders across the world should seriously question how we, as a global
society, make decisions regarding and accept the outcomes of conditions
that continue to stress our existence. You see, I do believe that there is
significant truth in the proposition that the unexamined life is not worth
living.3
THE INTENDED OUTCOMES OF THIS BOOK

My intention in writing this book is to drive a different conversation and
resulting understanding as to how we can invoke change. I intention-
ally raise issues that challenge prevailing praxes and, most important, I
strongly suggest that true change will result from our inculcating into the
change processes not just a select few, but people from all over the world
united around a common agenda of reform. It is critical that we hear the
voices of people who are impacted by ethical issues and believe in the need
for focused and intensified social reform—a reform that would examine
our lives, issues and underlying assumptions and moral values through
multiple lenses. If authentically done, this examination will cause produc-
tive cognitive dissonance that has the ability to unite people from varying
walks of life.
I propose to organizational leaders across the globe that if there is going
to be change in our world, it has to begin with them. Equally important,
the change that is necessary for our torn social fabric needs to go beyond
their current efforts. And I pray that people begin speaking to the issues
from a different perspective when addressing possibilities for change and,
more importantly, their roles and responsibilities for driving change.
Last but not least, the model that is suggested is a beginning strategy
that I also hope people will take, re-modulate, but more importantly begin
implementing in a continuous improvement context.
INTRODUCTION 11
I have never written a book that just addressed or rehashed the issues.
And, while the change models I have suggested emerge from my vantage
point, they are starting points. I tend to become frustrated when I read
a book that only reiterates what I already know. I do not need people to
continue telling me how bad a situation is through their writing. What I
will resonate with is when they can cognitively map a process for making
a difference. The map may not be perfect, but hopefully it will provide a
context for, and juxtaposition to, the issues that help me to understand
better how the road map can look.
This is what I have strived to do in this book. I have respectfully exam-
ined the work done by the United Nations on global reform, and I have a
tremendous respect for what they have done and what they have proposed
as next steps. I have hopefully provided a context for taking their work to
another level—one that employs strategies that emerge from the praxes of
organizational behavior and organizational development in concert with
tenets of spirituality and mindfulness.
Just as the leaders of today’s organizations are critical actors in this par-
ticular play of life, so are the ‘everyday’ people. As a global society, we have
to question our morals and how we have allowed ourselves to become
so disconnected from one another. We do not ‘see’ one another from a
perspective of understanding individualized situations; and as a result a
disconnect emerges. Or, to bring this concept back to an earlier example,
if the crime is not being committed on or towards me, why should I call
the police? This is not an acceptable answer in any societal environment.
I know a different dialogue is possible. I teach this dialogue in my class-
rooms and I also know that no matter how small, everyone has a role and
responsibility for producing change. The responsibility does not just lie
on the shoulders of CEOs, but I do believe it does begin with them and
similarly situated organizations.
I also know that the leaders of our worldwide organizations have the
position, power and financial resources to envision a different world. More
importantly, I believe when we begin a different conversation, the dia-
logue begins a change towards our tolerance for poverty, injustice, dis-
crimination, decimation of our environment, and the many other issues
that are plaguing our globe.
Research continues to demonstrate the power of dialogue. The genera-
tive energy associated with waking up and understanding that our lives
can be better and that we can move beyond just an artistic expression of
discontent to a well-developed strategy that engages multiple forums of
stakeholders is what creates a new vision of freedom in our world … a

freedom that is:
… The creative passion for the possible. Freedom is not just turned towards
things as they are, as it is in domination. Nor is it directed only to the com-
munity of people as they are, as it is in solidarity. It reaches out to the future,
for the future is the unknown realm of possibilities, whereas present and past
represent the familiar sphere of realities. (Moltmann 1999, p. 159)
Therefore, I employ you to walk with me as we vision a different world

through a lens of business ethics and social responsibility that is moved to
a higher level than any we have previously encountered. Strategize with
me as I suggest ways to take our present efforts and build upon them, and,
most importantly, believe as I do that our world deserves better. You see,
I truly believe, as William Shakespeare suggested many centuries ago, that
‘it is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in our selves.’4
NOTES
1. http://unglobalcompact.org/docs/about_the_gc/UNGlobalCompact
Strategy2014-2016.pdf.
2. http://www.manta.com/mb.
3. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/246-the-unexamined-life-
is-not-worth-living.
4. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamsha101458.html.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of
organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125–1149.
Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organization, 7(3),
513–518.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives
on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
Cooper, D. (2004). Ethics for professionals in a multicultural world. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York:
Continuum Publishing.
Gergen, K. (1994). Realities and relationships, soundings in social construction.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
INTRODUCTION 13
Hartman, L., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2014). Business ethics: Decision
making for personal integrity and social responsibility. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hosenball, M., Mohammed, M., & Spetalnick, M. (2016). Foreign diplomates
voicing alarm to US officials about Trump. http://www.aol.com/article/
2016/03/07/foreign-diplomats-voicing-alarm-to-us-officials-about-trump/
21323789/.
Kuper, A. (2004). Harnessing corporate power: Lessons from the UN global com-
pact. Development, 47(3), 9–19.
Marshak, R., & Grant, D. (2008). Transforming talk: The interplay of discourse,
power and change. Organization Development Journal, 26, 33–41.
Moltmann, J. (1999). God for a secular society. The public relevance of theology.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2000). Discourse, organizations and orga-
nizing: Concepts, objects and subjects. Human Relations, 53(9), 1115–1120.
Packer, J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of
learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4),
227–241.
Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology (W. Mays, Trans.). New York:
Basic Books. (Original work published 1970).
Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reason, P. (1988). Human inquiry in action, developments in new paradigm
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago, MA: University of Chicago Press.
Robinson-Easley, C. A. (2012). Our children, our responsibilities: Saving the youth
we are losing to gangs. New York: Peter Lang.
Robinson-Easley, C. A. (2014). Beyond diversity and intercultural management.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism.
In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education
(pp. 223–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
PART I
The Issues and Parameters of

Plausible Change
CHAPTER 2
Our World, Our Lens, Our Choices
Over the past few years, my perspectives on change have dramatically

changed. When I wrote for the academy, my focus was primarily on the
utilization of management, organizational behavior, and organization
development change strategies designed to produce primarily structural
change in the environments in which I either worked or consulted. Yet,
there was a deep burning in my soul that strongly suggested something
was missing.
Despite having the best design strategies in place, as I worked in the
field I felt that colleagues and I might be missing the engagement of the
hearts and souls of people who were active actors in the change processes.
Equally important, I wondered how many of us really understood what
it means to feel so psychologically subjugated that you give up all hope
of having your world change. For many, life has become an experience of
defeat with no hope of a real change—particularly for those who believe in
their hearts that they do not possess the power to bring about or demand
a change in their lives.
Yet, emerging research streams that investigate and theorize in the
areas of spirituality in the workplace, organizational justice, and the devel-
opment of hopeful organizations and societies, have continued to grow
(Easley and Swain 2003). People want to understand what constitutes
good organizational citizenship behaviors and how to bring people back
into sharing governance, power and decision making in both the public
and private sectors (2003). As a result, there is discussion in various change

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_2
management literatures regarding a need for new hope, a reconnection

to basic values and, in addition, an appreciation of the value of a strong
emphasis on interpersonal awareness, where questions that address how
to drive deep personal transformational change are examined in concert
with traditional leadership theories and models (Quinn 1996; Senge et al.
1999).
In response to the growing body of deficit vocabularies produced by
critical and deconstructive methods, scholars have also called for construc-
tive approaches to social and organizational science that hold increased
potential for enhancing the human condition by recreating vocabularies of
hope, thus leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the drivers
of one’s decisions and subsequent actions (Ludema et al. 1997).
Despite the intense search for alternative ways to engage people in
a world that continues to be torn, our progress is questionable, which
means there is a need to examine the guiding praxes we employ to pro-
duce change in our world. Equally important, there is also a need to ques-
tion if we have failed to examine critically the moral principles we now
employ across the globe.
What has changed in our world? Albeit a rhetorical question, the
answers appear to suggest that painfully little has changed. We still face
looming issues that appear to result from where we stand with respect to
our morality and ethical behaviors. And, the question still remains as to
how we build an equal playing field for our most important resources…
our children and women across the globe; evidenced by the work that has
and continues to be done by the United Nations and international civil
society organizations.
“Our Children, Our Responsibilities: Saving the youth we are losing
to gangs” (Robinson-Easley, 2012) addressed my doctoral research, which
resulted in the completion of my dissertation in 1999 and subsequent years
of studying youth and gang violence. A resounding fact that stood out for
me when I began my research was that there were no inhabited continents
in our world that did not have a gang problem. Globally, we were losing our
children all over the world to youth gang violence; and we are still, with the
problem, particularly in the United States, continuing to grow.
We are failing similarly to turn around issues of discrimination.
Accusations of racial profiling in the United States that are leading to
deaths of people of color, particularly African Americans, is a growing
issue despite the work that has been done on the civil rights front. And, as
a woman who is also of color, I have to ask the question: why are women
OUR WORLD, OUR LENS, OUR CHOICES 19
still fighting discrimination in the workplace? There are many global ini-
tiatives, such as the United Nations’ Women’s Empowerment Principles:
Equality Means Business (a set of principles for businesses offering guid-
ance on how to empower women in the workplace, marketplace and
community),1 that are working on a global level to address the inequities
women still face in the workforce… even in the twenty-first century.
The development of the Women’s Empowerment Principles includes
an international multi-stakeholder consultation process, which was
launched in March, 2009. The principles are designed to emphasize the
business case for corporate action to promote gender equality and wom-
en’s empowerment. They are informed by real-life business practices and
input gathered from across the globe.2 But why should we have to state a
‘business case’ for equality in the workplace?
… if we re-visit the propositions of the Hudson Institute in the late 1980’s,

women were cited to soon become a significant percent of the U.S. work-
force. However, as previously stated, women still make (in the same jobs)
less than men and we are still “talking” about equality for women domesti-
cally and globally. What locally and globally has really changed? (Robinson-
Easley 2014, p. 120)
Is there really a separation between social responsibility, diversity and

intercultural management challenges or are we discussing two sides of the
same and/or similar coin (Robinson-Easley 2014)? We have options. We
can simply opt for equality as an integral part of our moral behavior. (Yes,
I understand that in many countries, equality for women is not grounded
in the religious and cultural fabric of those societies. However, those are
not the nations or cultures I address.) Or, we have the ability to plant the
seeds of true transformational change, as opposed to allowing our world
to erupt into a crisis (Robinson-Easley 2014).
How do we even understand the issues beyond a surface level? For
me, I made the decision to go to seminary. I wanted to move beyond the
concepts and constructs associated with traditional change processes and
learn in a spiritual context how to reach the hearts and souls of people. I
wanted to take a deep look at our morality in concert with our spirituality
and varying theologies and cosmologies.
I have not completed my walk through seminary, but because I already
possessed a doctoral degree, my seminary allowed me to take the courses I
believed were germane to rounding out my learning. I intend to go back
because the knowledge I obtained from seminary helped me to under-

stand better the critical constructs that could make a difference in our
world. As a result, my personal goal is to obtain another doctoral degree—
in theology. My experiences in seminary, in addition to my non-sectarian
experiences, inform my perspectives and voice.
Yet, equally importantly, seminary was my refuge from a world that
continues to be cold and in many instances uninviting. When I speak
about bringing the whole systems into a change process, I reflect upon my
seminarian experiences. Most of us in our classes came from varying and
different backgrounds. But we had much in common. We were able to
vision a better world and wanted to understand how we could contribute
to bringing forth that better world. As a result our dialogues were rich
and very supportive. Because we shared a common vision, there was safe
space to engage in vivid debates and propositions as to each of our roles
and responsibilities.
I believe when you marry the knowledge of whole systems change
with understanding how people feel within the deepest recesses of their
souls, you will find that there are no limits to what can be done in our
world. And, as you engage in this work, almost automatically you will dis-
cover the varying theologies and cosmologies that have sustained people
for centuries. The writing and consulting work I have done as a result of
my new perspectives have driven me to engage actors in strategies that
require their examining and coming face to face with their pain and result-
ing blockages.
We daily grapple with issues such as youth in developing countries
being forced to work an inordinate number of days per week, which disal-
lows their ability to obtain a quality education. The factories they work in
are run by corporations whose leaders may have never visited these work-
sites and as a result have no idea of the conditions young children face.
Yet people who are marginalized across multiple countries and equally
importantly their children do not see viable ways out of their situations.
We are constantly bombarded with issues that rise out of youth gravitat-
ing to gang environments and the resulting violence, because their social
systems are failing them. An unfortunate outcome is the incarceration of
youth who are subsequently subjected to the prison systems, which have
become very successful enterprises developed and ran by businesses.
And, we daily live with the outcomes of the breakdown of the edu-
cation system in major inner cities across the USA, which is rendering
youth incapable of competing in a global workforce, yet teacher unions
and their respective state governments have gone to ‘war’ over issues that
defy logic. Just a small sample of these issues include adequate personnel

coverage for overcrowded classrooms, sufficient numbers of books, sup-
plies and technologies, keeping open schools which are being closed in
communities that face overcrowding, safe passage across gang territories
as a result of school closings, and the hiring of qualified teachers versus the
laying off of more experienced teachers. In the midst of that war, over the
course of the past four years, thousands of teachers in the United States
have been displaced from their jobs or have opted to leave the profession.
CORPORATIONS AS A PRIMARY NEXUS OF CHANGE AGENTS

Corporations hold immense power in our world. No longer are corpora-
tions assuming ties to a particular geographic setting. Because they are
global in various organizational structural forms (e.g. transnational, mul-
tinational, international, etc.), their reach is extremely broad. They daily
interact with governments and in many instances, particularly in devel-
oping countries, they shape global politics. Yet, there are various areas
of ethical concerns that are both internal and external to corporations.
However, the concept of business ethics has more of an external emphasis
that considers the gap between organizations’ ethical actions and behav-
ior in their business practices and society’s perceptions of those practices
(Svensson and Wood 2011)—issues that continue to plague our global
society. Therefore, closing this gap is important.
Viewing the problem of closing that gap through the lens of ethical
behavior and corporate social responsibility is appropriate for entities that
hold such a massive control over our environment. However, I do not
dismiss the role and responsibilities of civil society and society at large in a
change process, and as a result also address how actors from various envi-
ronments have critical roles to play in producing deep systemic change.
There are many ways to examine the actions of an organization. You
can simply look at the issues through the lens of management practices,
human resources, and/or organizational behaviors. However, when you
introduce ethics into the conversation (and I am not suggesting that the
lens is an either/or view; a perspective that will be addressed later), you
are also examining questions such as: What should the organization have
done? What rights and responsibilities are involved? What good will come
from the situation? Is there fairness involved—are actions just, virtuous,
kind, loyal, honest, and trustworthy (Hartman et al. 2014)? (Questions
which certainly will cause conversations to emerge regarding the gaps and
the enormity of those gaps.)
Yet, overarching this conversation regarding just and virtuous actions,

etc., is the reality of the power corporations possess—a reality that places
the concept of a gap into a different perspective. On one end of the con-
tinuum of power and political/social policy domination, are issues of the
relationship between political and economic power and its conflict with
true democracy—a conflict manifested by a relationship we do not always
visit:
Corporate globalization is neither in the human interest nor inevitable. It is

axiomatic that political power aligns with economic power. The larger the
economic unit, the larger its dominant players, and the more political power
becomes concentrated in the largest corporations. The greater the political
power of corporations and those aligned with them, the less the political
power of the people, and the less meaningful democracy becomes. (Korten
2001, p. 142)
My first serious experience with the magnitude of that gap emerged dur-
ing my employment with Union Carbide Corporation, where I worked
during the Bhopal, India disaster—a travesty that is cited in numerous
ethics books.
In Beyond Diversity and Intercultural Management, I addressed this
travesty from the viewpoint of diversity and ethics. More specifically, I
suggested:
Albeit a rhetorical question—why are we still compelled to make the busi-

ness case for treating people equally and with dignity and respect? What
is the value proposition in the reverse; when people employed within the
organization-regardless of its domain, do not experience equality? I often
ponder how organizations and their respective leaders can actually believe
that their organization will prosper in the midst of so much pain felt by their
employees? (Robinson-Easley 2014, p. 125)
The plausible outcomes seem simple—the privilege they may desperately

hold on to, which positions them to not want to understand their world as
it truly exist could be a contributing dynamic to what can eventually cause
them to lose privilege. For example, I have often wondered if the same safety
training Union Carbide applied to people in the United States was applied
to the workers in Bhopal, India. Was there even a perceived need to train on
the same level? I do not have the answers for those rhetorical questions, but
I do have my perceptions based upon my being an actor in that environment
when the tragedy occurred. However, what I do know was that the out-
comes of Bhopal, India not only caused deaths and injury, but decimated a
company that had for many years been a giant in its industry, causing many
people in this country to lose their jobs, and for those in power, their privi-
lege. (Robinson-Easley 2014, pp. 125–126)
Eight thousand people died in this incident and another 200,000 were
seriously injured.3 You see, there were many ‘human resource’ issues and
management practices associated with this case, but from the viewpoint
of an actor within the corporation, there were ethical issues that had to
be factored into the equation that were also integrated within the human
resource, management and organizational cultural contexts. Yet, these
ethical issues were also said to be tied to management’s strategies towards
cutting costs—the interplay between economics and human rights.
Equally critical, when you factor in the economic issues and the fact
that the people most impacted by the Bhopal disaster were poor people,
many of them living in shanties outside the plant, more questions about
the morality that guided the actions of leaders at this facility emerge. I
cannot help but wonder whether or not the same cost-cutting strategies
would have occurred if there had been a different demographic of worker?
Through my experience, having had human resource responsibilities for
several gas plants in one of Union Carbide’s larger divisions, my response
would be a resounding ‘No’.
So, what happened and, more importantly, will we ever know why it
happened? In 2011, Global Research reported the following:
While most American’s were getting ready for lunch, nearly all of Bhopal’s
one million residents were sleeping at 10:30 AM (11:00 PM Bhopal, India).
According [to] BBC, Ryman Khan was cleaning the pipes with water which
lead to the MIC storage tanks. Although a routine function for Ryman
Khan, Union Carbide failed to provide a vital instruction which would have
directed him to use a small piece called a slip blind. A slip blind is a flat,
round piece of metal that fits between two pipe flanges to stop the flow of
water in its line if there are any leaks in the pipe valves. Water which can cre-
ate a violent reaction to the MIC chemicals raised the temperature where the
catastrophic chain of event started. As the pressure and exothermic reaction
increased inside the MIC Storage tank, a refrigeration unit which served as
another safety precaution to cool the MIC storage tank had been drained of
coolant for use in another part of the plant and is the first of four safety sys-
tems that would have avoided the catastrophes. A second safety system, a gas
vent scrubber could have helped to neutralize the toxic discharge from the
MIC tanks however it had been placed on standby. The third safety system
which went off and had failed is the alarm which had been turned off by the
plant managers because they did not want to fear the residents. The fourth
safety device which would have worked is by burning off the gas that had
escaped however the gas flair tower was not working and has not worked for
three months before the catastrophe, a sign Union Carbide over looked safe
precautions. (Peterson M.J.)4
Clearly, the tragedy of Union Carbide Corporation in Bhopal, India con-

tinues to be a warning for large corporations doing business in developing
countries. It is suggested that the Bhopal incident and its aftermath was
a warning that the path to industrialization, for developing countries, is
loaded with human, environmental and economic liabilities.5
But what has always plagued me in this case is the ‘why?’ Why did peo-
ple believe that it was okay to short-circuit safety precautions in a develop-
ing country, which were mandatory and routinely inspected requirements
in US plants? What were the prevailing attitudes towards the people? What
were the underlying moral issues that made it ‘okay’? Years later, there is
continuing litigation associated with this case that is still not settled, and
that addresses ongoing outcomes of this crisis:
Victims of the 1984 Bhopal poison gas disaster refused to let the embers
die on their U.S. lawsuit against alleged water polluters Union Carbide
Company (UCC) when their lawyers this week filed arguments with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the company behind the
deadly leak of methyl isocyanate was continuing to foul local wells from its
plant located in the area. (Lakshman 2015)
What is interesting when one reviews the abundance of law suits that have
been filed since the initial incident is how the people of Bhopal inter-
twined issues of carelessness with issues of racism. For example, one suit’s
main allegations included:
1. Union Carbide demonstrated reckless or depraved indifference to

human safety and life because of the design, operation and mainte-
nance of its MIC facilities and safety mechanisms in Bhopal.
2. UCC pursued a systematic policy of racial discrimination in the
design, construction and operation of the Bhopal factory.
3. Union Carbide demonstrated reckless or depraved indifference to
human life in the manufacturing, storage, treatment and disposal
practices at the UCIL plant, resulting in severe contamination of the

soil and water in and around the UCIL plant.
4. Union Carbide and Warren Anderson were and are fugitives from the
lawful jurisdiction of the Bhopal District Court, where criminal charges
remain pending against them. [Note: Anderson died in 2014]6
Various US laws and supporting legislation such as the Declaration of

the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment were cited
as supporting documentation for these allegations.7
MY AWAKENING
My first ‘serious’ academic awakening regarding the massive role of cor-
porations in these types of ethical issues—and also ones with less human
capital collateral damage—was in my first year as a doctoral student in
organization development. We were required to read Dr. David Korten’s
book, When Corporations Rule the World (Robinson-Easley 2014).
Korten’s propositions regarding the ethical issues of corporations as they
pertain to a multiplicity of issues—particularly global economics—were
eye opening. I still use his book (an updated edition) in my ethics classes.
And, while some may feel Korten’s propositions lie on an extreme edge,
he was and still is clearly ahead of his time (2014).
Korten attributes the depletion of natural, human, social and institu-
tional capital almost exclusively to the ‘Midas curse’ of a global financial
capitalistic system. He also addresses social de-capitalization factors, which
specifically incorporate human rights abuse, gender bias, and human
health insecurity (Gladwin 1998)—issues similar to those that the people
of Bhopal continue to cite as causal issues regarding the tragedy caused by
Union Carbide. These factors may be more directly related to patriarchy,
ethnic strife, political fragmentation, rapid urban development, and other
similar issues (1998).
Regardless of how we frame the conversation, the fact remains that our
world is in crisis and the issues are deep. The breakdown of economies
across the globe continues to spiral people into levels of abject poverty. To
understand the criticality of these issues, the challenges of globalization
are making it necessary to conduct a thorough investigation into the con-
ditions of human life as they stand today (Wulf 2013). When we examine
these conditions, whether in industrialized or developing countries, there
are serious concerns that require immediate remediation.
Daily, people in our world face poverty, suffering, war, terror and the
exploitation and destruction of nature; conditions which appear to be
related to colonialism and capitalism (2013). But if viewed only through
the traditional lens of ethics and social responsibility, we fail to see deep
change in place: systemic change processes that can, over time, completely
eradicate these problems. And, when we speak of time—the lives that con-
tinue to suffer point to the need for change within an expedient time frame.
What we see far too often are ‘conversations’ regarding the limits to
which corporations (and other entities) should act as critical change agents;
conversations that do not address the fact that, in developing countries,
children are working over-long hours that prohibit their ability to get the
education necessary to help their countries grow, and that the existence of
sweat shops challenges the world’s basic values (a point I previously made
and will continue to reiterate). We are losing ground with our most valu-
able resource: our children. Yet to some, it is okay.
Strategies which address the structural aspects of change also need
to engage the actors in deep discursive examinations of why they have
allowed these conditions within their society to exist. Is it okay to accept
people’s compliance with unethical work conditions, wages and hours
just because they are not economically in a position to demand more?
In today’s rapidly developing technological societies we cannot afford to
have uneducated children who also have had no exposure to today's tech-
nologies. Just as important, there is no justification for exposing people
to daily work environments that in far too many cases cause the medical
conditions that dramatically shorten their life spans. This is compounded
by the fact that far too many people come to work in environments filled
with safety hazards and other conditions that kill the human spirit.
Our rapid growth in many sectors requires an educated and techno-
logically developed workforce (McClintock 2001). Yet, a few years ago,
the International Labor Organization estimated that close to 250 million
children between the ages of 5 and 14 work full time and grow up without
schooling and 60 percent or more of those working children live in Asia,
mainly South Asia, with a further 32 percent located in Africa (McClintock
2001).
The remaining percentage of child labor issues reside in industrial-
ized economies, largely in agriculture enterprises, services and small-scale
manufacturing that subcontracts to larger enterprises (2001). While there
are many complex issues associated with child labor that are impacted by
the lack of governmental regulations, by family infrastructures and by
economic needs, the conditions to which children are exposed and their
working hours can in fact be regulated by the employing organization
(2001). In other words, the corporations responsible for hiring the chil-
dren can control the environments in which these children work and the
length of their working day. Therefore, one can ask if the actions of these
corporations that do not control the environments in which children work
are just, fair and virtuous. Are they acting within the moral parameters of
our global society? Or, are they counting on the excuse that the econom-
ics of the situation will justify the work conditions they choose to impose
upon the people?
Equally critical, racism, sexism, and other ‘isms’ continue to run ram-
pant through corporations, marginalizing people to a point where they are
retaliating in ways that impact on the productivity and profitability of the
organizations for whom they work. As a woman of color, I have worked
in environments in both corporate America and higher education where I
faced racism and sexism. Until you have personally walked in those shoes,
you cannot imagine how it feels to have your humanity challenged on a
daily basis. I have addressed this issue in many written forums. For exam-
ple, in my 2012 book, I stated:
As I researched issues plaguing African Americans in the academy in 2010

for a book published in 2011 that addressed the same topic—and I inten-
tionally point out the dates to show that the situation has not changed—I
was amazed at the consensus of African American academics and scholars
regarding disempowerment, disenfranchisement, and other “isms” that
continue to reside and plague them in institutions of higher education. So
what does this mean? The sickening reality of this is example is that dis-
crimination, disenfranchisement, lost dreams and hope are impacting people
throughout the African American community, from our youth to individuals
who have worked to obtain the highest levels of education afforded in this
country. In other words, the nonsense will not stop until we say enough!
My book, Beyond Diversity and Intercultural Management pushes the con-

cepts and constructs associated with issues of equal employment, diversity
and intercultural management even further. My reasons for writing this
book were simple. The shooting incidents that were reported to result
from racial profiling, along with very public racist statements made about
the newly elected African American President suggested a need to revisit
the topic of diversity and intercultural management. As racial tensions
were becoming openly debated topics in the United States, similar ten-
sions were reported in other countries as outcomes of people's issues with
cultural and class differences.
Yet, when we look at difference through the lens of valuing and loving
our humanity, we can significantly move beyond engaging in the various
diversity and intercultural management strategies and empty conversations
that over the years have made questionable difference to how we globally
interact with one another (2014). In other words …
Valuing diversity, managing diversity, managing intercultural relations and

all the other references we attribute to evoking acceptance of one another in
our global society cannot override a fundamental concept … when we learn
to value our humanity without process descriptors; we can work towards
valuing one another simply from a lens of love. You see … “Love is the
strongest force the world possesses, and yet it is the humblest imaginable”
Mahatma Gandhi.8 (Robinson-Easley 2014, p. VII)
In response to these issues and the many others that plague our world,
it has been suggested that real democracy in a global society appears to
be another unresolved problem of modernity (Hardt and Negri 2005).
Far too many people—those that impose the constraints of domination
and those that experience those constraints—continue to view issues and,
equally important, outcomes of poverty, power, and domination through
lens and interpretative schemas that have not changed for years (Robinson-
Easley 2012).
We cannot afford to allow these issues to be unresolved problems of
modernity. Oppression and the resulting poverty still is an unequal geo-
graphical distribution that is along the lines of race, ethnicity, and gender.
For example, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa account for about close
to three quarters of the global population of people living on less than
a dollar a day (Hardt and Negri 2005). Unfortunately, when examining
issues of poverty, one of the most pervasive measures of quality of life in
an inner city or poverty striken village or town, is psychological security.
Poverty gives rise to insecurity because individuals who live in poverty
do not believe that the mainstream’s vision of the future is open to them
(Claerbaut 1983). Insecurity will often times invite a level of compliance
that is solely predicated upon the need to survive. It does not explicitly or
implicitly suggest broad-scale buy-in!
The United Nations, through the Global Compact, has focused
on addressing many of the burning issues by identifying the role that
businesses across the globe can, but often do not play. Yet, the practices
addressed by the Global Compact (and similar agencies that want to make
a difference in our world) are largely continuing due to the role of big
business.
It is possible to shift our paradigms regarding ethics and social respon-
sibility. When we choose to view those burning issues (and others just as
challenging) described by the United Nations Global Compact through a
different ethical lens that expands our paradigms regarding social respon-
sibility and change processes, our world can experience a level of change
that has never been imagined in this century.
THE POWER TO PRODUCE CHANGE

Many corporate leaders hold more power than their government counter-
parts. Their power and impact are immense and continue to grow. Let’s
take a historical look at the growth of their power and impact—particu-
larly their economic impact. Over fifteen years ago, Korten reported that
the aggregate sales of the ten largest corporations in the world exceeded
the aggregate GNP of the world’s hundred smallest countries. Equally
interesting, the 133 billion dollar sales revenues of General Motors (using
GM as an example of corporate power) came close to the combined GNP
of Tanzania, Ethiopia, Nepal, Bangladesh, Zaire, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya,
and Pakistan (2001).
What did these numbers mean in terms of world domination at that
time? Very simply, the world’s 200 largest industrial corporations con-
trolled 28.3 percent of the world’s economic output (2001). Additionally,
the top 300 transnationals at that time (and Korten excluded financial
institutions) owned close to 25 percent of the world’s productive assets
(2001). In other words, corporations rather than abstract economic
forces or governments are the entities that create and distribute most of
the economy’s wealth, innovation and trade; and they have the ability to
raise (or not) people’s living standards (Ghoshal et al. 1999, as cited in
Aranzadi 2013).
RETHINKING A ROADMAP FOR CHANGE

If we want to produce deep systemic change in our world, we should start
with the people who possess the economic means to make a change that
goes beyond programmatic initiatives and marginal social responsibility
strategies. Therefore:
Rather than accept the assumption of economists who regard the firm as
just an economic entity and believe that its goal is to appropriate all possible
value from its constituent parts, we take a wider view. Our thinking is based
on the conviction that the firm, as one of the most significant institutions in
modern society, should serve as a driving force of progress by creating new
value for all of its constituent parts. (Ghoshal and Bartlett 1997, as cited in
Aranzadi 2013)
Leaders need a roadmap for change in order to understand, internalize and

shift the relational boundaries of the systems they control. Understanding
the interconnectivity of these systems can help leaders identify, develop
and implement a strategy for bringing forth different outcomes. Yet, with-
out a strategy and implementation processes that will move an organi-
zation beyond compliance, organizations will continue to grapple with
ethical issues.
This need is global. For example, in the mid 1990’s Japan began to
follow a model of compliance ethics, similar to the 1980’s US response
to ethical issues, which focused on preventing scandals (Nakano 2007).
Japanese companies established business ethics systems that closely resem-
bled the US compliance models after a series of corporate scandals, which
included pay-offs to extortionists (2007). These efforts continued in
response to scandals in 2000, such as the Yukijirushi milk-poisoning inci-
dent and Mitsubishi Motor’s defects cover-up (2007).
What was interesting about the Mitsubishi Motor issue was their
proposition that it was unclear to them how such a pattern of decep-
tion could have gone on for so long without the knowledge of high-
level executives. Yet the CEO, Mr. Kawasoe, said he had no knowledge
of the cover-up until it was documented in an internal investigation
submitted to the government.9 The internal investigation found that
employees had repaired the defects and had initialed customer com-
plaints with either an ‘H’ for ‘hitoku’, which means conceal, or ‘horyu’,
which means defer or hold. In both cases, none of the complaints were
reported to the government.10
Nakano suggested that largest cause of the failure of the ethics sys-
tems that were put into place in response to these issues was that
Japanese culture, which is high context does not support a compliance-
orientation (2007). What this means is that in the culture, meaning and
associated value propositions are inherent in actions and as a result are not
required to be explicitly documented.
During a research study, Nakano noted as an example, the response

of one of his interviewees who suggested: ‘an organization that has to
express the most important things by putting them down in writing is
doomed to failure’ (2007). Taking this construct further, an organization
that is high context internalizes the values and resulting ethical behaviors
and as a result, they do not need to be relegated to compliance codes.
Yet something seriously went wrong at Mitsubishi during this time,
which suggests a flaw in that hypothesis. Somehow, the moral perspec-
tives of that organization had internalized unspoken agreements—another
high-context issue—that it was okay to cover up serious mistakes.
Leaders always have to be aware and ‘intentional’ in their understand-
ing of how they are perceived, and have to be aware of the guiding
praxes of the culture, and resulting norms and behaviors, of their organi-
zations. In other words, they have to understand how their organization
perceives how they ‘walk their talk’. There should be an active intention
to deconstruct the organization’s behaviors via an authentic engagement
in dialogue. Yet, in many cultures, particularly those where leaders are
the ultimate authority, this may be hard to do, so there is a need to be
very intentional in understanding the organization and taking the time
to authentically engage the people. Leaders cannot afford to articulate
one set of value systems and have their behaviors interpreted as repre-
senting something else. Leaders may not even be aware of how their
behaviors are being interpreted, which is why understanding the power
of dialogue within the organization, as suggested throughout this book,
is important.
There are many organizations that have internalized the commitment
to make a difference in our world and are living out their ideals. But there
are many more that have not engaged in an intentional strategy to make
a difference. Unfortunately, not every organization is taking the responsi-
bility to live ideals that are consistent with valuing humanity. If we are to
continue to grow as a productive global village that values each individual
as an intricate and important contributor to our global society, there is
much work to be done. Consequently:
Whether a corporate leader, head of an NGO, or government entity, can

leaders afford to not look at the issues facing both their organizations and
the social and economic contexts in which they live and work from a sys-
tems oriented lens? If leaders and their respective management teams are
truly the moral agents of the organization, what do their actions say about
these individuals when they fail to require their organizations and any
tiered subcontractor to respect the humanity of those they employ? Is this
any different from the diversity issues we face in our local environments?
Far too often in the literature, we tend to focus on lapses in ethical

behavior, those organizations that have exerted extreme misconduct,
and/or the processes that lead to those negative behaviors along with
the controls that organizations may use to suppress unethical behavior
(Verbos et al. 2007). We know the lapses and we understand the impact.
Therefore, to move forward, as a global society, we have to collectively
buy into a road map for change. We have lost touch with our basic val-
ues and responsibilities; an abdication that has resulted in a compliant
attitude towards the travesties we allow to occur. Consequently, a whole
systems change strategy, as suggested earlier, requires people to examine
why they have internalized such a defeatist attitude and how they can
reconnect to the personal power they possess. The conversational pat-
terns have to change.
This book however, is not focused on the negativity of those behaviors.
I do set the context to understand the criticality of the issues. However, I
believe that is it quite counterproductive to rehash issues without looking
at strategies that will help leaders across many different types of organi-
zational venues understand how to implement ethical behaviors produc-
tively which are designed to result in phenomenal change in our world.
Simply reducing unethical practices is not enough to establish ethical
organizational identities (2007). Corporations that operate within a mul-
tinational arena have rewritten many of the rules of economic engage-
ment. As a result, they have challenged, and, some can argue, have won
the challenge regarding established principles of juridical boundaries and
state sovereignty (Westaway 2012). In many developing and industrialized
countries, they exert an inordinate influence over local laws and policies
and their impact on human rights range from a direct role in violations,
such as abuses of employees or the environment, to indirect support of
governments guilty of widespread repression (Westaway 2012).
As a result, the way we train future leaders and managers in business
ethics and social responsibility should be re-evaluated. In many respects
we fail to factor in the interdisciplinary and systems-focused relationships
that can and will impact on the success of organizations’ abilities to pro-
duce sound strategies that can bring deep change to their internal systems.
WHAT CONSTITUTES AN INTERDISCIPLINARY LENS?

In my undergraduate ethics classes, I challenged students to look at a
few of the issues described in Korten’s book (When Corporations Rule
the World) and then examine the ethical theories posited in their more
traditional ethics textbook and decide upon one or two ethical frame-
works they believed to be appropriate for producing sound decisions. The
principal lesson from this exercise was that while there is merit to utiliza-
tion of one or more of the ethical theories, students found when utilizing
their knowledge of the dynamics of management, organizational behav-
ior, leadership development and organizational change constructs, that
the application of those ethical theories becomes far more complicated
because of the relationship of systems and behavioral constructs that they
might not always have considered.
In 2014, academic colleagues and I had a discussion as to how many
of the business courses we teach actually incorporated ethics as a critical
dimension within the content and constructs of our courses. We also dis-
cussed how we taught ethics. Our conclusions were not good. As we teach
and train future leaders, even when we incorporate capstone courses into
our curriculum designs, we have to question whether we are really get-
ting across the concept of integrating systems, and ask how the failure to
understand each of those systems and their dynamic relationships to one
another can lead to organizational breakdowns that leaders may not see
coming, nor understand how to ‘fix’.
Unfortunately, as suggested by Pope Francis:
Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as

counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative.
It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement
of the person.11
RE-ESTABLISHING THE DYNAMICS OF HOPE

AND DETERMINATION
There are emerging theories and practices that can help organizations
behave consistently in a manner that exceeds just acting ethically. For
example, scholars benefiting from the emerging field of positive organi-
zational scholarship (change strategies such as Appreciative Inquiry lie
within that domain) suggest that this can provide an alternative approach
to organizational phenomena, one that will enable organizational mem-
bers to incorporate intentional behaviors that move them beyond acting
ethically—a movement that takes them to the point of internalizing and
consistently enacting an ethical identity (Verbos et al. 2007).
The organizations that do this are the ones that consistently exceed
industry norms, practice norms or societal expectations regarding busi-
ness principles. They are the organizations that do not have to ask if their
actions are just, trustworthy, fair, good, kind, or honest, nor ask how do
these virtues fit into the overall moral code of the organization and envi-
ronment in which they reside. In other words, they are the organizations
that live their code of ethics (2007).
Helping more organizations learn how to understand the inconsisten-
cies of their behaviors in order to produce deep systemic change and move
towards living their code of ethics is an important step towards changing
our world and evoking hope. This learning cannot be taught just from
studying the lens of business ethics. There has to be an in depth and inten-
tional understanding of the interdisciplinary inter-plays that occur within
the organization.
Societally, when we believe our individual actions cannot make a dif-
ference, we inadvertently pitch ourselves into a circle of hopelessness.
However, the ongoing spiraling of our world into economic, educational,
health, political and social crises that concomitantly devalues humanity
must change. Our hope needs to be restored and I believe that a different
dialogue with individuals who hold the power to produce that change is
warranted. But hope should be partnered with action. You see:
The idea that hope alone, and action undertaken in that kind of naiveté,
will transform the world is an excellent route to hopelessness, pessimism,
and fatalism. The attempt to do without hope in the struggle to improve
the world, as if that struggle could be reduced to calculated acts alone or a
purely scientific approach is a frivolous illusion. (Freire 1997)
As I have done throughout of my years of writing, I will not leave the

reader with nebulous ideas that fail to frame action steps for implementa-
tion. We will discuss a change model that incorporates an interdisciplinary
approach and has the ability to bring forth a different dialogue that can
produce global actions that have the ability, if properly implemented, to
yield unprecedented change.
My intent in the design of a change model is not to put down the mod-
els that are already in place. My lens is different, and as I respect other lens
through which change is viewed, I trust that you will respect mine—as
an actor in the environment I address, as an organization development
professional, as an individual who has and in many instances continues to
experience marginalized behaviors, as a former seminarian who wants to
look deeply into the hearts and souls of people, and as a scholar who has
not given up on our ability to change our world.
During my walk through seminary, I have learned the interplay
between reflection and reflexive action, which binds the spirit and deter-
mination to change. I have also learned as I studied change in Europe and
as I later attended seminary, that if we write from a totally self-removed
perspective, it becomes difficult to understand the criticality of the
issues. Self-knowledge is critical to one’s ability to produce deep change
(Robinson-Easley 2014). Self-knowledge helps us to better understand
that:
When the remembered promises press for the liberation of people and for
the humanizing of their relationships, the reverse of this thesis is true: every-
thing depends upon interpreting these transformations critically. The way of
political hermeneutics cannot go one-sidedly from reflection to action. That
would be pure idealism. The resulting action would become blind. Instead,
this hermeneutic must bind reflection and action together thus requiring
reflection in the action as well as action in the reflection. The hermeneuti-
cal method to which this leads is called in the “ecumenical discussion” the
action-reflection method. (Moltmann 2006, p. 44)
Understanding the relationship between action and reflection as refer-

enced by Dr. Moltmann is critical to intellectual growth and to ensuring
that the appropriate change strategies are put in place (2014).
THE FOCUS OF THIS BOOK—MOVEMENT BEYOND

A LOCALIZED LENS
Although there are many problems in my home country, the USA, my

focus is the global landscape, and the reason is simple. An important
part of the paradigmatic shift that we need to make in our world as we
deconstruct many strategies we globally use, is a need to understand that
when the walls came down that divided our global landscape, we were
challenged to redefine what a global village now means in today’s twenty-

first century context.
What impacts people across the ocean in another country will ultimately,
if not immediately, impact me in the United States. Our connectivity is
very advanced and our issues are interrelated. Our economic well-being
depends on one another as do our scientific advances, and protection of
our global environment—to name just a few of the relationships. In 1854
that same sentiment was expounded: ‘Man did not weave the web of life;
he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to him-
self’ (Chief Seattle).12 Consequently, as I move through the dialogue in
this book, I ask you the reader to move with me with a mindset that
embraces an understanding and appreciation of what that connectivity can
and will continue to mean to our world beyond a local focus.
You see, we cannot continue to close our eyes to the challenges that
other environments face. We should focus on a global change strategy that
is designed to help people across the world; one that challenges our current
ethical attitudes and resulting behaviors. Just because a situation does not
directly impact you does not mean it is not an issue to be addressed...a posi-
tion recently communicated to world leaders by the Pontiff, Pope Francis.
On Wednesday Pope Francis renewed his appeal on behalf of the tens of

thousands struggling to enter other countries as they flee war and violence,
asking global leaders to ‘open their hearts’ and doors to migrants and
refugees.
‘How many of our brothers are currently living a real and dramatic situ-
ation of exile, far away from their homeland, with their eyes still full of the
rubble of their homes, and in their heart the fear, and often, unfortunately,
the pain of having lost loved ones,’ the Pope said March 16.
Francis lamented that migrants and refugees fleeing violence in their
homeland frequently find ‘closed doors’ when attempting to enter another
country. (Vatican City, Mar 16, 2016/06:19 am. CNA/EWTN News)13
In 2012, I suggested that because the issues we must address are global,
there is a need for global partnering as we work together (Robinson-Easley
2012). The paradigm shift has to incorporate movement from dialogue to
pro-socially appropriate courses of action and focused results; similar to
the movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s where individuals from all walks
of life, race, and ethnicities worked side by side for change (2012). Yet, dis-
similar to the 1960’s and 1970’s movement in the USA, the participating
actors need to include multiple stakeholders dedicated to global change.

And, while there are many efforts, including the United Nations’ engage-
ment of dialogue across multiple countries, aimed to engage critical stake-
holders, the dialogues need to be deeper conversations—points which will
be addressed in later chapters.
NOTES
1. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/human_rights/equality_
means_business.html.
3. http://www.globalr esear ch.ca/union-carbide-and-the-bhopal-
disaster/27161.
disaster/27161.
disaster/27161.
6. http://www.bhopal.net/what-happened/contamination/court-cases-
environmental-liability/.
7. h t t p : / / w w w. b h o p a l . n e t / w h a t - h a p p e n e d / c o n t a m i n a t i o n /
court-cases-environmental-liability/.
8. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/54375-love-is-the-strongest-force-the-
world-possesses-and-yet.
9. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/23/business/mitsubishi-admits-to-
broad-cover-up-of-auto-defects.html.
10. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/23/business/mitsubishi-admits-to-
broad-cover-up-of-auto-defects.html.
11. http://thoughtcatalog.com/kovie-biakolo/2013/12/47-best-quotes-
from-pope-francis-cultural-manifesto/.
12. http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/331799.Chief_Seattle.
13. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-to-world-leaders-
open-your-doors-to-migrants-13531/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aranzadi, J. (2013). The natural link between virtue ethics and political virtue:
The morality of the market. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 487–496.
Claerbaut, D. (1983). Urban ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House.
Easley, C. A., & Swain, J. W. (2003). Niccolo Machiavelli: Moving through the
future as we learn from the past. International Journal of Organization Theory
and Behavior, 6(1), 119–130.
Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of hope. New York: Continuum Publishing.
Gladwin, T. N. (1998). Comments on David C. Korten’s “Do corporations rule
the world? And does it matter?”. Organization & Environment, 11(4),
402–406.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2005). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire.
New York: Penguin Books.
McGraw-Hill.
Korten, D. C. (2001). When corporations rule the world (2nd ed.). Sterling, VA:
Kumarian Press.
Lakshman, N. (2015). Bhopal gas tragedy victims press on with appeal argument
in U.S. http://www.thehindu.com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-victims-press-
on-with-appeal-arguments-in-us/article7618645.ece.
Ludema, J., Wilmont, T., & Srivastva, S. (1997). Organizational hope, reaffirming
the constructive task of social and organizational inquiry. Human Relations,
50(8), 1015–1052.
Mclintock, B. (2001). Trade as if children mattered. International Journal of
Social Economics, 28(10–12), 899–910.
Moltmann, J. (2006). The politics of discipleship and discipleship in politics. Oregon,
OR: Wipf & Stock.
Nakano, C. (2007). The significance and limitations of corporate governance from
the perspective of business ethics: Towards the creation of an ethical organiza-
tional culture. Suppl. Special Issue: Japanese business and society in a global
age. Asian Business and Management, 6(2), 163–178.
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Robinson-Easley, C. A. (2013). Preparing for today’s global workforce: From the lens
of color. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The
dance of change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organiza-
tions. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Svensson, G., & Wood, G. (2011). A conceptual framework of corporate and busi-
ness ethics across organizations. The Learning Organization, 18(1), 21–35.
Verbos, A., Gerard, J., Forshey, P., Harding, C., & Miller, J. (2007). The positive
ethical organizations: Enacting a living code of ethics and ethical organizational
identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 17–33.
Westaway, J. (2012). Globalization, transnational corporations and human rights—
A new paradigm. International Law Research, 1(1), 63–72.
Wulf, C. (2013). Human development in a globalized world. Education towards
peace, culture diversity and sustainable development. Revista Espanola de
Pedagogia, 24, 71–86.
CHAPTER 3
Through the Lens of Business Ethics
Even in the midst of an organization possessing a code of ethics, there are

varying organizational behaviors and personal attributes that will moder-
ate how that code of ethics is understood and implemented.
Behaviors which moderate business ethics include the perceived
behaviors and ethics of the leadership team. It is also critical that a leader
gets his or her arms around the organization and begins to understand
the other moderating factors that influence how people will respond. The
organization’s culture, the psychological contracts that reside within the
organization, the country’s cultural differences (reflecting on the Japanese
high-context discussion, see Chap. 2), geopolitics, religious beliefs, diver-
sities and micro-cultures, along with people’s personal beliefs, moderate
their interpretation of and responses to their environments.
Yes, these are complex overlays to the basic concept that business ethics
is simply described as applied ethics, or, more specifically, the application
of understanding what is good and right to an assortment of institutions,
technologies, transactions, activities and pursuits that we call business
(Velasquez 2002). The issues that are impacting our global villages raise
questions that cannot be answered simplistically.
Why is understanding the inter-relatedness of these behavioral dynam-
ics important? Ethical decision making is complex. If organizational
leaders do not understand this, their lack of understanding may signifi-
cantly impact the decisions they make, the way in which the organization
responds to their proposed decisions, and the behaviors that the organiza-
tion may institute to abort and/or support a decision.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_3
For example, studies continue to show that the influence corporate

executives have on the ethics of their organization, its resulting culture
and, equally importantly, how the organization decides to engage in cor-
porate social responsibility is a critical behavioral dimension that cannot
be ignored. While emerging markets have focused less attention on busi-
ness ethics in comparison to more developed countries, Shin in his study
of South Korean companies posited that CEO ethical leadership and an
organization’s ethical climate are also pivotal in emerging markets firms,
thus suggesting that there is a continuing global demand for heightened
corporate ethics and managerial transparency (Shin 2012).
Shin’s study examined the relationships between ethical leadership, an
ethical climate and its relative strength in organizations in concert with col-
lective organizational citizenship behaviors, and reported that the ethical
orientation of the CEO is an important factor in promoting ethical behav-
iors in the organization, thus determining the organization’s ethics (2012).
While Shin’s work is one of the more recent studies that examined these
relationships, others (Carlson and Perrewe 1995; Posner and Schmidt 1992;
Trevino 1986, 1990; Dickson et al. 2001; Grojean et al. 2004 as cited in
Shin 2012), reported similar findings that indicated a positive relationship
between ethical leadership and organizational climate (2012).
When examining corporate social responsibility, evidence also suggests
that the organization’s actions are not only influenced by its internal guid-
ance systems, but by local contexts as well as national governments.
Therefore, when examining ethical behavior, its impact upon our global
context and its relationship to social and political governance issues, it is
very important to understand the context that surrounds the organization,
which is why, over the years as I have taught business ethics at undergradu-
ate and graduate levels, I have required students to conduct a detailed
analysis of the organizations as well as its environments and its varying
behaviors that fall under the broader domain of organizational behavior.
Their understanding of the nuances of these constructs was vital to
their propositions regarding the etiologies of the ethical violations in con-
cert with what would constitute appropriate change strategies. My stu-
dents were also required to include in their discussion the organization’s
strategy and how the ethical issue they identified within the organization
interacts with long-term strategic issues. Lastly, they had to discuss (with
detail and an ethical framework) what their team would have done (if any-
thing) differently to resolve this ethical issue and how they believe their
decision would have yielded different results.
THROUGH THE LENS OF BUSINESS ETHICS 43
Simply identifying the issues is an insufficient learning strategy. If we

truly are ‘training up’ students to be ethical leaders, we have to task them
to understand the multiple dimensions of change and the challenges as
well as opportunities that will be presented when they move towards a
mindset of creating deep change.
It sounds complicated—and yes, it is, because the issues are complicated
as are the impact of these issues upon our global society. Every time my stu-
dents have conducted this assignment, which is executed as a group project,
the travesties they have identified have never failed to move the class to tears.
The issues are vast; the numbers of impacted people are huge and a logical
rationale for why these issues emerged does not exist. Despite the avail-
ability of alternative strategies and basic management practices that would
either delimit or eliminate the ethical issues students found in the orga-
nizations they studied, the organizations researched did not utilize these
options. What students found were actions that in each case were detri-
mental to either the environment or people living in the respective envi-
ronments. And, when reviewing reported data and news reports, the cover
ups appeared to be huge. However, I believe if organizational leaders were
trained to conduct this exercise in their own organizations, there can and
would be different outcomes regarding their ethics and resulting behaviors.
One might ask how a leader can understand, deconstruct and change
the intricate dynamics that moderate an organization’s response to unethi-
cal behavior? Down through the years, I have learned that there really is not
a significant amount of complexity associated with understanding people.
Engage them in conversation, invoke a desire for them to be active par-
ticipants, and they will share with you what you want to learn. It is when
people believe that they are locked out of the change process that they will
lock you out of information that could be vital to forward movement.
I am quite passionate about the need to create a different conversation
and the conversations have to include the executives that run businesses.
In this book, I will also take the liberty of extending the concept of ‘busi-
ness’. I do not believe we can have a productive conversation regarding
change under the umbrella of business ethics and social responsibility if we
simply limit our discussion to traditional corporate entities. So, bear with
me while I include organizational entities and structures such as govern-
ments (at all levels), educational institutions, social service organizations
and NGOs into the overarching construct of business; for in many ways
they are about the business of providing goods and services. Their primary
differences lie in their legal and reporting structures. More critically, they
are deeply connected to the issues we will discuss, and how they respond
to these issues can have a major global impact.
For example, as I was finishing my book Beyond Diversity and
Intercultural Management during the summer of 2013, significant issues
developed in the countries of Turkey, Egypt and Brazil. People were rising
up against their respective governments over a variety of issues that fell
under the broader umbrella of infringement upon human rights.
Turkey, a country I grew to love, was embroiled in a conflict between
the government and the people. When I began this book, Turkey was still
working through these issues. Yet, as this current manuscript went into
production, while the other countries were more productive in addressing
their concerns, the issues in Turkey have morphed to levels that clearly go
beyond the government controlling citizens’ access to the Internet. The
issues are complicated and my intention is not to engage in all of them.
However, I believe it is prudent to point out an example or two to drive
my point home as to how varying structures or ‘organizational entities’
can have overwhelming global impact.
When I began this book, the president of Turkey was asked to sign a bill
that would impose drastic curbs on people’s use of the Internet by allow-
ing the country’s telecommunications authority to block websites without
first seeking a court ruling—actions that could impact the country’s global
standing.1
Was this a plausible ethical issue brewing in Turkey? World commentators
appeared to think so. On February 6, 2014, The New York Times reported:
The European Union, which Turkey seeks to join, has sharply criticized the
move, putting it in the context of what many international critics regard
as a poor record of media freedom in Turkey, which leads the world in
jailed journalists. On Twitter, Stefan Fule, the European commissioner for
enlargement, who is overseeing Turkey’s bid for membership, said the law
“raises serious concerns.”
Peter Stano, the spokesman for Mr. Fule, said, “I can say that this law
is raising serious concerns here.” He added, “The Turkish public deserves
more information, more transparency, and no more restrictions.” (Arango
and Yeginsu 2014)
Unfortunately, one cannot yet report a positive outcome on this issue

in Turkey. Two years later, the alleged stranglehold that the current
administration in Turkey is being accused of taking is being criticized by
governments across the globe. On January 6, 2016, The New York Times

reported:
Mr. Erdogan, however, had already built a disturbing record as an authori-

tarian leader willing to trample on human rights, the rule of law and political
and press freedoms. Since coming to office more than a decade ago, he has
used his powers as prime minister and then president to crack down on the
media, labor unions and other critics.2
On March 12, 2016, The Toronto Star reported:
The darkening of Turkey’s fragile democracy is a growing cause for alarm,

not only for Turks but for the world at large. In a region already over-
whelmed by bouts of anarchy, the unrelenting march by Turkey’s authori-
tarian president toward one-man rule looms as a mortal threat.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan is gradually destroying what remains of a free and

independent press in Turkey. What is alarming about this is that his country,
positioned crucially at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, sharing borders
with Iran, Iraq and Syria, was once regarded as the region’s model Muslim
democracy.3
The Toronto Star further stated:
But last Friday, using tear gas and water cannons, police stormed the head-
quarters of Zaman, Turkey’s largest circulation daily newspaper and one of
the country’s few remaining opposition media outlets. The paper had been
associated with one of Erdogan’s political rivals. The government replaced
Zaman’s management with court-appointed trustees.
Erdogan’s most recent actions against the press are part of a wider
crackdown on dissent. In January, more than 1000 academics were placed
under investigation for urging the government to end its operations against
Kurdish insurgents. In addition, dozens of journalists have been fired and
Turkey’s progressive social media outlets have been suppressed.”4
As I am finishing the book in preparation for the production stages, the

tension in Turkey continues to grow and the issues remain unresolved.
The internal as well as external tensions can have a major geopolitical
impact. The news reports that continue to come in are pointing to the
leadership of the country as the main protagonist who is shutting down
any form of dissent and curtailing the freedom of the press or the right to
articulate dissatisfaction.
On March 7, 2016, the USA edition of the international publication,
The Guardian, stated:
His takeover of Turkey’s largest-selling newspaper, Zaman, is extreme, but

it is anything but an isolated example of his contempt for press freedom.
As the Guardian’s editorial on Monday noted, his reaction to any kind
of media opposition is becoming ever more excessive and vindictive. And
the Times’s leading article was similarly unsympathetic to Erdogan, refer-
ring to “his determination to silence opposition views and his increasingly
authoritarian behaviour.5
Further on, the article reported …
The previous week, police had raided the Istanbul offices of the Koza İpek
group and shut down its live television broadcasts. It followed a similar police
raid on the company’s Ankara headquarters to enforce a court order replac-
ing senior management with a government-approved board of trustees.
Even if we accept that Erdoğan’s media opponents have their own politi-
cal and religious agendas, his actions cannot be seen as other than inimical
to press freedom and human rights.6
The tragedy with the situation in Turkey is that what emerges as an even-
tual outcome is not just restricted to Turkey. Normally, even in the midst
of the complexities associated with geopolitics, the typical impact of such
a situation might not be as globally resounding. However, this is not that
type of situation. Turkey is a critical player in many issues that are currently
being addressed by the international community; issues that also concern
human rights in the context of economic policies. Its geopolitical stratifica-
tion impacts not only Europe, but also the Middle East as well as North
America. Turkey is a gateway to the Middle East with the bulk of its country
residing in Western Asia, but Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city sits in Europe.
It is a major international exporter and an equally important importer of
goods. In other words, the actions of this country have global impact.
Could the actions of Turkey’s leadership cause a global issue? I respect-
fully suggest yes, for a variety of reasons. How this scenario will play out
is yet to be seen, but it is a clear example of the concept and constructs
associated with ‘business ethics’ extending far beyond the boundaries of
a corporation.
SHIFTING THE DIALOGUE
When leaders work to develop a roadmap that is designed to move the
organization towards ethical and socially responsible behavior, often times
the discourse is somewhat fragmented. What leaders need to recognize is
that discourses from the past can and do shape present and future behavior
in the form of established societal beliefs, theories and stories (Marshak
and Grant 2008). Therefore, to change the ethics of our global environ-
ment we need to start with changing our discourse. This is the first step
towards establishing more organizations that consistently enact an ethical
identity as described and discussed by Verbos et al. (2007).
Equally important, we want to engage more than just senior executives
individuals within these ethical conversations—a point that will be further
discussed. Therefore, when we view discourse as central to the social con-
struction of reality (Berger and Luckmann 1967 as cited in Oswick et al.
2000), we position ourselves to better understand how, as previously stated,
inequalities in power determine one’s perceived ability to control the pro-
duction, distribution and consumption of particular language texts (Oswick
et al. 2000); a perspective that can be informing and critical to behavioral
scientists. Understanding these power dynamics is important when looking
to engage more people in the ethical conversation. If participants in the
conversation do not believe they have an ability to shift the dialogue and
resulting actions, the desired change can be negatively impacted.
Yet, as a realist, I also believe that there are also people in our global
society who are not interested in changing our world. They are quite satis-
fied with the status quo. But when you look at the human rights and envi-
ronmental issues we are facing, the impact they have on our global work,
satisfaction with the status quo is not an appropriate stance in today’s
environment.
But, I also believe in the power of critical mass. Throughout my years in
the corporate business sector, I was able to implement unprecedented change
because I used the power of critical mass. Nay-sayers had no choice but to fall
in line because they were outnumbered, out- strategized and overpowered
by the sheer number of people who wanted to make a difference. I learned
to invite the voices of the people who typically were not invited to the con-
versational table. Yet, in each scenario, when engaged, our outcomes were far
superior to what they would have been without the voice and involvement of
those people. Equally importantly, they owned the outcome, which meant
they fully supported all aspects of the implementation of the desired change.
As I have traveled across many countries, I see the difference in corporate

values across the world and I see different relationships between employ-
ers, their workforces and communities; lessons which were invaluable but
had to be learned the hard way. Consequently, I am not blinded by the
issues that prevail in my own country. For example, I learned many lessons
at a conference I attended in Stroud, England in 1998; at my own expense
which was quite embarrassing.
The concept of conferences in many European countries has always
been quite different from the concept of academic conferences in the
USA. The venues tend to be more intimate, as are the sessions, and often
the conversations are carried on into the wee hours of the night. At a par-
ticular session, one of our colleagues was describing union relations in his
country in Scandinavia. I simply could not believe that this type of benefi-
cial relationship could exist, and the outcomes that both groups were able
to achieve were due to harmonious relations.
I began to argue how and why this could not be possible. You see,
my paradigm paralysis was my holding a master’s degree in labor rela-
tions where we were trained to understand how to ‘manage’ contentious
union/management relationships. In fact, the conflict in critical sectors,
such as education, health care, and other more traditional white color
professions has accelerated to such a level that the sheer number of peo-
ple impacted calls for different conversations. One only has to relive the
school shutdowns that have occurred across the USA over the past four to
five years to understand the criticality of these issues and the breakdown in
relationships between management and organized labor.
My colleague did not respond to my questions, which only caused me
to be more adamant in my propositions that there had to be more issues
than those he was bringing to the table. Yet, he still sat silent when I
spoke. Later that evening over beers at the local pub, I had to apologize.
You see, after his discussion, he showed a video that proved just how
wrong I was. I was very embarrassed. When I apologized, he simply said,
that I was being a ‘typical American’—touché. My lesson: there are people
in this world who are productively creating different relationships that are
indeed driving true change; which is why I am hopeful.
Interestingly, in contrast to the more current issues in Turkey, as I trav-
eled across Turkey in 2008 and 2010 I also saw very different employ-
ment relationships and perspectives, and a different role of businesses in
their communities; there were very different relationships between the
employers and their employees. In multi-billion dollar businesses the
CEOs knew the employees, their families and talked about being there
to provide support if their employees needed them. And, discussing
their operation management strategies, it became apparent their quality
records and production outcomes were above excellent—why? With the
caveat that this is anecdotal, I must report that in what was more than a
thousand-mile trek from one end of the country to another that took us
into multiple business sectors, I never felt the presence of disputatious
relationships between the employees and their organizations.
When I visited Amsterdam and Paris, I learned a different paradigm
regarding health care and social systems. Consequently, when I hear peo-
ple’s perspectives on health care reform, these experiences are always in
the back of my mind. As a result, I have difficulty understanding the coun-
ter arguments to health care reform in this country. As I always suggest to
my students, look at other countries and how they provide social services.
The ‘problems’ we anticipate and appear to be thoroughly determined to
prove to be truisms are not significant issues in other countries where health
care is a very different product from what we historically have had in the
USA. One only has to look at public education in Europe at the collegiate
level compared to the burgeoning student loan issues in the USA to ques-
tion the ethics, and the public policies and decisions that are made regarding
higher education in the USA. Yet, when I have had discussions regarding
why, in the supposedly richest country in the world, far too many people
cannot afford public higher education, while our international colleagues
enjoy public higher education that is free, the conversation goes dead.
Adding insult to injury, in the USA we face extreme employee burnout,
which definitely impacts the ability of leaders to promote an ethical culture
that is internalized as a part of the living ethos of the organization. By con-
trast, whenever I traveled through Europe in the summer months, I was
always intrigued by the fact that businesses shut down for weeks at a time in
order to provide much needed time off for workers to be with their families.
So, when I speak to the concept of bringing this dialogue to a critical
mass, it is my desire that those organizations, leaders and people generally
who have already shifted their paradigms regarding what can constitute
productive global change will engage in the conversation. You see, I truly
do believe that ‘a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.’
However, that step has to begin with offering a different dialogue. So,
walk with me as I lend my perspectives to the issues. Argue with me as
you read my book, but don’t stop there. Even if you choose to challenge
what I say, challenge me by taking my arguments and propositions to
higher levels. Commit to enlarging the concept of and embracing the ide-
ology of holistic and systemic change in our global world. Commit to the
concept of valuing humanity. Commit to the concept that we are going to
make this a better world for the many generations yet to come. Commit
to building organizations that would never think about perpetrating the
injustices that have become cases discussed in ethics books.
We live in a world so full of possibilities. Our wonderful history always
points to the existence of those possibilities. What we have achieved over
time is truly amazing. But we seem to be traveling backwards and this is a
path we cannot afford to continue on. Our journey needs to change to a
different path with people on it who are committed to making a difference
in our world. In other words, our view of our ethical and social responsi-
bility has to change.
And the lens through which we attempt to explain ethics, particularly
business ethics, also has to change.
NOTES
1. http://www.economist.com/.
2. The Editorial Board of the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.
com/2016/01/06/opinion/mr-erdogan-crosses-yet-another-line.html.
3. http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/03/12/under-erdogan-
turkey-drifts-to-dictatorship-burman.html.
4. http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/03/12/under-erdogan-
turkey-drifts-to-dictatorship-burman.html.
5. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/mar/07/
erdogan-the-enemy-of-press-freedom-will-humiliate-the-eu-again.
6. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/mar/07/
erdogan-the-enemy-of-press-freedom-will-humiliate-the-eu-again.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arango, T., & Yeginsu, C. (2014). Amid flows of leaks, Turkey moves to crimp
Internet. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/world/europe/amid-flow-
of-leaks-turkey-moves-to-crimp-internet.html?_r=0. Downloaded 22 Feb 2014.
Marshak, R., & Grant, D. (2008). Transforming talk: The interplay of discourse,
power and change. Organization Development Journal, 26, 33–41.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2000). Discourse, organizations and orga-
nizing: Concepts, objects and subjects. Human Relations, 53(9), 1115–1120.
Shin, Y. (2012). CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and col-
lective organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 108,
299–312.
Velasquez, M. G. (2002). Business ethics: Concepts and cases. New Jersey, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Verbos, A., Gerard, J., Forshey, P., Harding, C., & Miller, J. (2007). The positive
ethical organizations: Enacting a living code of ethics and ethical organizational
identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 17–33.
CHAPTER 4
The Current Landscape
AN OVERVIEW OF JUST A FEW OF THE ISSUES

My aim for this book is not to rehash issues, but to provide a different lens
through which to examine those issues and, more importantly, to provide
solutions. And, while I have previously touched on a few of the burning
concerns, there are more, too many to discuss in this. There are far too
many injustices allowed in our global village that need to be stopped and
immediately remedied. I will only discuss a few more, and their connec-
tivity to the broader systems, which beg the attention of governments,
corporations, NGOs and other social service organizations.
I believe if we start with the issues identified in this book, then the
paradigmatic shifts in thinking, conversations, resulting ethical behaviors
and socially responsible actions will commence a global movement that
can and will take care of the rest of the issues.
I recently had a conversation with a friend who is a CEO. His advice
on approaching this book was simple—help people better understand
the issues and avoid alienating those who can make the change. We both
agreed that leaders across the various organizational entities discussed in
this book have an important responsibility. But there is also a responsibil-
ity that should be carried by the people.
The world problems which result from unethical business behaviors
and lackluster strategies for social responsibility are very complex, which
means we cannot continue to accept change strategies that emanate from

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_4
one-dimensional perspectives. Silo mentalities towards change are dan-

gerous. First and foremost, they speak to the narrowness of perspective,
which generally results from an ego-focused mindset. In other words, the
actions are routinely seen as ‘all about me’. Equally dangerous, people
tend to like simple answers, regardless of the complexity of the problems.
Consequently, we have to learn to understand how to view our world and
its issues from a systems-oriented perspective.
Part of our inability to come to terms with institutional systems failure stems
from the fact that television reduces political discourse to sound bites and
academia organizes intellectual inquiry into narrowly specialized disciplines.
Consequently, we become accustomed to dealing with complex issues in
fragmented bits and pieces. Yet, we live in a complex world in which nearly
every aspect of our lives is connected in some way with every other aspect.
When we limit ourselves to fragmented approaches to dealing with systemic
problems, it is not surprising that our solutions prove inadequate. If our
species is to survive the predicaments we have created for ourselves, we must
develop a capacity for whole systems thought and action. (Korten 2001,
p. 21)
It has been suggested that ethical problems in business typically represent

a conflict between an organization’s economic performance, which is usu-
ally measured by revenues, costs and profits, and its social performance,
typically stated in terms of obligations to persons both within and outside
the organization (Hosmer 1987). I beg to differ with that perspective. I
believe relegating the issue we now face to a conflict between economic
performance and social responsibility is too simplistic. Throughout my
years in corporate America, I saw far too many businesses exist as ‘shadow
organizations’. What they portrayed to the public was very different from
how they internally conducted business. We only have to think about the
Enrons and WorldComs of the world to know that shadow organizations
are a real part of our world’s global corporate makeup.
The myriad issues our global world faces are very complex; yet from a
whole systems perspective, they could be better addressed. On the micro
level, when I dialogue with professional colleagues who work in state gov-
ernment agencies across the USA, the tales of woe that impact state agen-
cies effectively delivering quality and needed services to their constituents
are incomprehensible. Colleagues describe incompetent leadership riddled
with power struggles and inappropriate organizational power dynamics
THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE 55
which tend to result in either passive-aggressive or passive-defensive orga-

nizational cultures that render deep change an unattainable concept.
Programs that tend to emerge from the flavor of the month management
concept overshadow whole systems change strategies.
For a number of years, colleagues and I taught leadership development
to the staff of one of the largest state agencies in a Midwestern state in
the USA. The desire on the part of the leadership of this agency was to
stabilize leadership. This agency had faced significant transition within a
very short time frame, including a complete organizational redesign that
blended several agencies, thereby having to work through many of the
same issues that face private sector organizations when engaging in merg-
ers and acquisitions (Easley et al. 2003). To address internal stability issues,
the leadership chose the strategy of developing leaders from multiple levels
within the organization (2003).
Over the years we taught this program, the issues we heard from the
students were challenging to say the least. They routinely described forces,
both external and internal, that presented them with a challenging as well
as paradoxical set of pressures, including political changes and budget-
ary shortfalls (2003). Managers and leaders were required to operate in
unstable environments, often witnessing policies and directions changing
on a far too frequent basis (2003).
For example, workers and those receiving state services were subjected
to workforce reductions, reduced or eliminated services, or improper
management of human and capital resources (just to name a few of the
issues) that resulted from the actions or inactions of those in charge.
Disempowering external forces combined with radically shifting interna-
tional forces were found to cause significant stress. Far too many workers
desperately held onto structures, procedures, and cultural mores, which
were familiar and ‘tried and true’, and around which the system was origi-
nally designed. They needed some semblance of stability in the midst of a
threatening and chaotic atmosphere (2003).
While there was an inevitability of change, the internal change needed
and the resulting behaviors these mid-level leaders would be required to
demonstrate frightened them. Yes, a number of our students/mid-level
leaders were able to embrace the change and understand that these changes
required their implementing new models of leadership. However, there
were also individuals in important leadership positions who were very
afraid of confronting the required change within them that was necessary
for embracing new models of leadership—models required to effectively

address the changing dynamics within their organizations.
Despite our seeing these issues in the early 2000s, it appears that the US
public sector still grapples with similar scenarios. One only has to look at the
problems that developed in 2013 in the USA that precipitated a govern-
ment shut down for two weeks—a shut down that many described as juve-
nile behavior caused by party politics. Yet, it was the government employees
who suffered the injustices of a shutdown that could have been resolved via
negotiations versus opposing parties digging in their heels. This issue also
seriously impacted the individuals who were the recipients of services.
At the time of writing this book, a budget crisis in Illinois still
remains unresolved. The issue results from a Republication governor and
Democratic legislatures reaching an impasse that is impacting social ser-
vices, higher education and the people who are dependent upon these
services—as well as Illinois government workers. Illinois state institutions
of higher education are being impacted to the point that layoffs, the pos-
sible shutting down of much-needed programs and possibly the institu-
tions themselves are looming over an immediate horizon. State-supported
financial aid for students has been either cut, put on hold or, where pos-
sible, is being financed by stop-gap measures instituted by the universi-
ties, which means monies required for other requisite programs are being
diverted and those programs put on hold. And, during the same time
frame, similar issues occurred in Pennsylvania.1
Inside Higher Education reported on March 8, 2016: “As the months go by

without state politicians agreeing to compromise on a budget, time is run-
ning out. Both states are facing the longest stalemates in their history, and
colleges are suffering losses that could harm them for years down the line.
State support for higher education is a perennial concern, but there’s
something different about budget stalemates. While public colleges always
suffer from budget cuts, this time two states have been giving public higher
education next to nothing for months. While some money is assumed to
come through eventually, the timing is unpredictable and the shortages are
severe—especially for the many public colleges that don’t have much in the
way of endowments or other sources of revenue.
It’s a gamble not knowing when—or if—the funding is going to come
through. As time passes, some colleges wonder whether they will see any
state funding this year.
‘It creates enormous inefficiencies in the system when you can’t predict
anything from year to year,’ said James Applegate, executive director of the
Illinois Board of Higher Education.”2
Unfortunately, higher education is not the only state entity suffering. On

January 25, 2016, Fox 2 Now reported:
Social service agencies and small businesses caught in the middle of an

Illinois state budget impasse warn the state is reaching a critical point.
Millions of dollars are owed to Metro East agencies and firms which have
not been paid by the state since July. Many provide critical services to those
in need including newborns, juveniles in trouble, senior citizens with limited
income and the disabled.
More than a dozen spoke out during a news conference in Belleville on
Monday. The owner of the Golden Years Adult Daycare Center in Belleville
said she is owed $180,000 by the state. Florence Holten-Gwynn fears she
could lose her building if she cannot secure a new bank loan. “My banker
says we have a cash flow problem and I’m not even late making payments. I
said, ‘Have you read the news? The governor has cut us off.’”3
Not dissimilar to the inappropriate exercise of power that we have seen

corporations exercise for far too many years, there is the assumption that
these leaders have an inherited right to do what they want to do, regard-
less of the long-lasting impacts described above. This represents a serious
void in our morality and in the resulting ethical decision making.
Our homeless populations continue to grow, our education systems in
the USA continue to fail our students—particularly those that reside in
inner cities. Unions and state school systems continue to get gridlocked in
power strategies that are not focused on addressing the severe inadequa-
cies that reside in our public school systems, which ultimately render our
students incapable of competing on a level playing field with our global
neighbors.
In addition to these issues, a sample of others that are addressed in
the ethics literature include invasion of privacy, computer monitoring
(work and non-work related), drug testing, hidden camera monitor-
ing, genetic testing, rise in unionism amongst white collar employees
just to work through these issues, and equally important—ongoing
discrimination.
Citizens continue to fight for sustainable wages. Yet we live in a world
where a handful of corporations possess sales revenues that exceed most
of the government budgets of countries throughout the world—the only
exceptions being a number of highly industrialized countries. There has
been an ongoing conversation concerning the raising of the minimum
wage in the USA because people are finding it harder and harder with
an unstable economy to make a sustainable living. Yet, in my experience
of teaching compensation management since the early 1990s, the one

statistic that appeared to escape the public in the USA, but was routinely
reported in compensation text books, is that for many years 30 percent
or more of the people in this country (the metric used is the income
of a family of four) have been economically characterized as living in
the poor or poverty levels. So, you see the problem of trying to provide
some of the basics (shelter, food, clothing, money for transportation)
for a family of four from income that is at the poverty or below poverty
levels is an issue that is not just relegated to developing countries; it is
also found in a country—the USA—that for many years has held the
reputation of being one of the richest in the world. Yet, with the financial
wealth held by corporations, one has to question why these economic
workforce issues even exist.
Even more critical, I have always failed to understand why corporate
leaders do not understand that when you are paying people less than a
sustainable wage, there is a direct impact upon the productivity and prof-
itability of the firm. People are angry, and many are tired because they
are typically working multiple jobs just to stay afloat. Yet, there are met-
rics that strongly suggest that if the wage issue was addressed, the losses
incurred by these organizations would be significantly minimized. For
example, how high is the organization’s absenteeism rate? What are the
costs associated with replacing absent workers—e.g., the overtime, the
loss of productivity because the worker replacing the absent employee is
tired from the excessive hours? How high are the medical insurance rates
reaching because employees are filing more claims due to stress-induced
medical problems? How negative is the organization’s culture—the per-
sonality of the organization—and how is this negative culture impacting
the morality and ethics of the organization, not to mention the organi-
zation’s brand. Bad reputations tend to travel much faster than better
reputations.
So, what is the bottom line when organizations fail to pay their employ-
ees sustainable wages? Eventually the masses of people do wake up. And,
when that wake up occurs and they understand how much the organiza-
tion undervalues them, they will fight back. That retaliation can and will
take on many forms. Equally important, the consumer who has continued
to support that organization will also wake up and realize that their con-
tinued support of an organization that has questionable pay practices is
indeed something that must stop.
Unfortunately, many organizations that engage in sub-par pay strate-

gies do not fear the backlash of the consumer, yet, it is not until people see
themselves being oppressed and discover their oppressor and in turn their
own consciousness, that they move past a fatalistic attitude toward their
situation (Freire 2006).
Yet:
Those in power can retain and even enhance their ‘power’ when they are
surrounded by and working with people who know they are valued and will
go above and beyond to take care of their work home. In other words, there
truly is a value proposition that can be stated when a leader and his or her
respective organization values their people and takes time to understand the
nuances of their cultures and micro cultures. Equally important, this value
proposition has staying power; the organizations that engage in the effort
and time that it takes to value the humanity of their workforce can and do
outlast their competition. (Robinson-Easley 2014, p. 69)
AND, THE LIST OF ISSUES GOES ON

Health issues of innocent citizens have been a major issue for years. Prior to
the growth of green technologies, a variety of watch organizations closely
examined the implications of exposing citizens across the globe to toxic
substances. The focus was on assessing environmental health risks and con-
fronting infectious diseases. A substantial number of America’s workforce
was thought to be exposed to chemicals through their workplace that were
thought to possibly be neurotoxic. Yet, today this is not an unresolved issue.
Equally disturbing, we will still hear reports of mortality rates associated
with cancers of questionable origins. And, while the current emphasis is
upon being green and sustainable, people still are dealing with the spread
of infectious diseases due to widespread environmental changes, disrupted
ecosystems, accelerated climate change and variability, pesticides in foods
(while there are no major conclusions regarding their impact upon the
human body)—not to mention the overarching issue of global warming.
Unfortunately, the current issues (at time of writing) in Flint, Michigan
point to the seriousness of these issues. City government made the deci-
sion in 2014 to change its source of water from the Detroit treated water
and sewerage system to the Flint River. It has been said that Michigan
environmental regulators made crucial errors as Flint began using a new
drinking water source that would become contaminated with lead.4
More specifically:
The report by the state auditor general found that staffers in the Department
of Environmental Quality’s drinking water office failed to order the city to
treat its water with anti-corrosion chemicals as it switched to the Flint River
in April 2014, but also said the rules they failed to heed may not be strong
enough to protect the public.
Flint had been using water from the Detroit system but made the change
to save money, planning eventually to join a consortium that would have its
own pipeline to the lake. The corrosive river water scraped lead from aging
pipes that tainted water in some homes and schools, and has been blamed
for elevated lead levels in some children’s bloodstreams. If consumed, lead
can cause developmental delays and learning disabilities.5
Unfortunately, once again bi-partisan fighting is negatively impacting this

situation. One cannot help but ask what right do elected officials have—
with the operative word being ‘elected’—to stall helping people under
such dire circumstances? Where does the accountability lie?
More than two dozen Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, also visited Flint on Friday to hear from families affected by the water
crisis. Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan said it let lawmakers hear
about Flint’s problems firsthand and kept up pressure for Congress to act on
a stalled bill aimed at helping the city. Kildee criticized Senate Republicans
for delaying the bill and noted that lawmakers who have visited Flint in
recent weeks were all Democrats.6
OUR YOUTH
The disadvantages experienced by youth, globally, also go beyond children
working inordinate hours. In the USA as well as in other countries, we are
losing our youth to gang violence that is decimating communities across the
world. In recent years, multiple media sources (newspapers, evening news,
journal articles, radio) have reported that Chicago, Illinois has had one of
the highest rates of violence in the USA and young people in underprivi-
leged communities continue to die daily. We are losing our children sense-
lessly. Almost as bad as the actual loss of our children, is the problem that this
has a history of being addressed by strategies that have no sustaining results.
Funding is thrown at organizations that confront the violence (alleg-
edly by not allowing it to expand beyond the initial altercation) after the
fact. In other words, organizations are being paid to step in after the vio-
lence erupts in communities rather than looking at how to bring peace to
these communities and systemically address the gang violence issues.
Gang intervention strategies and associated research have roots going
back to the 1920s, beginning with the prominent sociologist Frederic
M. Thrasher whose 1927 The Gang, a study of 1313 gangs in Chicago,
is considered the first serious academic treatment of gangs (Decker and
Van Winkle 1996). Thrasher’s work gave gangs a cultural and ecological
context and his use of the concepts of culture and neighborhood ecology
helped him explain gang transmission as part of a process of collective
behavior (Robinson-Easley 2012). Gangs in Chicago were found primarily
in interstitial areas, characterized by deteriorating neighborhoods, shifting
populations, and mobility and disorganization of the slum (Decker and
Van Winkle 1996)—no different than today, years later.
The conditions Thrasher described in 1927 continue to exist over
eighty years later. The people who reside in these communities are those
who make less than a sustainable wage—if they are employed. And, many
will argue that spiral of hopelessness is largely contributing to their failure
to help themselves. Yet, what would you do if you saw no way out?
When you examine the systems-related issues that continue to plague
inner cities, you realize that these are the communities that lose funding,
and have schools where there are little to no resources. Teachers have to
augment what the school systems do not provide out of their personal
funds. And, yes, there are behavioral problems with many of the children
because of the systemic issues of very young teens having children and
little to no intervention to stop this cycle.
During the depression years, sociologists focused on explaining the gang
phenomenon in terms of social causation. Landesco (1932, pp. 238–248)
emphasized the effects of conflicting immigrant and American cultures.
Shaw and McKay (1942) stressed a more complex combination of slum
area deterioration, poverty, family dissolution, and organized crime.
Tannenbaum (1938) proposed that a gang forms not because of its attrac-
tiveness per se, but because positive sociocultural forces such as family,
school, and church, which have the potential to train a youth into more
socially acceptable behaviors, are weak or unavailable. Others also stressed
socioeconomically substandard neighborhoods and lax parental supervi-
sion (Wattenberg and Balistrieri 1950).
If we know deteriorated economic conditions foster an environment
that spirals our youth across the globe into a psychology of hopelessness,
why do we continue to allow those conditions to exist globally? How do

children move out of this quandary when the education systems charged
with the responsibility to teach them lay off educators, or worse yet,
function as glorified babysitting institutions? And, why do some parents
abdicate their responsibility for holding these entities accountable for edu-
cating their children by even failing to attend the child’s parent/teacher
conferences?
Social scientists and other change agents knew in 1938 that declining
socio-cultural forces, particularly our educational institutions, contrib-
uted to youth gravitating to gangs. Yet, today we are still dealing with the
same issues, particularly the deplorable conditions of inner-city schools
and the gang violence within the confines of those schools (Robinson-
Easley 2012). The question how and why social service agencies continue
to engage in the same and/or similar strategies for producing change for
over eighty years despite clear and convincing evidence that these strate-
gies do not work requires an answer to the public—particularly when you
contrast and compare these issues to the rise in prisons which are ran by
corporations; prisons who house the people who are primarily from these
inner-city domains. It becomes a vicious circle; and many are questioning
as to whether or not it is an intentional vicious circle.
The contemporary versions of the travesty of gang violence have not
changed. For example, in 2009, in the city of Chicago, parents, school
officials, community members and leaders, and police officials were
shocked at the brutal death of Derrien Albert, an innocent child caught
in the middle of a gang fight at Fenger High School (Robinson-Easley
2012). On September 22, 2009, the Huffington Post reported that
from 2006 to 2009, Chicago experienced a sharp rise in violent student
deaths. While the average was 10–15 students before 2006, in 2006 that
number rose to 24 fatal shootings. In the 2007–2008 academic year,
the numbers were 23 deaths and 211 shootings. By 2008–2009, the
numbers had grown to 34 deaths and 290 shootings (Robinson-Easley
2012). By 2013, gang violence and resulting deaths in Chicago were
making worldwide news.
In August 2010, a meeting called by Superintendent of the Chicago
Police Department Jody Weis was held with other local and federal law
enforcement officials and a few reputed gang members. At this meeting, it
was reported that gang members were told to either stop the violence or
they would be locked up—once again contributing to the prison system.
Yet the gang leaders questioned the logic of ultimatums versus viable
options, such as jobs for people in impoverished neighborhoods (Main

2010). Can we argue with the gang leaders’ propositions and questions?
Yet:
The number of gangs in the U.S. is on the rise across the country, as is gang-
related violence, with no sign that it will let up anytime soon, according to
a leading expert.
“We don’t see a drop in the key gang magnitude indicators,” James
Howell of the National Gang Center said. “In the past five years we’ve seen
an 8 percent increase in number of gangs, an 11 percent increase in mem-
bers and a 23 percent increase in gang-related homicides.”7
As the prison systems grow, black and brown youth, particularly the male
populations are being incarcerated at very high rates; and this growth of
the prison system continues to be ‘big business’. Where are the business
ethics and acts of being socially responsible in these cases? Or is it an issue
that the profits associated with incarceration outweigh the need to have
healthy societies?
DO WE SEE THE CONNECTING LINKS?

Drugs are being marketed that have more negative side-affects than ben-
efits, yet as a society we do not challenge the advertising and marketing
of them; in fact, when I addressed these issues with students in our ethics
classes, it was frightening to hear how many do not really pay attention
to marketing and advertising issues and just blindly buy into what these
drugs are supposed to do.
The continent of Africa has been under siege with the AIDS virus for
far too many years. However, students still study ethical cases that deal
with how drug companies held back on the distribution of the necessary
medications that had the potential to eradicate a crisis that could still wipe
out a continent of people; an issue that the public eye should still monitor
not only for drugs that deal with the AIDS virus but for those used to treat
other debilitating diseases. Equally challenging are the growing numbers
of people in inner city communities being infected with the AIDS virus—
people who live in communities where the residents clearly will not be able
to afford the drugs to treat the disease.
Some may argue that the high rate of the disease is not an issue that
corporations or other organizational contexts have to deal with. People
are responsible for their own behaviors. Others may argue that the choice
to kill in inner city communities is not the ethical or moral responsibility of

organizational leaders. People make the choice to pick up guns and people
make the choice to engage in unsafe behaviors.
These are not positions that I would disagree with. However, what I
have learned during my studies and research over the years is that when
people are facing what appears to them to be hopelessness, the logic of
pro-social behavior is not at the forefront of their minds. Far too many
live and grow up in unleveled playing fields that force them to live and
engage in their own shadow economies and their own community values
and norms.
While there clearly is personal responsibility, one should also question
where are the responsibilities for changing the socio-economics of com-
munities and moving people beyond abject poverty, failing educational
systems, and failing community systems? At what point do we stop com-
promising the conditions of people who possess little or no power, and
move towards providing them with equal opportunity?
Or, do we keep the vicious cycles going, such as the prison systems and
allow profiteering to exist at the expense of people who believe they have
no control over their lives? Where are the leaders that can make a differ-
ence? Why, over eighty years later, are we still treating communities the
same as noted by Thrasher and others? The system has to be challenged
as well as changed. One group or organization cannot do it alone. Most
important, hard questions have to be asked and answered.
Teaching and researching business ethics as well as reviewing the
research of numerous students over the years, I continue to be amazed at
how many organizations were either directly involved in or had a signifi-
cant role in sustaining poor work conditions in major cities and develop-
ing countries. There is a globalization of poverty, suffering, war, terror
and the exploitation and destruction of nature—conditions which appear
to be related to colonialism and capitalism and unfortunately are being
ignored when it comes to creating systemic change (Wulf 2013). Yet, we
continue to blame the people subjected to these conditions and hold them
primarily responsible for the behavioral outcomes.
Some of the more challenging diseases—cardiovascular disorders,
cancer, diabetes just to name a few—require drug treatments that many
people cannot afford, and not just poor people, but also the diminishing
middle class whom many say may no longer exist! Yet, when the Affordable
Health Care Act was introduced in the USA, it met widespread resistance.
Yet, once again I posit that if we seriously look at the public healthcare
sponsored by our international colleagues, particularly those in Europe,
free healthcare has been a part of their social service systems for years. So,
what are we fighting? Is it just the concept, or is the resistance unethically
emerging from those who believe they will lose monies at the expense
of the health of the people who reside in the USA and cannot currently
afford healthcare?
The cost of higher education has spiraled to a point where there is sig-
nificant discussion about lowering the loan rates for college students. Yet,
a couple of years ago, I asked an individual who is a thought leader on this
topic, why can’t the USA emulate the European education system where
public higher education for all practical purposes is offered free? He could
not answer that question.
As I have visited some of the universities in Europe that are public and
offer free education, there is no diminishment of the quality of the profes-
sors and/or infrastructures; particularly their technologies. The continued
escalation of costs associated with higher education is making it difficult
for people to get a college education in the USA—yet, possessing a work-
force that is positioned to compete globally, particularly in the areas of
technology and innovation has to be a priority for US businesses.
Let us go back to the issues associated with Illinois and Pennsylvania.
We have an increasingly unaffordable higher education system that is also
stretched by the sheer numbers of students who are entering with less than
stellar high school backgrounds because of the lackluster resources in inner
city secondary and primary schools. As a result, many incoming students
require extensive support services; yet funding is limited and/or being cut
in these areas as well. The students are largely populating community col-
leges and state universities, which rely upon state funding. Yet, in two states
noted earlier in this chapter, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which have large
public university and community college systems, the failure to pass state
budgets is impacting their academic matriculation. In addition, in com-
munities already stretched beyond limits, these gridlocks are delimiting the
funding for seriously needed community resources. What will people do?
Or, have we become so desensitized that we won’t even push the issues?
As people are elected, so they can be removed from their offices. But,
it takes an awakening of people to even think at that level and under-
stand that they possess power, regardless of their socio-economic status in
life. The fact that elected officials are posturing to the point that they are
failing to find opportunities to collaborate and pass critical budgets and

legislation is a serious ethical issue. The behaviors suggest that there is a
lack of understanding regarding elected officials’ responsibilities to peo-
ple. This situation is complex and contains many systems issues—not least
of all the declining budgets of states and inability to fund higher education
at previous rates. People do not have to be victims. But, the real question
is how to wake them up to their personal power so that they understand
and believe that they can impact change.
The failure to realize their personal power has very negative conse-
quences. For example, adding to the educational issue is the profits real-
ized by corporations who supply the student loans. Yet, in the midst of
these discussions in Washington, DC, one has to also understand that
there are concomitant discussions regarding the tax breaks that corpora-
tions are afforded.
THE WORK OF THE UNITED NATIONS—DO THE ISSUES

THEY ADDRESS REPRESENT IT ALL?
In 2004, the United Nations chaired by Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
assembled hundreds of corporate executives, government officials and civil
society leaders at UN headquarters on June 24th to take stock of the
Global Compact and chart its future course. President Luis Inácio Lula da
Silva of Brazil delivered the keynote luncheon address.8
While it was a good thing that people came together. There was also
a sadness associated with the event. The issues that the UN addressed
raised an overarching question: why do they even exist in the twenty-first
century? The ten principles adopted by the Global Compact included the
following:
Human Rights
1. Businesses should support and respect the protection of internation-

ally proclaimed human rights; and
2. make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Labour
3. Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effec-
tive recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
4. the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor;
5. the effective abolition of child labor; and
6. the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and

occupation.
Environment
7. Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environ-
mental challenges;
8. undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibil-
ity; and
9. encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally
friendly technologies.
Anti-Corruption
10. Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including
extortion and bribery.9
The UN also launched The Women’s Empowerment Principles—

Equity Means Business. The Women’s Empowerment Principles are a set
of principles for business offering guidance on how to empower women in
the workplace, marketplace and community.10
These principles evolved from collaborations between the UN’s focus
on equity issues for women and the issues that reside in the UN’s Global
Compact. Their development included an international multistakeholder
consultation process, which was launched in March 2009.11 And, as ref-
erenced in an earlier chapter, the principles are designed to emphasize
the business case for corporate action to promote gender equality and
women’s empowerment. They are informed by real-life business practices
and input gathered from across the globe.12
While an indepth discussion of the Global Compact appears in Part
Two of this book, I simply wanted to state the issues now so the reader
can appreciate the overarching context in which I propose that our world
is in crisis. If, in the twenty-first century, we are still addressing issues of
equality, child labor, discrimination, and anti-corruption measures—our
world is in crisis.
The ethical dilemmas our world faces are complex issues and, as you
can see, many are to be found in the business arena. Leaders will not be
able to create change by simply designing a code of ethics or marginalized
social responsibility programs and expect resolution. Even if significant
dollars are thrown at a problem, until committed individuals have a vision
of where the change should begin and what the resulting end should look
like, the monies spent will have little sustaining impact.
In 2006, I attended a morning session of the annual meeting of the

Academy of Management Conference and listened to the CEO of one
of the major telecommunications companies talk about the code of eth-
ics her organization had put into place and how it was expected that this
code of ethics would address any ethical dilemmas the organization would
encounter. The many debacles that had recently occurred had many orga-
nizational leaders frightened at the possibility that their organization
would be next on the radar screen. I had only one question for this CEO
and it was simply: ‘Does your organizational culture support the imple-
mentation of this code of ethics?’. She could not answer the question, and
I sensed that she did not understand the relationship of the culture of the
organization to the implementation of her organization’s ethics code.
The need to look at issues through a multidisciplinary lens is not just
relegated to the corporate sector. In a world that is still wrought with
political unrest and constant challenges to underlying principles, the pub-
lic sector is just one example of an organizational structure continually
challenged by many ethical issues. We saw it in the examples I provided
earlier—and they represent just a few chosen examples.
Daily the news will report globally on the power struggles that nega-
tively impact society, which suggests that maybe, just maybe, the leaders
who head up public organizations should examine their prevailing para-
digms that form and shape policies and the resulting political, administra-
tive and corporate systems that support these policies (Easley and Swain
2003). It is not until people are willing to look through a kaleidoscopic
lens that we see the complexity of issues which cannot be addressed by
putting band aids on profusely bleeding problems.
For example, power is a dynamic that has to be extensively explored
when we critically examine the interplay of business ethics and social
responsibility—a topic that will be more extensively discussed in this book.
But for now, suffice to say, the use of power bases is not independent.
People typically use several power bases to effect change, which is nei-
ther ethical nor unethical. The issues of ethical behaviors can come into
play when power is used to manipulate a situation or outcome from the
vantage point of compromising either the person’s values or those of the
organization, or negatively influencing the outcome.
It has been suggested that ethical problems in management are typi-
cally complex because of the extended consequences, multiple alterna-
tives, mixed outcomes, uncertain occurrences and personal implications
(Hosmer 1987). The personal implications are many, yet they begin with
the roles and responsibilities of leaders—many of whom have not suf-

ficiently evolved to assume the roles they hold. Unfortunately, the issues
we face today cannot tolerate insufficiently evolved leadership. Pressing
concerns, such as economic, social and cultural pressures in today’s global
environment demand that leaders at all levels find better ways to align
their vision, core values and daily actions to produce the necessary and
valued results at work as well as at home (Friedman 2006).
YET, WE THE PEOPLE ARE ALSO FAILING IN OUR

RESPONSIBILITIES
While many organizations are failing to remedy growing problems, there
is also a breakdown in the responsibilities that society at large should incur,
which is why earlier I said I could not take issue with the propositions that
people in general bear responsibility for change. Too many people are
passive—a passivity that I suggest is tied to their belief that they are pow-
erless to do anything about a situation. Yet, when we examine power, we
often fail to understand it in the context of personal power.
Far too often, organizations are pressed to make the business case for
acting ethically and socially responsible. Yet, for far too many years, busi-
nesses have also known that factored into the business case is the proposi-
tion that there may not be a serious ethical downside to not acting socially
responsible or ethically.
For example, David Vogel, a political science professor at Berkeley, sug-
gested that organizations that engage in social responsibility belong to a
niche market that targets a small group of consumers or investors (Vogel
2005 as cited in Hartman et al. 2014). He further suggested that cor-
porate social responsibility should be a part of the overarching business
strategy and largely relegated to firms under certain conditions—such as
those with well-known brands and reputations that are subject to scrutiny
and threats by activists (2014).
This proposition never surprised me. For years, in my lectures, I have
shared with students research that indicated that there were no significant
differences between the profitability of firms that are socially responsible
versus the firms that are not socially responsible, which then led to the
question—is this the fault of corporations or society at large?
The people in the global communities that are most impacted also have
an ethical obligation to create change. Their voices should be heard and
not just in the venue of arbitrary protests. The days for marching are over.
Communities and their constituents need to engage in examining holistic

change strategies while holding elected officials who are responsible for
those communities accountable for actions over and beyond the occa-
sional community projects they implement. Yet, communities need to be
aware of the issues; individuals need to be informed, educated and not as
willing to accept information without appropriate investigation.
A FUNDAMENTAL LESSON FROM THE “FIELD”

Shortly after receiving my doctoral degree, I was invited to work in a
community of 35,000 people, where the predominate population of citi-
zens were African American and Hispanic. I worked with the city’s police
department. Our task was to address the increase of youth dying in this
community as a result of gang violence. Unfortunately, there were many
systemic and systems-related issues that were contributing to the death toll
of youth in this small community (Robinson-Easley 2012).
Leadership was a critical issue for this community. It had been led by
the same person for more than 30 years. During his reign, major corpora-
tions from many business sectors moved out of this community, which left
two major employers: the gangs and the municipal government. While
many people felt powerless to do anything about this regime, despite the
fact that they had the ‘power’ to vote this leader into office and exercised
it, the fact that they sat quietly allowed the death toll of youths due to
gang violence to increase (2012).
I utilized organization development intervention strategies to mobilize
over 25 churches in a call to action to create and implement change. As
we worked, we also discovered that this town was eligible for significant
grant monies, in the range of seven figures. In addition, Empowerment
Zone monies had also been provided by the federal government to this
community along with a multi-million dollar grant by a private donor. Yet,
the people knew nothing about these available funds for reform until we
discovered this information in our research. What was interesting was that
the only grants people in this community knew about and had access to
from the municipal government were the $2000 or $3000 grants by the
city for ‘minor’ reform (2012).
The Empowerment Zone monies alone totaled more than $10 million.
And that was not where the resources ended. The profile of this commu-
nity met every major grantor’s profile for economic reform funding. Yet,
what was troubling was that people in this community did not believe they
had viable resources other than the city government and the few dollars
that the remaining local businesses would give them under the auspices of
community reform (2012). Here is the contradiction: while they wanted
change, they repeatedly elected someone whom many said they disliked
and were afraid of, and who they knew was continuing to drag the city
further into an abyss. Consequently, they did not challenge or question
the person they kept electing into office (2012).
As we began to structure opportunities to bring about change, using
the funds donated by these grantors, the mayor gave the order to get me
out of his city, and the people complied. Their fear blinded them to the
fact that the real the victims were their children and the viability of their
community (2012).
I saw their immense fear. The contradiction that existed clearly did not
make sense. They kept putting a man in office, for more than 30 years,
who seriously oppressed them. Yet, they were afraid to break the cycle of
oppression (2012).
A NEED TO SHIFT OUR WORLDVIEW?

Issues of poverty and domination are believed to be contributing forces
for rendering people silent on many issues when their voices need to be
heard, and they extend not only to the inner cities of the USA but also
across the world. Poverty and domination in developing countries have
been the subjects of many researchers, particularly theologians. The inter-
section of our acceptance of poverty and domination juxtaposed against
our theological beliefs are paradoxes many analyze critically.
The fundamental issues of sweat shops, child labor, discrimination in
the work place and a myriad other issues were addressed as early as 1948
when the UN adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
has been translated into more than 300 languages and dialects and con-
tains 30 articles that outline basic human rights (Hartman et al. 2014).
In 1993, the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights noted that
it is the duty of states to promote and protect all human rights and fun-
damental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural
systems.13 Yet, are states adequately protecting those rights? Has the rela-
tional lines between governments and corporations become so blurred
that we have lost sight of what is truly ours to have without interference?
In order to place these questions into a proper perspective, it is impor-
tant to re-review the ten principles listed earlier in this chapter.
In Article One of the latter document, it states: ‘All human beings are
born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brother-
hood.’ (Hartman et al. 2014) Yet, the first five principles of the Global
Compact—a compact business leaders are asked to uphold and to ensure
that it is not compromised in their organizations—states: Businesses
should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed
human rights; make sure that businesses are not complicit in human right
abuses. Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the
effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination
of all forms of forced and compulsory labor; the effective abolition of child
labor; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and
occupation.15
Troubling is the fact that many of the issues identified as ethical viola-
tions confront the fundamental principles of these rights. Yet, there are
varying ethical theories that address the concept of human rights and
social justice. I am not here to argue or debate these theories. They are
discussed enough in the traditional ethics books. Nor am I here to suggest
a new theoretical framework for justifying businesses’ behaviors. Equally
critical, I am not here to justify why people fail to stand up for their rights
that keep being compromised.
I am here, however, to suggest a different lens for looking at, evaluating
and, more importantly, changing the issues.
The facts stand on their own merits. The mere fact that the UN felt
compelled to develop a global compact to address issues regarding our
basic rights as humans to live lives of dignity speaks poorly to where we are
as a global society. The mere fact that we have corporations intentionally
engaging in behaviors that compromise our rights also speaks poorly as to
where we are as a global society.
Yet the ongoing discussions and development of strategies and stan-
dards continue, as do the duplicities and travesties on the part of those
corporations who are not about the business of change when it comes to
social responsibility. And when engaging in the discussions of program-
matic initiatives, we cannot leave out of the discussion the ISO 26000
standards on social responsibility, where roughly 275 people from 54 ISO
member countries and 20 international organizations began developing
agreed standards on the issues of social responsibility.16
Individuals from industry, government, labor, NGOs, and consumers
participated in sessions where the following core issues were identified:
environment, human rights and labor practices, organizational gover-

nance, fair operating practices, consumer issues and community involve-
ment/society development.17 Yet, what is important to note with ISO
26000 is that it is a guidance standard for social responsibility and has
no certification requirements as do other ISO standards (Marques 2012).
There are reporting suggestions and even, under the Global Reporting
Initiative, recommendations for how to report.18 While I applaud the
effort, what I see as limiting is that the aim of the ISO 26000 is sim-
ply to clarify what social responsibility is, help businesses and organiza-
tions translate principles into effective actions and develop a platform for
sharing best practices relating to social responsibility on a global basis.
Inclusively, the standards are designed to help organizations of all types,
regardless of their activity, size or location.19 The downside, however, is
that the initiative has no teeth when there is a failure to engage or do the
right thing on the part of a participant.
The standards were launched in 2010 following five years of negotiations
between many different stakeholders across the world. Representatives
from government, NGOs, industry, consumer groups and labor organiza-
tions around the world were involved in its development, which means it
represents an international consensus.20
Social responsibility is defined within the standards as the responsibil-
ity of organizations for their influence on society and the environments.
Corporations are expected to contribute to sustainable development
through transparent and ethical behavior, which increases the wealth and
welfare of society (Marques 2012). Corporate behaviors should respect
the demands of all relevant stakeholders and should also be in line with
applicable laws, international regulations and other relevant standards of
behaviors (2012).
The mere fact that social responsibility as defined by the ISO 26000
should be an embedded value that is understood and embraced at all levels
within an entity’s performance (Marques 2012), suggest that the indi-
viduals who are working with the standards are those who already have a
commitment to social responsibility that extends beyond economic equa-
tions and limitations. In other words, the participants are organizations
who are preaching to their own choirs. Consequently, what the standards
provide is another view on focus, structure and measurement strategies.
Interestingly, individuals who have a high level of concern with the
standards have suggested that corporations that operate in developing
countries may become subject to more intense scrutiny which could lead
to a new series of demands that they might not be able to meet (Marques
2012). However, if we simply review the areas that the standards address,
why would a corporation be afraid of increased scrutiny? It is also suggested
that there are numerous groups in developing nations (which comprise a
percentage of participants in the ISO standards participating groups) that
fear an eruption of unfair competition (2012). In other words, if corpora-
tions enact the standards appropriately, it is suggested that there is a pos-
sibility that the standards could drive competition among enterprises for
better social responsibility performance. Yet, if done badly, it could inad-
vertently further the global squeeze on small producers unable to meet the
aspirations of its guidance (2012).
Once again, we entertain the argument of economic positioning and
the value proposition of doing the right thing versus addressing peoples’
basic rights! There is opportunity for change—intentional change that
won’t be encased within a business case discussion for doing the right
thing—a change that will need to include multiple stakeholders including
those whose rights are compromised long with those who are doing the
compromising.
HOPE AND PERSONAL POWER

Strategies that do not address the required deep and systemic change that
is needed brings forth a hopelessness that paralyzes people. As a result,
people will tend to succumb to fatalism, and then it becomes impossible
to muster the strength needed for a fierce struggle that will re-create the
world. Yet, there are those who have articulated hopefulness not out of
mere stubbornness, but out of an existential concrete imperative (Freire
1997).
What can this existential concreteness mean in the realm of social
responsibility and ethical behavior on the part of major organizational
entities? (And I am not only including corporations, but governments,
NGOs and social service agencies.)
A point made earlier in this chapter was that 30 percent or more of
the people in the USA make less than a sustainable wage, which means
we are daily witnessing an erosion of the middle class that points to a
continued denigration of people’s ability to simply make it in this world
(Robinson-Easley 2012). When you add issues of class, race, ethnicity,
gender, and religious discriminatory practices to the fundamental eco-
nomic imbalances, the landscape looks grim. Psychic depression, personal
worthlessness, and social despair are widespread in the USA (West 2004).
I will take this concept one step further and suggest that the depression
exists on a global level, resulting in a state where …
The oppressive effect of the prevailing market moralities leads to a form

of sleepwalking from womb to tomb, with the majority of citizens content
to focus on private careers and be distracted with stimulating amusements.
(West 1993, p. 27)
So, how do we begin to wake up the global masses? How do we encourage

them to examine critically the ethical issues and lackluster socially respon-
sible actions that exist in their domains? How do we help people feel and
believe in their personal power and the power of their numbers? Equally
importantly, at what point does the pain become so profound that we
can no longer take it? But more importantly, how do we engage hopeful
behaviors?
How do we move beyond the artistic expression of discontent to a well-
developed strategy that engages multiple forums of stakeholders? How
are businesses, governments, and other agencies responsible for creating
strategies that move beyond the gridlock of mere ethical codes to imple-
menting systemic change under the broader umbrella of ethical behavior
and social responsibility from a whole systems perspective? How do we
engage a broader spectrum of organizations in these initiatives? You see,
even in the midst of valiant efforts, such as the ISO 26000 and the United
Nations Global Compact, percentages of actively engaged participants are
small when compared to the total number of organizations worldwide.
To design and implement a change that will substantively make a global
difference requires a critical mass of organizations and stakeholders—not
everyone, but clearly more engaged individuals and organizations who
want to make a worldwide difference as we move through this current
millennium.
Our corporate, government and nonprofit leaders clearly have a role
to turn things around—roles and resulting responsibilities that we will
closely examine. Yet people at large should also be active actors in this play
of change. But there has to be a catalyst.
Belief in something greater than ourselves: a creator who has made us in
his/her own image is one of the most powerful beliefs one can have. This
belief moves us beyond accepting objectification and the resulting fatalistic
resignation to living in a dualistic society. This belief can and will position
us to embrace our right to move past hopelessness and immobilization

and claim that which is, and has been, ours for a lifetime (Robinson-Easley
2012), which means there is no logical reason for the UN to have to
address the ten imperatives that are listed above. The mere fact that in the
twenty-first century these issues exist speaks to a need for a long overdue
awakening at multiple levels in our world. However, before we can seam-
lessly move into a new mindset, we have to understand why we continue
to wallow in objectification and allow domination to impact our lives.
DECONSTRUCTING OUR LENS: THE CONTINUED

INTERPLAY BETWEEN HOPE AND PERSONAL POWER
There is a need to understand the varying interplays between personal
power, domination and inappropriate use of power and how people move
past these issues in order to claim one’s personal power. Objectification
exists on many levels.
What intrigued me as I walked through seminary and examined libera-
tion theology is how power and domination are common themes across
far too many cultures and have existed for centuries. These relationships
render a need for change strategies that are multidimensional and are not
just relegated to changing the system, but, equally importantly, are aimed
at changing the ‘self’ and how we view our position and personal power
within our global society.
Inappropriate power and domination examples throughout history
include world wars, the impact of toxic wastes upon Third World coun-
tries, the expansion and growth of racism, sexism, the exposure of children
to violence, exacerbated by the proclivity of media and all other types of
inputs to perpetrate the concept of redemptive violence as a guiding praxis
for society (Wink 1992). There is a benign acceptance of violence as our
ethos, as well as domination and control by a few—initially coined by one
leading theologian as ‘redemptive violence and the domination of Powers’
(Wink 1992).
So what does this redemptive violence look like? To start, violence is a
part of our guiding praxis that invades every component of our lives and
negatively impacts the healthy growth and development of our children.
We also see poverty running rampant because of continued societal socio-
economic imbalances that are perpetrated by domination powers. Equally
devastating, these same domination powers perpetrate racism and sexism
in order to keep populations of people disempowered. Yet, the critical
issue is that society tolerates these domination powers and historically is

reluctant to challenge them (Wink 1992).
People who want change should first understand what domination is,
its intent, and how it ‘looks’ and equally critical: what are personal reac-
tions to inappropriate power and domination and how does it impact
hope? When we turn away, we fail to understand.
As a result, we accept propositions that war is okay to be used as a
“means” for bringing forth equality and a balance of power. We will
buy into select groups of people running the world with individualized
agendas that typically are not meant to better society, but are designed
to benefit a select few. And, when we “hear” intentional misinterpreta-
tions of Biblical context which are used to justify the failure to take up
a call to action in an effort to overturn these domination powers, we
will often fail to challenge what we are told, even when we know better
(Wink 1992).
Freire, Wink, King, Gandhi and others addressed how people become
scapegoats to inappropriate power and domination, often resulting in a
benign acceptance of their ‘stations in life’. How does this happen?
When people lack a critical understanding of their reality, apprehending it

in fragments which do not perceive as interacting constituent elements of
the whole, they cannot truly know that reality. To truly know it, they would
have to reverse their starting point: they would need to have a total vision
of the context in order subsequently to separate and isolate its constituent
elements and by means of this analysis achieve a clearer perception of the
whole. (Freire 2006, p. 104)
Yet:
The peasant begins to get courage to overcome his dependence when he

realizes that he is dependent. Until then, he goes along with the boss and
says ‘What can I do? I’m only a peasant.’ (Freire 2006, p. 61)
How does one get courage? First, understand your context, and equally
important question it, which then produces the ability to emerge with a
different understanding of the present and our basis for why and how we
internalize and react to events in our lives. This awareness can constitute
a new awakening which yields a richer understanding of self, and results
in a better understanding and reframing of a richer future (Barrett and
Srivastva 1991; Robinson-Easley 2013).
Equally important, we have to seize the moral initiative, and identify

creative alternatives to the institutional and personal violence we have
been exposed to which inhibits our ability to assert our own humanity or
dignity as a person. Internally, we should break the cycle of humiliation
and refuse to submit to or to accept an inferior position (Wink 1992).
An interesting example of people’s refusal to accept an inferior position
was demonstrated during a political rally in Chicago, early March 2016.
Actions of demonstrators forced the candidate to cancel the rally.
Many news reports cited people’s reactions and their intention to stop
this rally. It was reported that the 10,000-seat pavilion was close to being
filled when the rally was cancelled due to hundreds of protestors, many of
whom said they were on a mission to disrupt the rhetoric of the candidate.
In addition to protestors inside the arena, it was estimated that there were
at least 1000 protestors outside who were loud, yet peaceful.21
One protestor rhetorically asked the question, ‘How does a man
who speaks a message that’s going to take America backward become
the possible front running of an entire party that represents American
values?’22 So, what were these people doing? They were part of a move-
ment that appears to be focused on exposing the injustice of ‘the sys-
tem’, however we chose to define the system, and they stood their
ground—critical actions believed to be components of transformative
change (Wink 1992).
These actions and others that are emerging across the globe in the pro-
tests mentioned above also suggest that people are beginning to expose
the injustice of the system of domination and understand that there is a
need to take control of the power dynamic (1992).
As individuals in our global society want to participate in change,
understanding and accepting how you view the world is important to the
personal transformation needed to forge ahead through this turbulence.
Today’s economies, social and political environments clearly call for a
higher level of consciousness and ability to manage sense and meaning.
Self-awareness is an important first step (1992).
As a result, if the choice is made to forgo participating in change, it is
suggested that one should seriously question the reasons for making this
choice. Our individuation is important and calls for an awareness of our
‘shadow’ (violent) side in concert with our awareness of our ‘brokenness’;
awarenesses which are critical if we are to actively and productively partici-
pate in transformative change (1992).
This level of consciousness needs to reside at all levels—from the corpo-

rate boardrooms to the people who work in organizations, also involving
the communities that are impacted by the presence of big business.
During many of the initial sessions in our business ethics classes, I
would ask my students a series of questions that addressed why we, as a
society in the USA, have become so desensitized to the issues that con-
tinue to plague us. I pushed them further by questioning what is it that
keeps us supporting businesses that routinely are shown to marginalize
workers? Even if these are multi-billion dollar corporations, they obtain
their dollars from the average consumer who has the choice to support or
not support these businesses. Therefore, has anyone asked why we do not
hold them accountable?
Initially, students respond with a lot of grumbling because they had
trouble internalizing the fact that they had abdicated their personal power
and did not assess the issues. And, I suspect that it was hard for them to
admit to being active participations in the action of power and domina-
tion. You see, in the midst of these conversations, we also discussed how
some of these businesses had come under close scrutiny of the press due
to their treatment of employees.
In the beginning of this discourse they also struggled with the concept
of their personal power to even influence change. Then slowly, once the
dialogue continued throughout the semester, they began to focus their
lens on understanding their ability to be a change agent.
Their solutions typically were small actions, but that is a phenomenal
beginning. I shared with them an analogy I have used for years: that of one
pebble at a time in water. When one pebble is thrown into a pond of water,
that one pebble will make a small ripple. Several pebbles thrown into the
water will make a small wave and when you have small waves, they build
into larger waves—larger waves of change.
We have to look beyond the obvious to understand what is occurring
in our environment and not inappropriately internalize the outcomes. Yes,
organizations have a responsibility to consistently act ethically and socially
responsible. Because the challenges facing today’s leader are complex,
leaders need to be solidly grounded in their intrapersonal dynamics.
Yet, as a society we have to move beyond being comfortable with
accepting situations on their face value. The passivity and lack of knowl-
edge on the part of today’s people scares me far more than the behaviors
of the organizations I discuss in this book. There is a quote by Frederick
Douglas during his speech at Canandaigua, NY, August 4, 1857 that sum-

marizes this concept quite well:
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor free-

dom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing
up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want
the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a
moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physi-
cal, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and
you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be
imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with
either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are proscribed by the
endurance of those whom they oppress…. People might not get all that they
work for in this world, but they must certainly work for all they get.23
There are others who are suggesting new paradigms for understanding
how to ‘adjust’ their lens and move beyond viewing and accepting situ-
ations on face value. For example, the Baha’i International Community,
which includes over six million members, posits that contemporary world
conditions are pressing humanity toward an age of global integration that
will require new models of social organization and new levels of maturity
in human interactions. They also suggest that this will require a rethinking
of contemporary attitudes towards power (Baha’i World Centre 2001 as
cited in Karlberg 2005)—propositions that are gaining the attention of
organizations such as the UN. The UN and other outside observers rec-
ognize the potential of these paradigm shifts and resulting new systems as
plausible systems that they might emulate (2005).
The Baha’i’s alternative ways for thinking and talking about social
power and social reality and the resulting systems are not the only models
that suggest major shifts in paradigms regarding social change. Other faith
communities, social movements and non-governmental organizations
are also innovating new models of social change that equalize the playing
fields (Karlberg 2005).
For example, in the theological literatures, it is not uncommon to find
contemporized treatises on political theology that will actively engage
issues regarding power and domination. From my own ethnic domain,
I have resonated with the core issues raised by theologians who write
under the domains of liberation theology, Black theology, womanist the-
ology, political theology, feminist theology, and all other various forms of
theological commentary that addresses social injustice, privilege the indi-

viduality of ‘self’, yet promote the concepts of community and change.
The propositions of the theologians who contribute to these litera-
tures speak to the voids I feel in my soul when I confront the varying
issues and ‘isms’ I feel and experience as a woman of color situated in
spaces of inequality in both domains I have worked—corporate America
and the academy. Their perspectives clearly address the challenges fac-
ing people who are marginalized yet desiring to sustain a hopeful con-
sciousness and belief system when faced with the intensity of oppression
(Robinson-Easley 2012).
In far too many venues when working in marginalized communities,
I have witnessed little hope even when people who are theologically
grounded spend many hours in their various places of worship (2012).
Working over the years in challenged communities where issues of power
and domination emanate from various forms; corporate, government,
etc., I have heard people ask whether or not they are entitled to the grace
and mercy that they are religiously taught is inherently theirs. This line
of questioning, which emanates from the gross imbalances in their social
context, only exacerbates the intensity of a pain they feel that can erode
their already fragile belief systems with respect to their rights to a better
life (2012).
Yet, asking people to vision without appropriate strategic implemen-
tation, follow-through, accountability and, more importantly, results,
depletes the spirit. A concept that bears repeating is that when looking
to drive change, multi-levels of engagement are required (2012). Driving
change also requires an internal fortification that extends beyond the mere
articulation of one’s rights. To quote a perspective from the Christian
context:
A man’s conviction that he is God’s child automatically tends to shift the

basis of his relationship with all his fellows. He recognizes at once that to
fear a man, whatever may be that man’s power over him, is a basic denial of
the integrity of his very life. It lifts that mere man to a place of pre-eminence
that belongs to God and to God alone. (Thurman 1976, p. 51)
The fragility of people’s convictions has to be re-directed to the strength

that is inherent in an impenetrable belief system. I would respectfully sug-
gest that this proposition can be extended to many other religious/spiritual
traditions throughout our global society. The beauty of our matriculation
though this century is our ability to re-invent what we do and how we

do it, and how we perceive our place in this continually changing envi-
ronment. Fluctuations are frightening if embraced with psychological and
spiritual restrictions. Yet, when we open ourselves to the newness of this
world, our possibilities are endless.
People have power; they just need to learn how to first understand
that they have a role in this ‘play’ while concomitantly examining how to
productively use their power. I still do not understand why people shop
at stores where the workers make less than a living wage, or women are
not promoted, or benefits are not paid through the ruse of intentionally
keeping staff on part-time status. No discount can be worth supporting
demeaning behaviors towards people who desperately need jobs, particu-
larly in today’s economic society.
HOW TO ASSUME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

How we address these complex issues also requires an examination of the
‘self’. I have suggested in previous writings, that when we effectively work
to create deep change as a society, we should personally as well as glob-
ally better understand the epistemology, ontology and hermeneutics of
the “self”, our environment, our behaviors, and our historical paradigms.
When we have that knowledge, we are better able to understand why we
have accepted the status quo.
A failure to understand should be broken into manageable pieces. Doing
so will allow people to directly engage in a discussion that is also embodied
in a reflective and spiritual awareness (Korten 2001) that empowers them
to feel free to engage in discourse regarding their differences as well as
common organizational visions and goals. This suggestion would hold
true whether we address a traditional organization, community, country,
or any other type of context that binds people together.
Leaders of organizations can come to the conclusion that they can be
ethical and socially responsible and still make money. The challenges that
face governments in developing countries, particularly in their relation-
ships to various organizational entities which vie for position and power, is
convincing them that working through these challenges does not require
their abdicating their responsibilities to the people they serve.
Change is not just one entity’s or community’s responsibility. It is a col-
lective effort. Yes, corporate leaders possess the economics and structures
to drive deep change. But, the people who are active stakeholders cannot
afford to disengage from any initiated processes. Nor should they abdicate
their responsibility to be vocal regarding the need for change.
Stakeholders from all walks of life should weigh in as well as holding
entities and leaders accountable. The same holds true for governments
and those wanting governmental leadership. Governments are here to
serve the interest of the people—accountabilities to which people should
hold their respective leaders. The relationships between governments and
corporations should also be in balance as should the relationship between
these entities and the people in their communities.
There should never be a compromising of human rights. A different
viewpoint and consciousness are needed, and it is my hope, my prayer and
my belief that having a different paradigmatic perspective on the issues will
lead you to agree with me that “to reach a port we must sail sometimes
with the wind and sometimes against it. But we must not drift or lie at
anchor”.24
I am going to end this chapter with a prayer I believe to be important
for emphasizing the points previously made. And, since my intention is to
never disrespect how other people communicate their relationship with
their Creator, for those who are not Christian, I respectfully suggest that
you mentally insert the word Creator where the author of this quote has
inserted the word God:
In a field of such titanic forces, it makes no sense to cling to small hopes.

We are emboldened to ask for something bigger. The same faith that looks
clear-eyed at the immensity of the forces arrayed against God is the faith that
affirms God’s miracle-working power. Trust in miracles is, in fact, the only
rational stance in a world that is infinitely responsive to God’s incessant lures.
We are commissioned to pray for miracles because nothing less is sufficient.
We pray to God, not because we understand these mysteries, but because we
have learned from our tradition and from experience that God, indeed, is
sufficient for us, whatever the Powers may do. (Wink 1992, p. 317)
NOTES
1. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/08/illinois-
and-pennsylvania-budget-stalemates-force-colleges-cover-their-losses.
2. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/08/illinois-
and-pennsylvania-budget-stalemates-force-colleges-cover-their-losses.
3. http://fox2now.com/2016/01/25/illinois-budget-impasse-is-forcing-
social-services-to-find-new-funding/.
4. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/04/audit-faults- michigan-
regulators-in-flint-water-crisis.html.
7. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/06/gang-violence-
is-on-the-rise-even-as-overall-violence-declines.
8. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/NewsAndEvents/event_archives/
global_compact_leaders_summit.html.
9. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles.
means_business.htm.
13. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx.
16. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.
htm?refid=Ref1049.
17. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.
htm?refid=Ref1049.
18. https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/g4/Pages/default.aspx.
19. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm.
20. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm.
21. h t t p : / / a b c 7 c h i c a g o . c o m / p o l i t i c s / d o n a l d - t r u m p - c a n c e l s - u i c -
rally/1241331/.
22. h t t p : / / a b c 7 c h i c a g o . c o m / p o l i t i c s / d o n a l d - t r u m p - c a n c e l s - u i c -
rally/1241331/.
23. http://www.pseudotheos.com/view_object.php?object_id=1160.
24. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oliverwend152676.html.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, F., & Srivastva, S. (1991). History as a mode of inquiry in organizational
life: A role for human cosmogony. Human Relations, 44, 236–244.
Decker, S., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang, family friends and violence.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Easley, C. A., McMaster, M., & Tate, C. L. (2003). Charting new territory and
exploring new frontiers: Examining an interdisciplinary approach to teaching
leadership through the integration of communications, organizational behav-
ior, organization development and psychology. Proceedings of the Midwest
Academy of Management, April 2003.
Easley, C. A., & Swain, J. W. (2003). Niccolo Machiavelli: Moving through the
future as we learn from the past. International Journal of Organization Theory
and Behavior, 6(1), 119–130.
Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of hope. New York: Continuum Publishing.
Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York:
Continuum Publishing.
Friedman, S. (2006). Learning to lead in all domains of life. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 49(9), 1270–1297.
McGraw-Hill.
Hosmer, L. (1987). The ethics of management. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Karlberg, M. (2005). The power of discourse and the discourse of power: Pursuing
peace through discourse intervention. International Journal of Peace Studies,
10(1), 1–25.
Kumarian Press.
Landesco, J. (1932). Crime and the failure of institutions in Chicago’s immigrant
areas. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 23, 238–248.
Main, F. (2010). Gang leaders rap Chicago police anti-violence plan.
Retrieved September 3, 2010 from http://www.southtownstar.com/
news/2669022,090310gangs.article.
Marques, J. (2012). A SR standard, good, or too good to be true? The Journal for
Quality and Participation, 34(4), 29.
Shaw, C. R., & Mckay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A
study of rates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local com-
munities in American cities. Chicago, MA: University of Chicago Press.
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Boston, MA: Ginn.
Thurman, H. (1976). Jesus and the disinherited. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Wattenberg, W. W., & Balistrieri, J. J. (1950). Gang membership and juvenile
misconduct. American Sociological Review, 15, 181–186.
West, C. (1993). Race matters. New York: Vintage Press.

West, C. (2004). Democracy matters. New York: Penguin Group.
Wink, W. (1992). Engaging the powers: Discernment and resistance in a world of
domination. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Wulf, C. (2013). Human development in a globalized world. Education towards
peace, culture diversity and sustainable development. Revista Espanola de
Pedagogia, 24, 71–86.
CHAPTER 5
The Friedman Versus Korten Argument:

Are These Dichotomies Still Valid
in the Twenty-First Century?
Many years ago, when I taught my first introduction to business class at

my former university, I was appalled to see that the textbook chosen pro-
vided such limited coverage on the topic of social responsibility. The pri-
mary views on social responsibility presented in this textbook were those
of Dr. Milton Friedman—a view I felt to be very limited.
As a result, I required my students to research other perspectives, which
included Dr. David Korten’s book, When Corporations Rule the World.
There was no doubt in my mind that Korten sat on one extreme of the
continuum and Friedman sat on the other. However, I believed that in
training future leaders, we had to help them understand how to craft a
middle ground that is paradigmatically comfortable for them and also
serves as a socially responsible position.
While social responsibility and ethics are typically treated as separate
topics in the literature, the dialogues around them tend to interchangeably
reference both. It is virtually impossible for an organization to be socially
responsible if it cannot practice good ethical behaviors. Equally important
is for organizations to understand that even though they may have socially
responsible programs in place, if they engage in unethical behaviors, those
social programs will not be able to address the vast damage these organi-
zations are capable of perpetrating on a community, region, or country.
Others who have examined the concept of social responsibility have
also respectfully suggested that corporate social responsibility has many
dimensions and includes: legal, ethical and economic concepts (Schwarz

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_5
and Carroll 2003 as cited in Freeman and Hasnaoui 2011); ethics, the envi-
ronment and social and human rights (Vaaland and Heide 2005 as cited in
Freeman and Hasnaoui 2011); cultural and socioeconomics aspects (Antal
and Sobczak 2007 as cited in Freeman and Hasnaoui 2011).
THE GROWTH OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

CONVERSATION AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THAT
CONVERSATION TO ETHICS
The major conversations regarding corporate social responsibility in the
USA began in the 1950s, although components of it could be identified in
our discourse as early as the mid-nineteenth century (Boatright 2012). As
American companies continued to increase in size and power, the public
debate grew regarding their responsibility to address pressing social issues
such as unemployment, poverty, race relations, urban blight, and pollu-
tion (2012).
In Europe, this discourse largely manifested in the 1980s and has been
driven by issues such as the integration of countries into the European
Union, the deregulation of the economy and the decline of the welfare
state in European countries (2012). Many European governments have
identified corporate social responsibility as a means for lessening the role
of the state in regulating business and providing for the well-being of
people (2012).
In the USA, American corporations have recognized their social respon-
sibility, but it has often been in conflict with the demands of remaining
competitive in a global economy (2012)—a conflict which can be very
challenging. However, to understand the push and pull that US busi-
nesses have had with their role regarding social responsibility is to under-
stand the praxis of Dr. Milton Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Prize winner in
economics.1
DR. MILTON FRIEDMAN—CONTEMPORARY OR OUTDATED?

Friedman was honored for his achievements in the field of consumption
analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the
complexity of stabilization policy. Before winning this prestigious award,
he served as an adviser to President Richard Nixon.2
In Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, he wrote: “Few trends could
so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the
THE FRIEDMAN VERSUS KORTEN ARGUMENT: ARE THESE DICHOTOMIES... 89
acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than mak-

ing as much money for their stockholders as possible.” (Friedman 1962,
p. 133) Freidman further posited that in a free economy, businesses had
only one social responsibility and that was to uses its resources to engage
in activities that would increases its profits and free competition without
deception or fraud (1962). Friedman’s position was supported by Heyek
(1969 as cited in Ahenkora et al. 2013), who in 1969 suggested that
managers will lose the business focus when they engage in social respon-
sibility issues that related to fields of endeavors not germane to their core
business. Therefore businesses that pursued corporate social responsibility
would become less globally competitive (2013).
Friedman acknowledged legal and ethical constraints on business activ-
ity and made it a point to say that the organization should not harm society.
However, he denied that it should assume any wider social responsibility
for its maintenance and improvement (Syed 2011).
Korten, on the other hand, suggested:
“Still others argue that corporations are simply collections of people and
that raising their awareness of the social and environmental consequences of
their actions will correct any problems. They overlook the fact that there are
great many socially and environmentally conscious managers. The problem
is that they work within a predatory system that demands they ask not ‘What
is the right thing to do’ but rather ‘What is the most immediately profitable
thing to do?’ This creates a terrible dilemma for managers with a true social
vision of the corporation’s role in society. They must either compromise
their vision or risk being expelled by the system.” (Korten 2002, p. 202)
Others inputting into the conversation considered the corporation’s

actions regarding social responsibility to be public relations ploys designed
to legitimize the role of corporations in our contemporized American
environment (Boatright 2012). They also suggested that this conversation
could be a means to divert attention from the destructive social conse-
quences of corporate activity—ergo the ethics argument—and to forestall
more appropriate government actions (2012)—thus the need to engage in
a power and domination conversation.
It was also suggested:
“… the idea that corporations should be more socially responsible fails to

give adequate ethical guidance to the executives who must decide which
causes to pursue, how much to commit to them, and how to evaluate their
effectiveness. Much CRS activity is undertaken in response to outside pres-

sures, and so the leaders of a company need to decide which pressures to
respond to and how to address them effectively. These problems are espe-
cially acute in view of the fact that all choices involve trade-offs. A program
to increase minority employment, for example, might end up reducing wages
for employees or raising prices for consumers. Or such a program might be
adopted at the expense of achieving improvements in worker health and
safety or reductions in the amount of pollutions. Corporations committed
to exercising greater social responsibility need more specific moral rules of
principles to give them reasons for acting one way rather than another.”
(Boatright 2012, pp. 277–278).
An interesting point—the need for more moral rules of principles to guide

ethical behavior and social responsibility! There are many who have devel-
oped models that suggest a manner in which corporate social responsibil-
ity should be manifested. For example, some models and their constructs
will emphasis social, environmental and economic issues along with stake-
holder relationships (Pedersen 2010). Other models will emphasize the
relationship between cost benefits and actions—delineating the actions
into two categories: wide and narrow responsibilities. Others conceptual-
ize corporate citizenship by separating out the issues of social rights, civil
rights and political rights (2010).
For example, the World Economic Forum developed a model of key
corporate citizenship issues around the construct of people, environment,
contribution to development and corporate governance and ethics (2010).
Ahenkora et al. (2013) conducted research with members of the
Ghana Employers association and recipients of the Africa Foundation for
Development. The aim of their research was to examine information on
societal views on business, profit and corporate giving.
Their results were quite interesting. The expectations respondents
believed to be the responsibility of businesses aligned with many core
societal values such as giving back to society. Corporate responsibility and
its resulting behaviors are expected by society—and are morally required;
therefore they are justifiably demanded (2013). Corporations are expected
to be aware of environmental needs and they should have an impact upon
the wider society; and aligned with that thought, the concept of ethical
behavior is a natural expectation in combination with responsible actions
(2013). In other words, the social values embedded in the philosophy
about the purpose of business brought to light stakeholder expectations
regarding the social contract that should exist between business and
society.
This position does not conflict with Friedman’s perspective that the goal
of an enterprise is to make money for its stockholders, but the divergence
occurs as a result of the proposition that suggests that in addition to mak-
ing a profit, the African custom of sharing has an application to business,
which means businesses must share its gains with society (2013). Hence,
African culture is blended with their business propositions. Furthermore,
once society supports a business it naturally expects to benefit from the
business—a moral requirement and societal expectation (2013).
MENTAL MODELS THAT REQUIRE CHANGE?

Yet, there may be issues with these models. When we examine the many
ethical issues that have prevailed on the continent of Africa, it is obvious
that many international corporations do not share this philosophy or the
beliefs that emanate from African cosmology. Where is the philosophical
break that results in ethical violations and questionable social responsibil-
ity initiatives?
Pedersen, a researcher from the Copenhagen School of Business, sug-
gested that to understand corporate social responsibility requires under-
standing how managers view the role of business in society—in other
words, understand their mental models (2010). As a result, he surveyed
eight international organizations already active in the arena of social
responsibility that varied in size and industry.
There were 1113 responses were from managers, who were primarily
males who worked in general operations, marketing and sales, engineer-
ing and production and administration (2010). The major categories the
participants perceived to be vital to the role of social responsibility were:
respect for the environment, product issues, customer and end-user care,
employee issues, responsibility towards local communities and society
in general, legal compliance and responsibility to their shareholders and
stakeholders (2010).
Pedersen’s data suggested that the major themes were around societal
responsibilities regarding developing and marketing high-quality prod-
ucts, ensuring a good working environment and minimizing the environ-
mental footprint—findings which suggest that, rather than focus on the
broad societal responsibilities, these respondents focused on the narrow
responsibilities that closely related to the operations of the firm: products,

people, customers, environment and local communities (2010). Little was
said about broader societal issues such as human rights, HIV/AIDS, alle-
viation of hunger and the reduction of poverty (2010).
Supporting the research and propositions posited by Ahenkora, et al.
was Lindgreen and Swaen’s perspective that one of the antecedents of cor-
porate social responsibility is the societal level of values (2010 as cited in
Ahenkora et al. 2013). Additional research results also suggested that the
organization’s actions are not only influenced by its internal guidance sys-
tems, but by local contexts as well as national governments—a proposition
that renders corporate social responsibility practices as political and social
structures, which are influenced by the activities of NGOs, corporate cul-
tures, the societal expectations of leaders and the historical traditions of
the context (Roome 2005 as cited in Tengblad and Ohlsson 2010). Others
such as Dahlsrud (2008 as cited in Freeman and Hasnaoui 2011) also sup-
port the notion that corporate social responsibility is a socially constructed
concept and cannot be universally defined, and, equally importantly, may
be influenced within individual countries by semiotic interpretations as
well as political, cultural and social elements unique to the individual
country (Gjolberg (2009) as cited in Freeman and Hasnaoui 2011)—a
concept similar to the outcomes of the research conducted by Ahenkora
et al. (2013) in Ghana.
Yet, in contrast, the increase in globalization may have a significant
impact upon how businesses reference corporate social responsibility.
For example, Matten and Moon (2008 as cited in Tengblad and Ohlsson
2010) have noted that corporate social responsibility activities for global
companies largely occur within the framework of explicit activities that are
aimed to meet the expectations of different stakeholders; a proposition
that some (De Bakker et al. (2005) and den Hond et al. (2007) as cited
in Tengblad and Ohlsson 2010) suggest may be used as their tool for
advancing global capitalism.
Interestingly, the authors found that the more generalized context
more closely aligned with human rights values such as those reported in
the Global Compact (Tengblad and Ohlsson 2010)—a proposition that
begs the question then, why are these still critical imperatives and why
are we still reading about ethical travesties if corporations are viewing
their responsibilities from a global context that embraces a more human
rights orientation? Is their view of the issues different from the view of
the people at large? Is a different lens used to view concerns such as child
labor, discrimination, sweatshops and work conditions/hours? Or, is it

because the lens through which social responsibility is viewed rarely incor-
porates the input of the people who need organizations to be more cog-
nizant of the issues?
There may be disconnects between the way in which academia describes
social responsibility versus how it is in actuality enacted. There may also
be disconnects between how corporations define the needs of our global
world versus the actuality of the needs. As a result, many organizations
remain without a clear or concise position on corporate social responsi-
bility and without clear policies and guidelines (Freeman and Hasnaoui
2011). Yet, there are those researchers who do agree on the proposition
that business and society cannot be separated, and as a result are linked
together with mutual influences (Freeman and Liedtka 1991 as cited in
Freeman and Hasnaoui 2011).
THE OUTCOMES OF FAILING TO “SEE” INTO THE EYES

OF THE PEOPLE
Despite the lack of clarity by academia, corporations, NGOs and other rel-

evant stakeholders on the minimum standards for social responsibility and
the ethical behaviors within that construct, there is still a need for strat-
egies to be put into place to deal with the flagrancy of behaviors that
exist when business fails to take their responsibility to the broader society
seriously. Unfortunately, when one deconstructs the many issues that we
have either witnessed or read about, there are multiple breakdowns that
would have occurred within an organization. When reading about ethical
dilemmas and corporate faux pas, one has to ask: where were the leaders
in these scenarios? How did the organization’s culture support these types
of behaviors? Equally importantly, where were the commitments of the
people who worked within these organizations to the broader society?
There are many organizations that function as shadow organizations.
To some degree, I am sure we all have witnessed shadow organizations.
A prevailing question, however, is whether or not we understand it for
what it is. In other words, there is a lack of consistency between the
public images that the organization has taken great pains to develop ver-
sus the internal workings of the organization—workings which in many
instances will look very ‘dark’. In organizations where these dichotomies
reside, it becomes very difficult to maintain an ethical stance and socially
responsible actions.
For example, for years people will still be talking about: the Union
Carbide chemical leak in Bhopal, India (Stephens 2002 as cited in
Westaway 2012); the Nike, Disney and Levi Strauss sweatshops in coun-
tries such as Indonesia (Nazeer 2011 as cited in Westaway 2012); the
Wal-Mart factories in China and Honduras (Clade and Weston 2006 as
cited in Westaway 2012); the case of Royal Dutch/Shell in Ogoni, Nigeria
(Wiwa 2000 as cited in Westaway 2012); the operations of Unocal Oil
Corporation in Mynamar (Chambers, n.d. as cited in Westaway 2012);
the policies of British Petroleum in Columbia (Human Rights Watch
1998, as cited in Westaway 2012); the actions of Texaco in Ecuador; and
the Freeport-McMoRan situation in Indonesia (Balland 2001 as cited in
Westaway 2012). And, I suspect many of the USA (such as Flint Michigan
and the Illinois budget crisis to point out a couple of examples) and glob-
ally based issues (such as global human rights and the refugee crisis) which
are described as current events before this manauscript is published will
either still be “current events” and on people’s minds, or will be refer-
enced for years to come if not appropriately and quickly remedied.
The medical evidence alone that has come out of the Flint, Michigan
debacle strongly suggest that young children will have major long-term
physiological consequences from what some have described as negligence.
And, there are others that are suggesting relationships between the high
percentage of minorities in that city and the incident. Law suits are emerg-
ing in the midst of the multiplicity of issues.3 Yet, I cannot help but wonder
whether or not the issues surrounding Flint have similar characteristics to
those of Bhopal, and whether the litigation will also go on for decades as
it has for that incident. Who wins in these cases? The death tolls and per-
manent physiological damage suffered by people in Flint, Michigan who
have been impacted by this situation suggest something seriously amiss in
the underlying value systems and morality of the people who could have
addressed the situation before it became a problem.
And, who can forget the Texaco fiasco in the late 1990s, which occurred
shortly after the 1993 lawsuit filed on behalf of the people in Ecuador?4
The issues as reported in an opinion article in the New York Times on
November 6, 1996 were stated as follows:
Critics of affirmative action routinely argue that the effort is no longer nec-
essary because discrimination is now dead. Nothing disproves that theory
as emphatically as the emerging scandal at Texaco, where senior executives
have been caught on tape deriding minority employees in racist terms—and
plotting to destroy documents subpoenaed in a Federal discrimination case.
The tapes are excerpted in papers filed in Federal District Court in White
Plains, where Texaco is based. The excerpts, reported this week by Kurt
Eichenwald of The Times, come from a meeting held in August 1994 dur-
ing which three senior executives discussed a class-action lawsuit filed by
black employees who charged that Texaco had discriminated against them
and created a racially hostile atmosphere. The Federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission essentially validated the suit, ruling that there was
reason to believe Texaco guilty of company-wide racial bias.
Transcripts of the August tapes leave little doubt about the atmosphere at
the company. Senior executives, including Texaco’s former treasurer Robert
Ulrich, freely deride black employees as “niggers” and “black jelly beans.”5
As we continue to move through the twenty-first century, these types

of ethical issues continue, as do lackluster social responsibility actions.
Equally penetrating, there appears to be mixed in a failure to value the
humanity of all people. Just because you do not look like me, it does not
mean I can summarily dismiss the need to be just as conscious about your
safety as I would about mine. The lack of ethical behaviors and ques-
tionable moral consciousness has already proven to result in actions that
have a serious impact upon the environment and also become described as
egregious human rights violations (Spencer and Fitzgerald 2013). These
actions also point to the possibility that corporate crimes inflict far more
economic damage than street crime (Kappeler and Potter 2005 as cited in
Spencer and Fitzgerald 2013).
For example, while the Exxon Valdez oil spill was one of the worst in
American history—a tragedy that occurred when a tanker ran aground in the
waters of Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989— the British Petroleum
(BP) 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico clearly overshadowed it (2013).
BP’s spill caused eleven people to be killed in the explosion of the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Approximately 60,000 barrels of crude oil per
day were dumped into the Gulf (2013). What is more, it took over three
months to stop the spill. As a result, it was estimated that 200 million gal-
lons of oil were dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the largest
peacetime offshore oil spill ever (2013).
However, prior to this oil spill, BP spent an estimated two hundred
millions dollars on an advertising campaign to portray themselves as
strong advocates of corporate responsibility (2013). But was not the first
such incident. In 2005, BP experienced an explosion at the Texas City
oil refinery, which killed 15 workers and injured at least 180 more. In
this incident, BP admitted that there were issues with safety procedures,
which were ignored, resulting in the corporation having to pay $71.6m
for worker safety violations and another $100m in pollution fines. This did
not include the personal injury payouts the company incurred.6
In 2006, BP experienced two leaks at their Prudhoe Bay oilfield in
Alaska and as a result created the largest oil spill ever in the Prudhoe Bay.
The first leak caused more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil over the
tundra to be spilled and a second smaller leaked precipitated the company
shutting down production on the eastern side of the oil field. This incident
was alleged to be caused by the company failing to heed warning signs of
imminent internal corrosion. The result: $12m in criminal fines, $4m paid
in community service payments, and another $4m in criminal restitution
to Alaska.7
In 2009, BP leaked oily material into the tundra at the company’s
30,000-barrels-per-day Lisburne field in Alaska, which is adjacent to the
Prudhoe Bay field. It was found that a crack in a flow line that serves
Lisburne spilled around 46,000 gallons of a mixture of oil and water on
to the snowy tundra.8
Following the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf, in 2011, BP’s pipeline leaked
oily material onto the tundra at the company's Lisburne field. Company
spokespersons said a pipeline ruptured during testing and spilled a mixture
of methanol and oily water onto the tundra, which amounted to 2100 to
4200 gallons, affecting 4960 square feet of gravel pad and about 2040
square feet of wet and aquatic tundra.9
And, in 2012, an explosion occurred during maintenance on a pipe-
line at BP’s Pinon natural gas compressor station near Bayfield in western
Colorado, killing one worker and injuring two others.10
While BP agreed to a settlement for the 2010 Gulf spill, the company
requested that the appeals court permanently halt all payments to people
who cannot prove their losses were directly caused by the spill.11 BP con-
tends that it should only pay for what it agreed to when the settlement
was signed. Interestingly, the presiding judge said that the company was
now contradicting its own earlier positions when it originally drafted the
settlement terms.12
Ongoing safety violations that significantly impact society are not the
only issues of public concern. CEOs are under scrutiny for many more rea-
sons. For example, despite record corporate profits, unemployment remains
stubbornly high. Yet, excessive CEO compensation and inequities in pay
and benefits have gained wide exposure. Social movements such as Occupy
Wall Street, and public concerns raised by out-of-work military veterans
who are fresh off extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, are not painting
positive pictures of our business leaders, worldwide.13 As a result, the pres-

sure and scrutiny on performance has shortened the tenure of the average
CEO from approximately ten years to five and one half since 1990s.14
In Beyond Diversity and Intercultural Management, (Robinson-
Easley 2014, p. 122.) I presented the following propositions:
There are many differences that separate developing countries from those
that have more fully developed. Yet, one must question why many of the
businesses that come into these countries make the decision not to uplift the
workforce. Are they faceless to business leaders or do organizations rational-
ize that they do not have to get too close to the situation to ponder whether
or not the working conditions and treatment of employees are the correct
actions? Or, do members of privileged groups tend to share a dominate
worldview, which they define, thereby seeking no reason to question their
perspectives and paradigms? Is it possible that along with a self-perceived
sense of normalcy comes as sense of superiority? Equally thought provoking,
if poverty and oppression are recognized, would those who are privileged
be so comfortable because in the background looms the possibility of loss of
their privilege? (Goodman 2001, as cited in Kravitz 2002)
A more humanist driven ideology framing corporate social responsibility

and its ethical undergirth would view the organization in relationship to
man via value-based social interactions, whereby people are means but
also ends within themselves (Pirson and Lawrence 2010). These organiza-
tions would have leaders who are intrinsically and personally motivated
to self-actualize in concert with moving the organization towards a goal
that entails not only advancing economically, but concomitantly serving
humanity (Pirson and Lawrence 2010).
In the ultimate state of being, organizations would not be just maximiz-
ing their own utility, but would work to balance the interests of themselves
and the people around them in accordance with general moral principles
(Dierksmeier and Pirson 2008 as cited in Pirson and Lawrence 2010)—
principles that mirror the various stages of work conducted by the UN.
These organizations would endorse a satisfying or holistic optimiz-
ing strategy that achieves balance, thereby nullifying the imperative for
maximization of one single objective (2010). These organizations would
reject compulsory and/or legal corporate responsibility and the propen-
sity to do something unless it would make sense in terms of increasing
material wealth (Dierksmeier and Pirson, 2008 as cited in Pirson and
Lawrence 2010).
In other words:
“Business leaders accept and assume responsibility for consequences of their

actions both on the systemic level and the individual level. As such, organi-
zations engage with the outside and view responsibility to stakeholders as
elementary for conducting business. Liberty is contingent on morality; indi-
vidual and organizational freedom materialize through care and concern for
the other. Sustainability and corporate responsibility are endorsed param-
eters in the humanistic view of business; attempts to alleviate social problems
through business are an imperative.” (Pirson and Lawrence 2010, p. 559)
OUR MENTAL MODELS?

There are many perspectives that can impact how social responsibility is
viewed. To start, one can question how far are organizations obligated to
go in their commitment to producing change and how should the busi-
ness case for social responsibility be made, when compared to the primary
objectives and obligations of the firm. Yes, Friedman is to be found on
one end of the continuum and Korten on the other, and there are criti-
cal elements relevant to both extremes. Who can debate with Friedman’s
perspective that corporations have a responsibility to maximize profits for
their stockholders? Yet, does that responsibility abdicate their overarching
responsibility to the communities and stakeholders whom they serve?
In the midst of these positions, propositions, theories and praxes, there
still are remaining fundamentals that have to be critically evaluated. Let
us go back to my original propositions. Corporations control immense
wealth on a global basis. International corporations no longer have ties to
just one national context, their tentacles spread across the world and they
significantly influence governments.
We can engage in interesting debates regarding Friedman versus
Korten and all the positions that are in between the two. But these debates
will not nullify the proposition that wealth, power and domination bring
responsibility. And, the responsibility to produce deep systemic change
should extend beyond a small percentage of participants. If corporations
want to continue to reap the benefits and profits they have enjoyed for
centuries, they have a responsibility, I respectfully suggest, to changing the
world in which we live.
There is a direct value proposition associated with changing the dynam-
ics of our climate today, educating children in developing countries, and
promoting a healthy and clean work environment where people have

enough clean water and decent living quarters which incentivizes them
to be productive, rather than being pushed to work in environments that
challenge their basic health, fall shorts of meeting their basic needs, and
pushes them into depression. When employees believe they are seen as
human beings with inalienable rights and are treated in a manner that
connotes dignity and respect, the organization can do nothing but con-
sistently prosper.
For example, in the USA, we have lost ground with respect to our
workplace relationships. However, those relationships at one point in time
did exist, then someone changed the psychological contract to the point
that people no longer can count on retiring from the organization to
which they have given years of service.
If a person stays in a job for five years these days, eyebrows are raised
and people wonder why they have stayed for so long. This trend is not
only toxic to the employee, it is destroying organizational productivity
and profitability. The failure to develop lasting relationships so that people
feel committed to the organization is impacting the US’s position in the
global economy negatively. How can there be a desire to innovate if the
employee does not stay in the organization long enough to experience
the results of that innovation? Equally critical, when people fail to stay
with an organization for the length of time it will take to institutionalize
their knowledge, the organization can experience challenges with their
processes and systems associated with knowledge management.
However, there are those organizations whose leadership teams
understand the benefits of valuing people’s humanity and the relation-
ship of that valuation to output. As a case in point: for years I had stu-
dents study Southwest Airlines during the leadership of Herb Kelleher.
Kelleher was widely known for the proposition that if you treat people
with dignity and respect, pay them an equitable wage, you will beat
the competition every time. As a matter of record, Southwest Airlines
was the only airline company post-9/11 that was able to make a profit
following that tragedy. And they were one of the few companies that
was able to change their organizational strategies quickly and efficiently
enough to effectively comply with the new safety and security regula-
tions that followed 9/11.
The reasons for this employee commitment were simple. Each time I
had students extensively research this company they came back with the
following insights: employees truly felt valued and respected; their ideas
were welcomed and, equally importantly, followed and implemented;
Kelleher also made it his business to know the people in his organiza-
tion and as a result of his visibility he personalized the relationship of the
people to the organization and to him as a leader; and, for the most part,
people felt that they had fair and competitive wages and benefits. When
I would fly Southwest Airlines, I would avail myself of every opportu-
nity to listen to employees talk amongst themselves about the company.
Their conversations consistently supported the data that my students col-
lected—the themes that emerged from their conversations suggested their
feeling valued and connected.
Shortly after Kelleher retired something appeared to change with the
corporation and it became very obvious to the public that there were dis-
connects. Mishaps occurred that were previously unheard of. The public
began to witness a breakdown in communications within the organiza-
tion, which directly impacted customers. For example, in 2006 I flew
Southwest to Phoenix Arizona and half the plane’s luggage was left in
Chicago, where we departed. Passengers were told that there was a break-
down on a luggage conveyor belt, yet the receiving city had not been
notified until a line, close to a city block, emerged outside the baggage
claim window. A few months later, I flew Southwest again to Spokane and
luggage was lost coming and going. Shortly afterwards, Kelleher returned
to the helm of the corporation.
Leaders have a critical part to play in how organizations value and treat
people—a point that will be examined more critically. Yet, not everyone is
meant to be a leader. Although I never met Herb Kelleher, my impressions
from studying him and his organization are that he appeared to be a man
that was comfortable in his role as leader of a major organization and clear
as to his personal responsibilities to lead an organization that valued his
employees—competencies I believe are vital for moving an organization
towards deep systemic change.
Most organization members want to love their work. They crave the
restoration of hopeful work environments to provide balance to their lives
(White-Zappa 2001). Yet daily, people face signs of hopelessness in our
society, and particularly in our work environments, the result of radical
changes created by public and private sector acquisitions, re-engineering,
and breakdowns in the relations and psychological contracts between
employer and employee (2001).
We have allowed technology to dramatically shift our relationships. Our

focus on economic endeavors diminishes our focus on productive human-
istic environments. Or, as Korten respectfully suggests: “Economic life
divorced from spiritual meaning and identity treats life simply as a com-
modity to be sold to the highest bidder.” (Korten 2001, p. 337).
These issues, in addition to far too many societal breakdowns, speak to
the enormity of the job ahead of us. However, with deep systemic change,
we can turn these issues around.
Leaders are the linchpins for change. They have the financial resources,
the economic power, the technological resources, and they have the eyes
and ears of governments on a worldwide basis. Equally importantly, a
holistic strategy for evoking systemic worldwide change initiatives can be a
positive catalyst for waking up the masses at large to their responsibilities
to help the change strategies and hold other entities accountable.
Or, as has been interestingly suggested:
“A scientific paradigm that largely dismissed consciousness focused our life

energies on the task of mastering the secrets of the physical world and on
building technical capabilities. These capacities now open vast opportunities
to build healthy societies devoted to advancing our social, intellectual and
spiritual growth. We have misused these capacities in many terrible ways
and have yet to establish that we have achieved the maturity to use their
power wisely. That same technology, however, gives us the ability to elimi-
nate physical want and deprivation from the world; to give all human beings
the freedom to devote a larger portion of their life energies to activities that
are more fulfilling than the struggle for daily physical survival; and to bring
ourselves into balance with nature.” (Korten 2001, p. 341)
We have to be able to dream big regarding the possibilities that we can achieve
in our world. We have already demonstrated our capabilities. When we make
the conscious choice to move past mundane equations that compare human
value to profit maximization and investigate how we can reach new levels
regarding how we treat humanity, a whole new world opens up where every-
one benefits. The choice is ours and I believe in our ability to make a change
utilizing a lens of ethics and social responsibility as our guiding praxes.
Friedman’s views clearly do not belong in today’s environment. I also
agree with the proposition that: “The salvation of this human world lies
nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in
human meekness and human responsibility.”15―Václav Havel
I further agree with the equally important suggestion that:
“Without a global revolution in the sphere of human consciousness, noth-

ing will change for the better … and the catastrophe toward which this
world is headed, whether it is ecological, social demographic or a general
breakdown of civilization will be unavoidable.” (Vaclav Havel as cited in
Korten 2001).
Perhaps Milton Friedman’s theses were appropriate for his time, and per-
haps Korten is too far on the opposite side of the continuum. However,
I cannot dispute Korten’s issues on the mass control corporations have
in today’s economic environment. His revelations are very enlightening
and should be read and understood by the masses. Yet, I also believe that
there is a middle ground that can co-exist; a middle ground that will be
addressed in the following chapters.
NOTES
1. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html.
2. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html.
3. http://www.diversityinc.com/news/flint-lawsuit/, http://www.theblack-
tribune.org/2016/01/15/flint-michigans-poisoned-water-supply-due-to-
government-negligence-of-minority-community/, http://www.kxly.com/
news/families-accuse-officials-of-negligence-in-latest-lawsuit-on-flint-
water-crisis/38383998, http://fox6now.com/2016/03/07/families-accuse-
officials-of-negligence-in-latest-lawsuit-on-flint-water-crisis/.
4. http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/texaco.htm.
5. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/06/opinion/racism-at-texaco.html.
6. h t t p : / / w w w. t e l e g r a p h . c o . u k / f i n a n c e / n e w s b y s e c t o r / e n e rg y /
oilandgas/9680589/A-history-of-BPs-US-disasters.html.
11. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/15/uk-bp-settlement-analysis-
idUKBREA0E16V20140115.
12. http://uk.reuters.com/ar ticle/2014/01/15/uk-bp-settlement-

analysis-idUKBREA0E16V20140115.
13. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/
story/2012-05-14/ceo-firings/54964476/1.
14. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/
story/2012-05-14/ceo-firings/54964476/1.
15. https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/71441.V_clav_Havel.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahenkora, K., Banahene, S., & Quartey, J. (2013). Societal value antecedent of
corporate social responsibility and business strategy. Journal of Management
and Strategy, 4(4), 58.
Boatright, J. (2012). Ethics and the conduct of business. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.
Freeman, I., & Hasnaoui, A. (2011). The meaning of corporate responsibility:
The vision of four nations. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 419–443.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Kumarian Press.
Kravitz, D. A. (2002). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people
from privileged groups. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 507–511.
Pedersen, E. (2010). Modelling CSR: How managers understand the responsibili-
ties of business towards society. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 155–166.
Pirson, M., & Lawrence, P. (2010). Humanism in business—Towards a paradigm
shift? Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 553–565.
Spencer, D., & Fitzgerald, A. (2013). Three ecologies, transversality and victim-
ization: The case of the British Petroleum oil spill. Crime Law and Social
Change, 59, 209–223.
Syed, A. (2011). Ethics and absolute values: Connection with society and religion.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(23), 256–262.
Tengblad, S., & Ohlsson, C. (2010). The framing of corporate social responsibility
and the globalization of national business systems: A longitudinal case study.
Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 63–669.
Westaway, J. (2012). Globalization, transnational corporations and human rights—
A new paradigm. International Law Research, 1(1), 63–72.
White-Zappa, B. (2001). Hopeful corporate citizenship: A quantitative and quali-
tative examination of the relationship between organizational hope, appreciative
inquiry, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Benedictine University, Lisle, Illinois.
PART II
Through the Lens of Ethics and

Social Responsibility: Imagine a
World of Change
CHAPTER 6
Reclaiming Our World: The United

Nations Global Compact in the Midst
of a Vision of Change
For people to produce change in the world, they need to be able to vision
the change. When I vision a world of change, I first see the basic needs of
people across the globe being met. I vision people having shelter, clean
water to drink and bathe in and a total elimination of child labor along
with children living happy productive lives without hurting bellies because
they have not eaten for days. I vision good physical health and an elimina-
tion of those diseases caused by the environment or the lack of basic food,
water and shelter. I also vision equality; an environment where the worth
of people is not predicated upon preference for gender, race or ethnicity.
I also vision education being the linchpin to societal growth and devel-
opment. I also vision educators having the time to spend on research at all
levels of our education system and engaging in sharing that research with
students to spark inquisitive minds to look further than their immediate
reality. Still on education, I also see children around the world having
access to educational opportunities where they learn to read and write as
young children and eventually move on to collegiate studies, which are
sponsored by the government (as in many European countries already). I
vision teachers who committedly teach and invest in their personal edu-
cational growth in order to stay current with emerging technologies and
innovations. And, I see these teachers who are innovators themselves,
encouraging young people to be innovative contributors to our society.
I see the eradication of poverty being a primary objective in this world
where people can work productively and make wages that will provide

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_6
them with the basic needs of food, shelter, clean water and access to
healthcare. And I vision equality where we no longer have to engage in
conversations regarding discrimination, valuing diversity or the need to
address any other ‘isms’ that suggest an inability to view everyone through
a lens of equality as we respect humanity.
I vision corporations understanding that there is a very important
value proposition tied to paying people a living wage that will result in
an increase in their productivity and the company's profitability—a value
proposition that will not only promote organizational effectiveness but
will enhance organizational performance and banish the inequalities in
today’s economies which are the result of people barely carving out a liv-
ing wage. In other words, I see our moving beyond the dialogue regard-
ing the value proposition of paying a living wage.
As I reflect on the continent of Africa and the pockets of challenged
communities throughout the world, I vision an eradication of HIV/
AIDS. I see young women stepping into their personal power and mak-
ing intelligent decisions about their lives and their bodies and I see
young men respecting their decisions as they too make intelligent deci-
sions about their lives and bodies, regardless of the prevailing cultural
proclivities.
More importantly, I vision a global society where people value their
personal worth and understand that we are indeed globally linked. I
also vision global conflicts being resolved differently—through under-
standing the micro-cultural proclivities of all actors in order to pro-
duce a different conversation leading toward resolutions. I see a very
different understanding of how we engage in geopolitics—one that
will allow us to respect the cultural dimensions of complex conversa-
tions. And, I see the eradication of issues associated with refugees. I
see people returning to their homelands where they are free to build
productive societies. Last, but clearly not least, I see an end to all forms
of terrorism.
This list is just a starting point for me. There is so much more that is
needed in our world. Equally important, I believe that my visions of a
better world are possible. Yet, I also know that people fear what they do
not understand, and equally critical, people fear a perceived loss of power.
Many of the visions I have listed are already agenda items on the UN’s
Global Compact. As I have examined issues associated with the Global
Compact, the Ten Principles, and its strategy, I see strength in this alli-
ance, but I also see opportunities.
RECLAIMING OUR WORLD: THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL COMPACT... 109
THE GLOBAL LEADERSHIP COMPACT: A WALK THROUGH

ITS HISTORY
In a number of forums, there are an increasing number of conversa-

tions about values and ethics. Yet, many still believe that the connections
between value judgments and economic success are still unclear in the
minds of many executives (Pirson and Lawrence 2010). Hopefully, others
posit that the discourse on corporate social responsibility opens the doors
for humanistic thinking and practices (2010).
To open those doors, however, ideas have to be born. In many respects,
the UN has been one of the more important driving forces regarding
human progress and also one of the world’s more important contributors
to ideas over the last six and a half decades, having set past and present
international agendas within economic and social arenas (Weiss 2010).
The Ten Principles of the Global Compact are norms that were drawn
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fundamental
Principles on Rights at Work from the International Labour Organisation,
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the United
Nations Convention Against Corruption (Runhaar and Lafferty 2009).
Besides the private sector and the UN Secretariat, the Compact also
includes the participation of six UN specialized agencies—the ILO, the
UN Development Programme, the UN Environment Program, the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Industrial
Development Organization and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime
(Therien and Pouliot 2006).
Bringing together these norms and ideologies, the Global Compact
offers a platform for companies and NGOs to discuss issues related to
corporate social responsibility development and implementation (Runhaar
and Lafferty 2009). The platform also offers the opportunity for inter-
action and co-operation where participants can learn from each other
(2009). Initiatives such as the Global Compact have also promoted cor-
porate social responsibility in ways not previously executed (Bitanga and
Bridwell 2010). For example, it is one of the first voluntary corporate citi-
zenship networks of its kind, and may be one of the first steps in managing
global corporate responsibility (2010).
The UN has been a phenomenal contributor to global change. Ideas
generated by the UN have changed the ways that issues are perceived and
language is used to describe them (Weiss 2010). The Global Compact,
conceived by UN General Secretary Kofi Annan in 1999, has been viewed
as a response to popular discontent over the perceived negative impacts

of globalization in critical areas such as human rights, labor, our envi-
ronment and anti-corruption (Rothlin 2010). While the major focus of
the Global Compact is to be a vehicle for mainstreaming and embed-
ding shared values throughout markets and business activities across the
world, the Compact as previously noted, also serves as a vehicle for mobi-
lizing resources and multi-sector collaboration in support of set goals
(Rothlin 2010).
The ideas set forth by the UN have framed agendas for actions and
definitions of self-interest. They have altered the ways in which key groups
perceive their interests thus impacting the balance of forces pressing for
or resisting action. Equally important, the UN has worked to embed in
varied institutions the responsibilities for executing ideas, implementing
programmatic initiatives and monitoring results (Weiss 2010).
Advocates of the Compact have suggested that it has the ability to
foster global prosperity because it responds to the mutual interests of the
developing countries and the private sector, which positions it as a win-win
for ameliorating global poverty (Therien and Pouliot 2006). Where state-
centered policies have failed to promote development, exacerbated by the
belief that governments and intergovernmental bodies cannot bring about
this change alone, the Compact may be the only hope of pulling billions
of poor people in the developing countries out of abject poverty (2006).
And, while sometimes implementation will lag behind the verbalization
of the ideas, people cannot discount the fact that the UN’s emphasis on
human values, which are placed ahead of economic concerns, has made a
difference in our world (Weiss 2010).
CRITIQUES OF THE COMPACT
The UN and the Global Compact, however, do not exist without criti-
cisms. Corporations voluntarily agreed to participate in the Compact.
However, civil society organizations were quick to criticize the UN’s
lack of enforcement abilities (Kell 2005). Civil society has also communi-
cated concerns with the UN’s lack of effective monitoring of participants
(Rothlin 2010). There is the perception that the participation of many
companies is perceived to be either lacking in integrity or visibly uncom-
mitted to the initiatives, and that these organizations will use their partici-
pation in the Compact as means of public relations and corporate social
responsibility window-dressing (2010). Other critics converge on key

issues, the first being that the Global Compact may aggravate the inequali-
ties of development and widen an already broad gulf of disequilibria, and
that by giving greater power to the private sector, the Compact tramples
on the democratic principles that should underpin the management of the
international economic order (Therien and Pouliot 2006).
When you compare and contrast this concern with the overarching
issues articulated by Korten, there is no doubt as to why this criticism has
been raised by NGOs, intergovernmental agencies and some Third-World
governments (Therien and Pouliot 2006). There is a deep mistrust of the
business community and the neoliberal policies which have been prevalent
in recent years, and which Korten extensively exposed.
Many have suggested that the opening of markets can bring about no
more than a superficial change to development since we will still have to
work though fundamental problems such as where wealth is concentrated
and the lack of social justice (Therien and Pouliot 2006). A counter-
argument to the relationship building promoted by the Compact is the
possibility of public-private partnerships developing which in turn will
lead to privatization of the development process (Therien and Pouliot
2006).
Yet, when considering the possibility of the privatization of the devel-
opment process, one also has to consider who in reality has the funding
and means to bring about the change that is needed. So is it more relevant
to question the intentions of those participating in the Compact?
TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESULTS

In addition to working towards the Ten Principles previously described,
participants in the Global Compact are asked to annually submit a COP
(Communication on Progress) report. Organizations who do not submit
the COP reports are identified as ‘non-communicating’ on the Global
Compact’s website (Bitanga and Bridwell 2010).
There have been criticisms also that the intention of a number of cor-
porations that signed up for the Compact was to hide their social and
environmental agendas. Although some characterize these organizations
as international symbols of corporate greed, human rights abuse and envi-
ronmental destruction (2001), others can counter-argue that these corpo-
rations may now truly want to be a part of a global change initiative.
While the Global Compact has fostered initiatives that have brought
NGOs and businesses in closer supportive working conditions, another
major criticism is that businesses self-report, and as a result tend to
emphasize their accomplishments and not their areas where improvement
is required (Bitanga and Bridwell 2010). Additionally, since the Compact
is voluntary, there are no legal sanctions for non-compliance, failure to
report, or becoming delisted from participation (2010).
Inconsistent participation is also an issue evidenced by the UN’s 2008
actions to delist companies that failed to meet the mandatory reporting
requirement (Bitanga and Bridwell 2010). As of January, 2010, a total
of 1840 businesses were removed from the list of participants and 859
companies were delisted just between the months of October, 2009 and
January, 2010 (2010). And, in 2004 fewer than sixty percent of the par-
ticipating companies were able to report at least one action that worked
towards implementing Compact principles (Therien and Pouliot 2006).
Other criticisms of the Compact suggest that companies may be using
and abusing the UN’s reputation to improve their image and in essence
are really not doing anything new (Runhaar and Lafferty 2009). In other
words, the Compact can possibly serve as a veil for the true goal of private
enterprises—making a profit—while suggesting under a thin veneer they
are engaging in social justice (Therien and Pouliot 2006). These actions
could compromise the UN’s positive image and confuse its relationship
with international organizations dominated by businesses; possibilities
which many believe could be a major backward step for democracy and
global governance (Therien and Pouliot 2006).
There has also been criticism regarding the number of new initia-
tives that have actually emerged out of the Compact. For example, in
2004, McKinsey and Company surveyed participants and reported that
the Global Compact had not triggered many companies to start devel-
oping corporate social responsibility strategies, but had a facilitating
and accelerating role with regards to existing strategies (Runhaar and
Lafferty 2009). In other words, the Compact was preaching to the exist-
ing choir. Yet, in contrast, Cetindamar and Husoy (as cited in Runhaar
and Lafferty 2009), examined and reported in 2007 that the motives
for corporations joining the Global Compact were to be part of a sus-
tainable development effort, to be a good corporate citizen, to improve
the corporate image and to distinguish their organizations from other
companies.
Interestingly, the McKinsey study, in addition to a study conducted

two years earlier by PricewaterhouseCoopers, indicated that companies
in Europe were more involved in corporate social responsibility reporting
and in the global compact participation than US companies (2009).
ELEMENTS OF HOPE
There is hope that corporate leaders are beginning to understand the rela-
tionships between their own successes and promoting significant global
change. For example, Lacy and Hayward reported a study where they had
extensive conversations with CEOs around the world regarding issues of
global sustainability. They interviewed over 800 global CEOs in partner-
ship with the UN Global Compact and found that CEOs are beginning
to recognize the scale of challenges they face in aligning sustainability
issues with their core business (Lacy and Hayward 2011). The researchers
also found that these CEOs understood that business is going to have a
substantive responsibility for this change (2011). However, to successfully
produce this change, these organizational leaders articulated a belief that
before sustainability is fully integrated into their respective organizations
they have to engage the investor community on a different level (2011).
Perhaps this change suggests that many corporate leaders no longer buy
into the Friedman argument. The researchers also reported that the par-
ticipants suggested that the education and the skills of people would have
to be improved (2011).
Of the 800 CEOs interviewed, 130 included corporate leaders in emerg-
ing markets. Ninety–eight percent of these leaders communicated a belief
that sustainability will be important to their future success. These leaders,
along with others interviewed, communicated that their participation in sus-
tainability efforts will clearly have an impact on their brand, trust and repu-
tation—which spoke to the need to build trust with stakeholders and make
the case for business in society (2011). Critical development issues requiring
their focus included education and climate change. However, these lead-
ers also placed great emphasis on addressing poverty, access to clean water
and sanitation, and addressing issues of food security and hunger (2011).
Perhaps these foci suggest that many companies are now more conscious of
the importance of addressing the basic needs of people in the communities
in which they operate, or, as one executive told the researchers ‘you cannot
be a spike of prosperity in a sea of poverty’ (2011).
THE 2014–2016 GLOBAL COMPACT STRATEGIC

INITIATIVES
To deliver a sustainable and inclusive global economy that delivers last-
ing benefits to people communities and markets, the 2014–2016 Global
Compact strategy is focusing on mainstreaming its Ten Principles in busi-
ness strategies and operations around the world by catalyzing business
actions in support of UN goals and issues.1
During this strategic time line, the intent of the Global Compact has
been to accelerate progress from incremental actions to transformational
actions that will yield significant impact across the financial environment,
social and ethical realms.2
Overarching a very detailed strategy, the Compact has a target of grow-
ing to 13,000 business participants by 2016 and the UN Secretary-General
has set the target of 20,000 Global Compact participants by 2020.3 Goals
include increasing the empowerment of local networks through improved
communications and technology platforms and capacity building in
order to expand coverage for underrepresented areas, such as Africa. The
Compact will also work to ensure coherence of the global issues portfo-
lio by positioning the Compact as the premier platform for businesses to
advance their corporate responsibility and sustainability positions.4 The
Compact will also engage in the UN’s post-2015 development process,
and looks to relay the perspectives of enlightened businesses along with
advancing innovative implementation models and mechanism.5
With over 12,000 signatories, 8000 being from businesses in over 140
countries across multiple industries, the Global Compact is the world’s
largest corporate responsibility and sustainability initiative.6 On its face
value, the strengths of the Compact are its size and scale, universality and
legitimacy which is derived from the UN Conventions and Declarations, a
legitimate platform where businesses, civil society, and local networks can
dialogue and engage in an exchange of ideas, and a detailed strategy plan
that is designed to promote progress in changing our world.7
So, what is missing?
When you assess the enormity of the issues that the Compact is
designed to address, the level of participation is low. To work towards a
goal of 13,000 business participants when there are many countries that
individually have far more registered corporations than 13,000 suggests a
problem. It forces one to ask: How many businesses are really looking to
collaborate on global change?
The number of business participants is small compared to the millions of

small, medium and large corporations, which reside in developed European
regions and the USA (Arevalo and Fallon 2008). The concept of engaging
civil society, businesses and local networks in an initiative designed to pro-
mote significant global change is clearly a meritorious idea and ideology. The
issues are transnational and the scope of strengths versus weaknesses reaches
far beyond national borders—which suggest the need for transnational col-
lective actions (Arevalo and Fallon 2008). However, one has to ask what will
motivate more organizational entities to join in a collaborative effort?
HOW CAN CHANGE REALLY LOOK?

From my vantage point, there are two strategies that can work towards
bringing forth change. The first and most widely used is structural change
initiatives that employ an overarching strategy and resulting tactical steps.
Yet, over the years I have found when working to promote deep and sys-
temic change no amount of structural change processes can penetrate a
reality when people either fail to or are lackluster in visioning and investing
their time and energies in producing change.
Entities such as the UN and/or local networks embracing change may
be able to obtain temporary compliance, but at some point in time, when
there is a lack of commitment, the organization’s members will revert
to the same behaviors they initially committed to change—issues which
have already been articulated in the criticisms that have emerged regarding
concerns with the Global Compact. Yet, there are significant lessons that
one can learn, if critically deconstructed and analyzed, which can become
powerful tools for morphing to the next level.
The strategies brought forth by the UN are built upon sound ideolo-
gies that privilege an egalitarian global village. If there were deep psy-
chological commitments to the initiatives identified in the Compact and
the Ten Principles, there would be no reason to worry about the criti-
cisms that have emerged since the beginning of the Compact. The actors
upon whom the change is directed, the change agents, the governments
involved, the corporate entities doing business in the designated envi-
ronments, and other civil society agents, would be working, even if it
were through trial and error, to engage a critical mass of participants in
order to produce the change. The local area networks which are criti-
cal implementation agents within the structure of the Compact would be
stratified in far more regions than where they currently exist.
There are more than 8000 social service agencies in the world with a
mission to promote change. Yet, I wonder how many of these participants
are active in a landscape that on paper has the potential to help a global
society evolve that takes our world to a new level.
The dream, ideologies, principles and strategies associated with the
Global Compact are achievable. Yet, not everyone has that dream, or level
of commitment. And even those individuals who may have a commitment
towards change are going to have to move beyond the personal blockages
that could be limiting their ability to totally commit to strategies that
develop deep systemic change in our world.
There are other ways to move past the limitations of a structural change
process—strategies which will be extensively discussed in the model that
is presented in this book. However, first, we have to critically examine the
limitations of where we are with the change processes.
UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITATIONS IN ORDER TO MOVE

PAST THEM
Our world has a history of failing to produce an egalitarian environment.
Yet, there are many who applaud the advancements caused by globaliza-
tion and believe, as it continues to escalate and transfer technologies, that
it can continue to bring cultures and societies together, which will result in
developing communities of peace-loving and intelligent citizens (Hagen
and Lodha 2004). Others fear that the ongoing development of globaliza-
tion will continue to increase the gap between rich and poor nations by
creating enduring and stable dependencies (2004).
Historical trends can be reversed. There is truth in the proposition
that many countries lack resources and are unable to escape the vicious
cycle of their underdevelopment. As a result, unless there is change, they
may be doomed to prolonged underdevelopment (Hagen and Lodha
2004). These underdeveloped countries and their people suffer due to
their inability to absorb emerging technologies, or innovate and compete
on a global level. Unfortunately, they lack the basic infrastructure and
resources of industrialized nations (2004). As a result, these countries can
fall prey to corporations, governments and any other entities that want to
take advantage of their lack of resources.
Conservatives have articulated their fear that ongoing globalization will
undermine the integrity of a country’s political and social institutions and
may weaken its cultural structure (2004). People on the opposite side of
the argument are concerned about the prospect of political, technological
and economic dependence. And there are those that believe quick techno-
fixes do not solve enduring problems (2004). However, as previously said,
historical trends can be reversed.
The outcomes of my research throughout the years suggest that the
following propositions are key elements in a change process.
1. To successfully bring forth global change and ensure that the envi-
ronments in which we reside are moving towards an egalitarian
stance, governments, civil societies, various local actors, corporate
leaders, religious institutions and any other actors wanting to be a
part of a critical mass of global change agents, will need to engage in
intentional dialogues that will critically work to deconstruct many
issues. Over the course of several years, I have coined the term inten-
tional dialogue in my work, which will be explained in later chapters.
There are many components to an intentional dialogue, which is
grounded in the theoretical premises of discourse analysis. But the
most critical component for this dialogue is a commitment to engage
authentically in a dialogic process that critically examines issues that
we grapple with from a historical as well as present-day context
2. We need to re-examine and recommit to the concept of commu-
nity—a global community that is not afraid to draw upon its cosmo-
logical roots (2012).
3. We need to critically examine our language. If unexamined, we risk
allowing our language patterns to serve as frameworks of how we
see our present circumstances and future. If unchecked, the contin-
uation of negative discourse can psychologically convince people
that they are not entitled to a different life or any form of change.
(2012).
4. We must, in concert with the deconstruction of our language,
develop new patterns of language that draw upon who we really are
and psychologically helps us to manifest a new reality in order to
collectively move forward from a position of strength (2012).
5. We must challenge and change our patterns of thinking. Our lives
are intertwined within the complexity of a variety of systems,
leadership deficiencies and other ‘isms’ that we have allowed to take
root in our society. When we look at our situations with a silo men-
tality we inevitably are asking for failure. To examine life from the
perspective of understanding patterns beyond the immediacy of a
situation is a very distinct change for us. For years, our propensity
has been to react to the varying crises we face (2012). And, while
this is not an indictment of the work that is being done in the Global
Compact, it merely suggests that there are precursor activities that
should be enacted before we engage in existing and/or new strate-
gies or any tactical steps that may not address the deeply embedded
psychological blockages that have been allowed to reside in our con-
sciousness and sub-consciousness for far too long.
6. We must challenge our prevailing concept of leadership in order to
discern what constitutes effective leadership within the organiza-
tions that have the resources to produce the change (2012).
7. We must not shy away from collectively envisioning a new version of
reality for our children and community. The engagement of all
actors in a process where people can come together and share that
vision is critical (2012). It is not enough for only leaders of corpora-
tions and civil society to engage in a visioning process. The people
who are daily facing the unequaled environments we are looking to
change should be heard.
8. We need to examine systems, their concepts and inter-relatedness
and consistently import the strategy of viewing our situations from
a systems perspective in order to understand where change strategies
must begin and what should be our guiding praxis (2012).
9. We must commit to embracing strategy and strategic implementa-
tion. Our conversations regarding what should be done should
include dialogues that address how all critical stakeholders will work
together to produce results (2012). The failure of corporations in
the Global Compact to effectively report their achievements and
share their barriers only speaks to half-hearted actions and supports
the criticisms that these leaders may only be participating in the
Compact for marketing and advertising purposes. In other words,
these organizations once again are engaging in building shadow
organizational images that speak to change but in reality represent
business as usual.
10. We need to bring forth a critical mass of people committed to change,
who are also willing to stay in the process for as long as it takes
(2012). While the current level of participants in the UN Global
Compact initiative initially sounded impressive, the forthcoming
strategic goal to increase the number of participants significantly

suggests the need for an honest assessment regarding what consti-
tutes a critical mass of participants compared to current participants
versus potential participants.
11.When looking to produce change, we should work to understand
and privilege how cultural differences will and do influence how
people perceive their world (2012). Equally critically, we should
help various actors understand that embracing the fact that their
culture impacts how they see their world is not only an acceptable
activity towards producing change, but one that is critical to under-
standing how to sustain the change.
So how do we address these issues? First, let us examine the corporate

partnership issues. In the midst of all that the UN is doing, there are still
very valid concerns regarding the integrity and rationale of the corporate
participants.
These are entities that not only hold vast resources, but also vast power,
and control realms of influence that most people cannot even begin to
understand. And, while many who hold this power have it within their
hearts to do better, there are those who simply do not care about the havoc
they may be wreaking on people, environments and related institutions.
Yet, over the years, I have learned that when you engage a critical mass of
leaders, harness their collective power, help them vision a reality for change
that not only betters their environments, but the world at large, nothing
is insurmountable and eventually, even the worse naysayers will fall in line.
You see, power if used appropriately is not bad. Ethical leaders who
have the heart to look into the eyes of all people as equals are needed
across the world, and we also need systems and institutions (Robinson-
Easley 2014). These ethical leaders also must understand that their corpo-
rate entities will not continue to flourish if, as previously suggested, ‘they
work towards being spikes in a sea of poverty’ (Lacy and Hayward 2011).
Human Development, a central theme in the Global Compact, is vital
for economic progress (Hagen and Lodha 2004). It is hard to ensure
continued economic development if it is not intertwined with human
development. The growth and development of intellect and knowledge
is critical to ways in which societies can flourish (2004). And, this same
principle applies to corporations.
Leaders should recognize the role of their respective organizations in
all human development issues. The increasing interest in, commitment to
and essential recognition of, the value proposition of human development
reflects the organization’s complex social role (Hagen and Lodha 2004).
Human development is inextricably tied to continued innovation,
Therefore, we need leaders, systems and institutions that possess strong
‘interior spirits’ (Wink 1992). I believe that those that reside in the C-suite
will need to emerge as the serious leaders of change. It does not matter
whether those leaders are CEOs of major corporations or the heads of
NGOs or government entities. Their leadership and resources, coupled
with an enlightened insight regarding the need for change, positions them
to be the force that can begin a mass movement towards ensuring that the
principles identified in the Global Compact, and the more salient issues
that surround those issue, are fully implemented.
COMPLEX TIMES REQUIRE COMPLEX SOLUTIONS

Societally, we are drowning in a silent hopelessness because the structural
change processes we keep implementing continue not to meet the very
basic foundations of change—the hearts and souls of people at all levels of
our society. It does not surprise me that the UN continues to increase its
goals of participation. The failure to have so few organizations committed
to the Global Compact’s initiatives speaks to the need for a different level
of consciousness regarding where we stand in this challenging twenty-first
century.
Qualitative studies that uncover the domestic and international issues
that drive participants to join the Compact, as well as case studies that
are focused on measuring the sustainable progress of fully committed
participants can be instrumental in insuring a more thorough-going and
evenly distributed effort (Arevalo and Fallon 2008). Inclusively, address-
ing operational issues has been suggested due to the proposition that
there may be operational deficits in the Global Compact. Yet, when
working through the issue of having limited participants in sectors that
are already unrepresented, operational challenges should be expected.
(2008).
Global leaders who use economic growth goals as their exclusive perfor-
mance standards eventually fail. They overemphasize short-term financial
results and do not pay enough attention to how they may be destroying
cohesion and offending people (Scherer et al. 1999). This overemphasis
on bottom-line profitability will hurt both their reputations as leaders and
their corporate and industry reputations (1999). We live in complex times
and our change strategies call for complex solutions.
IS IT TIME FOR A DIFFERENT PARADIGMATIC PERSPECTIVE?

In the change management literature, a prevailing stream of research
addresses how to build hopeful organizations and find spirituality. I do
not believe that, when working to help people become hopeful and under-
stand that the strength of the soul can defy a whole world in arms, answers
can be found in management texts. I do believe our answers are through
the words of our Creator and that those who are advocating change have
to work side by side with our respective lay as well as theological leaders in
order to help people understand how to merge the change strategies we
try to employ with the belief systems, which are inextricably tied to our
moral values.
In May 2014, during a speech to the UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon and the heads of major UN agencies who met in Rome that
week, Pope Francis made an international appeal for governments to work
towards redistributing the wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generos-
ity to help curb the ‘economy of exclusion’ that prevails in our world
today.8 The pontiff is known for frequently lashing out against the injus-
tices of capitalism and the global economic system that excludes so much
of humanity. Consequently, his call to the UN to promote a ‘worldwide
ethical mobilization’ of solidarity with the poor in a new spirit of generos-
ity is only an extension of how he continues to raise the consciousness of
people as it pertains to social justice.9
Pope Francis posited that a more equal form of economic progress can
be had through ‘the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the
state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and
civil society’.10 Pope Francis also urged the UN to promote development
goals that are designed to attack the root causes of poverty and hunger,
protect the environment and ensure dignified labor for all; a change that
would involve challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the econ-
omy of exclusion, the throwaway culture, and the culture of death, which
nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted.11
Interestingly, in a similar message to the World Economic Forum in
January, 2014 and in his apostolic exhortation ‘The Joy of the Gospel’,
the Pope was accused by some in the USA of being a Marxist.12
Regardless of where one’s theological and spiritual grounding resides,
many texts cross religious and theological boundaries and address the
spiritual needs of humanity and our right to live a productive life. For
example, transcendental monism, which views the consciousness or spirit
giving rise to matter, has formed the philosophical foundation of many

Eastern cultures (Korten 2001). Many Western teachers, such as the late
Wayne Dyer and others, have been very successful in weaving the philoso-
phies of intention and its relationship to consciousness into phenomenal
theses on how to move beyond spiritual and mental states of poverty and
a fatalistic view of life and embrace a life of abundance where one is living
on purpose.
Living life on purpose entails an understanding that we are indeed spiri-
tually connected with the infinite, which is the primary source of valid
knowing (Korten 2001). Yet, I also suggest that moving beyond a fatal-
istic view of life is not only a pre-requisite for people entrenched in pov-
erty, but for leaders of organizations that have the power, resources and
position to promote the change that Pope Francis and many others who
understand the critical nature of our global are still calling for.
People who are subjected to poverty and ‘isms’ can learn to alter their
perspectives in order to address these imbalances effectively (Robinson-
Easley 2012). A new movement that awakens those who live in abject
poverty and moves them to vision options for changing the conditions
of their lives is long past due (2012). You see, within the context of hope
lies the content qualities of relationship such as love, joy, peace, goodness,
beauty, and freedom (Marcel 1963). These content qualities can also be
embraced by global leaders, who just might find that when they embrace
these qualities, the economic positioning, productivity and profitability of
their organizations can and will dramatically shift in an upward movement.
I strongly believe that through vulnerability comes great strength. So,
while we have been subjected to injustices that have resulted in far too
many inequities, we have thus far survived and as a result need to learn to
acknowledge the positive attributes within ourselves that have rendered us
strong (2012). Equally important, there is a need to examine our belief
systems and resulting faith in order to understand the role they both
played in keeping us strong. This is true for those needing change as well
as for those wanting to bring about change.
The Ten Principles of the Global Impact are in and of themselves, sim-
ple. When we examine human rights and dignity through a theological
and cosmological lens, there is not one belief system I have encountered
that supports what the Compact strives to eradicate.
When we walk with the knowledge, faith and understanding that we are
instruments of our Creators, regardless of our varying theologies, resid-
ing in the construct of the spiritual binding of all humanity, it becomes
impossible for us to tolerate the injustices people face on a daily basis. It

becomes impossible to continue to allow the corruption that far too many
organizations thrive on, and it becomes impossible to allow excuses for
not making a change—a dramatic change.
However, I have also learned that before we work towards change, we
have to realistically and deeply understand our situations in order to shed
the varying layers of pain we bear. In the midst of bearing that pain, we
also wear many labels society has imposed upon us. Therefore, it becomes
critical that we deconstruct these lables in order to appropriately shed
them.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF LOVE?

It is suggested that:
We are now coming to see that economic globalization has come at a heavy
price. In the name of modernity we are creating dysfunctional societies that
are breeding pathological behavior—violence, extreme competitiveness, sui-
cide, drug abuse, greed, and environmental degradation—at every hand.
Such behavior is an inevitable consequence when a society fails to meet
the needs of its members for social bonding, trust, affection, and a shared
sacred meaning. The threefold crisis of deepening poverty, environmental
destruction, and social disintegration manifests this dysfunction. (Korten
2001, p. 233)
Is it plausible that people who experience an abundance of love in their

lives rarely seek solace in compulsive, exclusionary personal acquisitions?
(Korten 2001) A world starved of love can also be one that possesses
an abundance of material wealth. Yet, when we are spiritually whole and
experience the caring support of our communities, thrift is a natural part
of a full and disciplined life because that which is sufficient to one’s needs
brings a fulfilling sense of nature’s abundance (2001).
As our inner guidance systems shift, we see the value in our inherited
humanity, and our moral basis also re-aligns with our responsibility to be
ethically and socially responsible for the ‘right’ reason. In other words,
there is no need to defend social responsibility from a value proposition
perspective that privileges one’s economic goals. When you value human-
ity, you open sacred space for the world to flourish, with love, respect and
a whole-hearted desire to ensure that everyone is able to live with dignity
and respect. And when the world flourishes, everyone ‘profits’—yet that
profiting is redefined in the sense of being truly connected to our human-

ity, which evokes a universal connection of the human spirit that embraces
the oneness of our universe.
Over the years, I have been drawn to the writing of the late Reverend
Doctor Howard Thurman who so profoundly said:
… Always there is some voice that rises up against what is destructive, calling
attention to an alternative, another way. It is a matter of more than passing
significance that the racial memory as embodied in the myths of creation,
as well as in
the dream of prophet and seer, points ever to the intent to community as
the purpose of life. (Thurman 1963, p. 94)
The barriers to our global village have come down. We are no longer sepa-
rated from people, their joys or their pains by barriers which disallowed an
array of communications and connections. The evolution of technology
has seen to that. As a result, we are connected at levels we previously never
imagined. Yes, we are connected, which means what happens to people
on one continent will inevitably impact the world. However, without our
embracing the reality of an authentic connection to one another, we will
never be able to move to a shared vision of liberation (Ashby 2003), which
means we will continue to argue in the literature and various other forums
about the constructs of ethics and social responsibility as we also continue
to embrace structural change processes, which bring forth little or no last-
ing or systemic differences.
NOTES
1. h t t p : / / u n g l o b a l c o m p a c t . o rg / d o c s / a b o u t _ t h e _ g c / U N G l o b a l
CompactStrategy2014-2016.pdf.
3. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/about_the_gc/UNGlobal
8. http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/09/pope-demands-legitimate-
redistribution-of-wealth/20883183/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arevalo, J., & Fallon, F. (2008). Assessing corporate responsibility as a contribu-
tion to global governance: The case of the UN global compact. Corporate
Governance, 8(4), 456–470.
Ashby, H. (2003). Our home is over Jordan. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.
Bitanga, J., & Bridwell, L. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and the United
Nations global compact. Competition Forum, 8(2), 265–269.
Hagen, A., & Lodha, S. (2004). How do CEOs perceive suggested new rules of
global competitiveness in the twenty-first century? American Business Review,
22(1), 62–69.
Kell, G. (2005). The global compact selected experiences and reflections. Journal
ofBusiness Ethics, 59, 69–79.
Kumarian Press.
Lacy, P., & Hayward, R. (2011). A new era of sustainability in emerging markets.
Insights from a global CEO study by the United Nations Global Compact and
Accenture. Corporate Governance, 11(4), 348–357.
Marcel, G. (1963). The existential background of human dignity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Pirson, M., & Lawrence, P. (2010). Humanism in business—Towards a paradigm
shift? Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 553–565.
Rothlin, S. (2010). Towards a socially responsible China: A preliminary investiga-
tion of the implementation of the global compact. Journal of International
Business Ethics, 3(1), 3–13.
Runhaar, H., & Lafferty, H. (2009). Governing corporate social responsibility: An

assessment of the contribution of the UN global compact to CSR strategies in
the telecommunications industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 479–495.
Scherer, P., Brodzinski, R., Quinn, J., & Ainina, M. (1999). Global leadership
skills and reputational capital: Intangible resources for sustainable competitive
advantage. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(1), 58–69.
Therien, J., & Pouliot, V. (2006). The global compact: Shifting the politics of
international development? Global Governance, 12(January–March), 55–75.
Thurman, H. (1963). Disciplines of the spirit. Richmond, VA: Friends United
Press.
Weiss, T. (2010). How United Nations ideas change history. Review of International
Studies, 36, 3–22.
Wink, W. (1992). Engaging the powers: Discernment and resistance in a world of
domination. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
CHAPTER 7
Leaders as the Linchpins of Change
There are many ‘academic’ definitions of leadership that effectively address

the critical core competencies leaders need to possess, but these definitions
do not reflect the real inner work that is necessary for one to become a
true global change agent. Leaders who want to bring about transforma-
tional change have the ability to invoke a mass movement towards authen-
tically addressing the many issues that are raised in the Global Compact.
As our global village has continued to move through this millennium,
the dynamics and rapidity of change have forced a re-examination of the
new roles and competencies required of leaders. On one level, effective
leaders should have the ability to deal with the complexities of change,
possess a strong sense of self, invoke productive group interaction, possess
sound communication skills, and have the moral fortitude to deal with
complexity (Bisoux 2002).
On another level, today’s leaders need the ability to bring to the fore-
front the needs of people in order to better understand and manage social
capital in a world that has become very diverse (Kouzes and Posner 1995).
Yet, when examining the definition of social capital, an evolved ethical
leader will be able to move beyond the boundaries of that definition and
feel in the deepest recesses of his or her heart the humanity of the people
that make up the ‘social capital’.
Equally important, leaders should understand why people from all
walks of life continue to search for meaning in their lives; a search which
facilitates a movement toward a greater openness to the spiritual side of

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_7
life (Kouzes and Posner 1995). There is so much missing in our lives in
today's fast-paced global environment. At one level, we have talked about
the needs of the people—basic needs, such as food, clean water, suitable
housing and sustainable wages. But at another level, we also should seek
to understand how the self-esteem of people has been attacked over the
years, which causes a depletion of the spirit.
Understanding this spiritual side of life requires an internal focus
that moves beyond the realms of religiosity or theologies. You see,
under the domain of the spiritual side of life lies the reality that humans
throughout our history have been driven by images of what can be.
Yet, to re-ignite that spirit, we have to help them remove the block-
ages that let them believe that their current circumstances are all there
is. Therefore, we should consider that a major influencer on positive
progress in today’s global society is to vision a change that embraces
our humanity.
People from all walks of life, not just leaders, have been able to be
inspired, stay inspired and inspire others when they embrace the belief in
possibilities. Once that person shares this belief, these images inspire others
and act as a catalyst—a force—that can lay a path for the inspiration for
social development and growth (Boyatzis and Kleio 2006). This is why
leaders who want to create deep and systemic global change in their life
time should have a vision of what life can be and believe that they have the
ability to help bring about that change.
Unfortunately, despite wanting to create change in our lives, we keep
recreating familiar routines and repeating habituated patterns. Many lead-
ers fear change and, as a result, creativity and fresh innovative thinking
become exceptions and rare occurrences (Purser 2011). Our mindset and
personal vision are critical beginnings to moving beyond a feeling of stag-
nation, but they have to be as flexible and malleable as our dynamic envi-
ronment (2011). There is a need to move beyond viewing our choices as
linear processes. The essence of time and opportunities embodied in time
are more like harmonious, rhythmic chaos (Purser 2011).
Change via a series of processes, which retrofits that which we know,
will result in limited change (Purser 2011). Yet, leaders can vision a beauti-
ful future for all of humanity; a future in which they utilize the resources at
their disposal to producee a global societal change where people are living
a life that does not entail poverty and all the other negatives we previously
examined.
LEADERS AS THE LINCHPINS OF CHANGE 129
While there is beauty in the Global Leadership Compact in terms of its

vision for change and desire to equalize a playing field for humanity, this
Compact has to be implemented by the people who have the resources
to drive the change and the understanding of the contextual issues that
should be considered over and above structural change processes.
I have learned throughout my career in change management, that
you can have the best structural change processes lined up, but if there
is only a lackluster attempt to drive the change and engage people on
multiple levels where they can truly believe themselves to be a critical part
of the change process, all you have are tactical steps that may or may not
have a sustaining impact. And while embedded within the strategy of the
Compact are the local networks which are grassroots based and designed
to help organizations understand what responsible business means within
a national context,1 the numbers of engaged citizenry needs to be substan-
tially higher in order to drive the principles that are critical foundations
for global change.
Consequently, true leaders of change need to move beyond examin-
ing their vision of a future and ways to execute change as simply linear
processes (Purser 2011). Change via a series of processes, which retrofits
that which we know, will invoke limited choices (Purser 2011). Or, more
succinctly stated:
Pouring old wine into new bottles can quickly run its course. What we need
now are not more ideas, more knowledge, more theories, more tools, more
information, more two-by-two organizational models, or more Websites,
but a fundamentally new perspective, a perspective which is not constructed
from within the rules of the existing order. (Purser 2011, p. 46)
DEVELOPING THE INTERNAL CONSTITUTION FOR

CREATING CHANGE
LaFasto and Larson, after years of research, introduced the concept of
the humanitarian leader (2012). The authors come from very different
backgrounds. One author has had a very long career in corporate America
and the other has been in academia for many years. Together they studied,
consulted with and have written about some of the most successful orga-
nizations, teams and leaders of the past fifty years (2012). The leaders they
studied were found to be very unselfish, and were motivated by the needs
of others (2012). Equally importantly, they devoted time and energy to

improving the lives of other people, not as a part of their job, but as a cen-
tral focus, which the authors saw as a defining personal characteristic. The
leaders were also good at helping others, and were effective, successful and
impactful. They also had a motivation and ability to make a difference in
society (2012).
These individuals also demonstrated an understanding that some people
are boxed in by life’s circumstances. Yet, they understood that at any point
in time that they too could have been in similar circumstances (LaFasto
and Larson 2012). Consequently, when looking at the people they worked
with, they ‘saw’ their humanity—they did not see the disadvantaged as
people whose circumstances are the results of their personal flaws, poor
choices, and/or shortcomings. These leaders demonstrated compassion
and a willingness to help and make a difference in someone’s life (2012).
Adeptly stated, Craig Kielburger, founder of Free the Children, puts
fairness into this perspective:
“Is it fair that 213 million children work in child labor? Absolutely not. Is
it fair that 1.1 billion people live on less than $1.00 a day? Absolutely not.
Equally, is it fair that we have so much? Is it unfair, absolutely without a
doubt. What are we going to do about it. Fundamentally, that is the question.
What is next? It requires us to reevaluate our priorities. How we give our time
or money. How we cast our ballot. From the philosophical question, is it fair
or is it not fair, once we all agree that it’s not fair, are we willing to take the
next step, which requires we fix it.” (LaFasto and Larson 2012, p. 41)
Far too often, we fail to ‘see’ the individual for a variety of reasons. How
many times have you heard about a disaster and your initial response was
to speak your sympathies, and next send money to the disaster relief fund?
Yet, can we really understand people’s despair when we are not present
to look into their eyes? I really did not understand this perspective until
I had to go to Haiti in order to get to Guadeloupe, FWI where I teach
intercultural management.
Yes, right after the earthquake, I sent money, prayed with others about
the situation, followed the news, contacted people I knew who had rela-
tives in Haiti and did most of the things that others did, with the exception
of traveling to Haiti to personally help in the disaster relief efforts. I always
felt that at some point in my life I would go to Haiti, but I never imagined
the circumstances that forced me to spend time there, albeit it being hours
versus days. I was on my way to Guadeloupe, FWI and for what appeared
to be very illogical reasons, I missed my plane. Unfortunately, the next
available flight from Puerto Rico would not get me there in time to meet
my obligations. So, I was rerouted through the Dominican Republic to
Haiti, with a layover in Haiti and then onto Guadeloupe.
The few hours I had with that layover allowed me to look into the eyes
of many Haitians. It was then that I understood at another level what it
truly meant to ‘see’ the people, their hurt, fears and the fragmented world
they were forced to live in after a disaster struck. This hopelessness and
helplessness riveted my mind and prompted a very deep level of introspec-
tion regarding my work. Yet, looking into the eyes of people and ‘seeing’
them can sometimes be difficult for leaders. To understand people at deep
levels requires extensive work and time. Consequently, expending that
level of work and time can fall into secondary priorities because it typically
is not viewed as adding to the bottom line.
Yet, there are consequences to not taking the time to engage in a
deeper level of introspection. Reiterating this point, British epidemiolo-
gists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Picket examined data from the World
Bank, the UN, the WHO (World Health Organization), the US Census
and other similar sources (LaFasto and Larson 2012). Their conclusions
were profound. Essentially, inequality in a society undermines social trust
and community life. As a result, these issues lead to a host of problems
that include increased drug use, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, obesity,
and violent crime. Consequently, when critically examining this unequal
society, the researchers argue, the quality of life is diminished for everyone
(LaFasto and Larson 2012)—and that includes corporations and other
organizations that fail to seriously consider their role in ethical behavior
and productive social justice.
SO, WHAT DOES A TRANSFORMATIVE LEADER ‘LOOK

LIKE’?
Leaders who have already embraced new paradigms of leadership under-
stand the concept of human capital on a global context. They also under-
stand that the concept needs to undergo change. Over the years, I have
heard many express offense regarding the term ‘human capital’. Yes, peo-
ple are assets, but when identifying goals and business resulting strate-
gies we also have to remember that they are the people who drive the
organization’s goals. Consequently, when one moves beyond a reduction-

ist perspective and embraces the full humanity of a workforce, there are
unimagined domestic and international outcomes.
For example, Bill Gates has been known for his assertion that the most
important assets of his company are his people. He recognizes that the
collective knowledge, skills and abilities of his employees represent a dis-
tinctive competency that has set Microsoft apart from its competitors
(Luthans et al. 2004). Anita Roddick, founder and group managing direc-
tor of The Body Shop, embodied a transcendence philosophy of human-
ity that centers around the need to create a sense of holism and spiritual
development in addition to ensuring that the people who work for her
organization are connected to the workplace, environment, and in rela-
tionship with one another (Nichols 1994). I know we can find many more
examples, such as my previous example of Herb Kelleher.
Yes, today’s leadership responsibilities and required qualities are not
for the light-hearted. Our continually morphing global environment calls
for transformational leaders from all walks of life—business, education,
government, social service, NGOs, local communities, etc. (Robinson-
Easley 2014) who understand that the processes of transformation are
bigger than we are and require a supportive universe (Quinn 2000), which
means personal interests and egos are not a part of the transformational
processes. And, while this transformation can be seen as emerging from
a dance of co-creation, it will need to start first with the individual—the
‘self’ (Quinn 2000).
Transformational leaders understand a vision of a desired future state,
and equally important, they help others understand that this future state is
worth the pain of effort that it will take to make the change (Daft 2011).
They dream of a better future and see that they can be a part of creating
that future. It is so easy to give up and believe that the problem is too
monumental to tackle, yet as LaFasto and Larson emphasize in their book
on humanitarian leaders, “everyone can do something. It all begins by
connecting with your passion and what matters to you” (2012, p. 26).
TEACH US HOW TO DO BETTER

When I began writing this book, someone close to me who leads a global
organization said simply, ‘teach us how to do better’. At first, the task
seemed overwhelming, but I knew in my heart that change had to occur
with people like him who are in positions to make a positive difference.
What he was conveying to me was a need for a different roadmap; one that
could personally provide guidance and provoke a conversation with similar
colleagues as to how they can leverage their organizations to bring about
a better world.
How to do better can be simple. Yet, it is very difficult for people to
be transformational leaders unless they are willing to look deep inside the
self and confront the issues that block them from being all that they have
the potential to be. For example, I wonder how many leaders of organi-
zations who support and run sweatshops have looked inside themselves
and explored their own personal understanding of power, domination,
humanity and human degradation? Or, perhaps on a lesser scale of bad
ethical behavior, what is inside the person that blinds them to the failure
of their organization to truly embrace and effectively enact the principles
of the Global Compact, to which they purport to subscribe?
These actions represent far more than just losing touch with their orga-
nization. I respectfully suggest that the failure to ensure that their organi-
zation is responsive to the responsibilities to which they have committed
is indicative of that leader’s basic disrespect for humanity and the ethics
and moral values associated with doing the right thing for humanity; par-
ticularly when you effortlessly have the resources, power and control to
do what is ethical and right. In other words, there is a failure in the basic
moral fiber of the person leading that organization. Consequently, when
that leader fails to take a deep penetrating look at ‘self” they will typically
live a life of slow death (Quinn 1996). Therefore, the first step to keeping
their commitment is looking deep inside themselves.
Transformational leaders should learn to become internally driven
leaders who will not succumb to slow death (Quinn 1996). Whenever
I have taught leadership development, and I teach it quite often, one of
the required texts I use is Dr. Robert Quinn’s book, Deep Change. The
praxes and propositions combined with research results that Dr. Quinn
has brought into the public venue regarding deep change are major con-
tributors to the leadership literature. Dr. Quinn explores the concept of
deep change and slow death and states that many people are afraid to con-
front deep personal change and as a result, they opt for slow death (Quinn
1996). Yet, today’s global challenges and highly competitive economy can
no longer tolerate individuals who are opting for slow death.
Deep change requires a spiritual connection and it is not incremental;
the radical nature of deep change can often be destabilizing if there is not
a commitment to the process. It requires exploring and adopting new
ways of thinking where you embrace paradigm shifts and constantly scan
the environment to see beyond the present (1996). Deep change also
requires leaders to become comfortable with taking risks—real risks that
go beyond their current limitations while also embracing an acceptance
and true understanding of the proposition that excellence never lies within
the boxes we have drawn for us in the past. To be excellent, we have to
step outside the safety net of tradition, despite the risk (1996). Yet, some
people will say that they are not even aware that they have opted for slow
death, or are acting irresponsibly. How do you know?
Many people across various environments are embracing the concept
of being mindful. So what is the practice of mindfulness? It has been sug-
gested that “mindfulness is a state of active, open attention on the present.
As a result, when you practice mindfulness, you observe your thoughts and
feelings from a distance, without judging them good or bad. Therefore,
instead of letting your life pass you by, mindfulness means living in the
moment and awakening to experience.”2 When you awaken to experience,
it is far easier to let go of the constraints that hold you back, consciously
or unconsciously. You see these constraints through a very depersonalized
lens, which can produce a very different understanding of why they are
even present in your life.
Yet, because the price of change for many can be viewed as high, they
are afraid to assume the challenge of change and will opt to allow fear
to impose blinders to the possibilities of excellence (Quinn 1996). The
price—slow death, which can manifest into a meaningless and frustrat-
ing experience enmeshed with fear, anger, and helplessness while moving
surely towards that which is most feared—is an ultimate resignation to
a life that may be quite mediocre (Quinn 1996). Augmenting this trav-
esty is a propensity to seek solutions to new problems in the same places
where we found the old ones. The destabilizing effect of embracing a new
‘self’ can produce in those who do not possess the internal fortitude to
keep moving forward a tendency to become very rigid (1996). As a result,
instead of responding creatively, when innovative action is most needed,
we increase our commitment to old patterns and implement our most
ingrained natural responses (1996).
Yet, people who claim the title of leader cannot be afraid to confront
their own personal decay. They cannot be afraid to look at themselves
mindfully in order to get a better understanding of who they are.
You see, it is not until they have dealt with their own issues that they
can successfully lead others (Quinn 1996). When confronting one’s own
personal decay, one should not be afraid to go deep inside the self and first
observe one's actions and interactions. Eventually, one will have to ques-
tion one’s assumptions about people, situations, positions of authority and
any thought processes which lead to being self-centered (Robinson-Easley
2014).
Confronting this decay also means increasing one's sensitivity and
openness to those who are different. In other words, leaders should
unravel and confront hidden as well as overt biases that direct their
thinking about individuals, groups, and particular circumstances (Daft
2011). You see, it is these biases that can and do inhibit a leader from
understanding how to truly connect to our universe. In other words,
connect to the intent of ‘community’ as proposed by the late Rev. Dr.
Howard Thurman.
When I was in seminary, I found that people tend to confuse the con-
structs associated with religion, theology and spirituality and as a result
will use the terms interchangeably (Robinson-Easley 2014). However,
these words all have very different meanings. What is necessary for trans-
formative leaders to deeply embrace to the point that it becomes a part of
their DNA is the oneness of mankind; a concept that is similarly under-
stood by many spiritual and religious practices (Robinson-Easley 2014).
I do not think it is by chance that the spirituality literature continues to
grow. And I also am not surprised that the literature on mindfulness and
positive psychology continues to grow. Across the world, people want to
link to a higher level of consciousness that can and will bring more mean-
ing into their lives, relationships, and give them reasons for being on this
earth (Robinson-Easley 2014). Yet, human beings are a very special form
of creation because they represent the only life form that operates on a
high level of self-consciousness (Akbar 2003). Therefore, to produce
a change in our behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors, there is a
need to acquire a consciousness of who we are and what we have been so
we can operate at the level we were born for (Akbar 2003). It is suggested,
however, that to be successful in this endeavor, one must first understand
the paradigm of an Eurocentric attitude of superiority, which drives most
of Western thought and impacts or serves as the undergirth of how people
tend to function in developing nations. Very simply, this paradigm privi-
leges the norms, values and beliefs of the European culture and typically
fails to acknowledge the norms, values and beliefs embedded in different
cultures. Unfortunately, the failure to privilege other cultures often serves
as the under girth of how we function in developing nations, thus typically
giving rise to a perspective that if the culture is not Eurocentric, they are
inferior (Akbar 2003).
Some may argue with this proposition, but we only have to examine
the cases of Union Carbide, Texaco and others cited in this book alone to
give credence to the need to at least examine the possibility that people
either consciously or unconsciously operate within the parameters of this
paradigm.
The decision to move our level of thinking about humanity to a new
level, and engage in understanding difference through a different lens also
implies humility (Clawson 2009). It is suggested that since Jim Collins
wrote Good to Great and introduced his ‘Level Five Leadership’, humil-
ity has taken on a new energy in discussions of leadership (2009). Collins
focuses on a lack of self-aggrandizement and egocentricity (2009), which
I believe is crucial to understanding the issues that have been brought
forth—particularly one’s ability to position oneself in the shoes of those
that may be deemed ‘lesser than’.
Across many different realms of thought, people are critically looking at
how self-destructive these attributes are to our humanity. What I person-
ally find interesting is that the dialogues that address constructs such as
self-aggrandizement and egocentricity span multiple literatures, not only
in the management literature but also in spirituality, theology, as well as
psychology of theology literatures. In many of my seminary classes we
addressed self-aggrandizement and egocentricity and how destructive it
is to our humanity through the lens of psychology, theology and psy-
chotherapy. Yet, what is embedded in Quinn’s propositions towards deep
change is that when a leader moves beyond these limiting and destructive
personal attributes and begins the process of deep change, a dramatically
different person will emerge—one who has embraced humility and a deep
caring for humanity. When we embrace humility, we also open space for
understanding that others have also figured out very interesting answers to
life’s problems—which if one intends to function as an international busi-
ness leader is a valuable perspective to have (Clawson 2009).
In my ethics classes, when discussing the concepts of leadership,
ego, humanity, humility and so on, I tell a story of how my own self-
aggrandizement caused me a tremendous amount of pain and shame, yet
taught me life lessons.
I was conducting a series of seminars for people in a very impoverished
community. Yes, I thought I was doing wonderful work, until one of the
participants—a woman who needed a bath and had on dirty clothes, and
who was very open with the group about the fact that she was a prosti-
tute—wanted to reach out to me and connect and let me know that I was
making an impact on her life. She offered to make me a plate as lunch was
being served and instantly, I felt myself disconnecting. You see, it was okay
to interact with this woman from the distance of my being at the podium
conducting the seminar, but when she wanted to reach out and touch me
personally, I silently rejected her, which I later saw as myself demonstrat-
ing a weakness of spirit, intent, determination, intestinal fortitude and,
more importantly, love for mankind!
Fortunately, I caught myself doing so and allowed her to ‘fix my plate’,
and while we ate, made conversation with her as she opened up about her
life and the challenges she had faced. But, was I really interacting with
her? Had I truly embraced the change I was ‘teaching’ as I conducted
the seminar; or was I no different from the leaders I have critiqued who
embraced the Global Compact, but have only taken that commitment to
a surface level?
It was during the ride home that Dr. Robinson-Easley came face to
face with Dr. Robinson-Easley and the shallowness of my personality in
that setting as well as my lack of commitment to humanity at that point
in time in my life. Yes, I was blessed to be able to make a difference in
someone, connect and plausibly help that person make a personal change
in her life—value herself, and maybe, just maybe help her to understand
that she could do so much more. But I was too caught up in the fact that
her physical appearance made my nose twitch.
How did I know if this woman even had a place to live or bathe? I never
bothered to ask before I so easily engaged in my lack of humility. To this
day, I remember crying all the way home. I felt like a fraud, and that I had
in many respects let her down, the participants of that seminar down, and
more importantly I let myself down. But to a greater extent, I disrespected
the role I had been placed in by my Creator. You see, I was placed in the
position to help make a difference, but my ego overcame my humility and
respect for humanity.
That was a lesson I will never forget, and was obviously a lesson I
needed to learn. Years later, in my book, Beyond Diversity and Intercultural
Management, I realized I had not only learned my lesson but was able to
express it in terms that hopefully would guide others:
To see people beyond their current immanent or material representations

requires a leader who is not afraid to first come face to face with his or
her shadow self—actions which are absolutely necessary before a leader can
assume the role of valuing difference without the prescriptive barriers we
have allowed to develop—barriers which are daily becoming more destruc-
tive to humanity and our ability to positively interact and uplift one another.
Far too many people are despairing, mourning the loss of what we thought
we had, bemoaning the state of our democracy, blaming others and forget-
ting our own responsibility” (Boesak 2009). A few years ago I was privileged
to hear Rev. Allan Boesak, who is also a politician and anti-apartheid activist
speak. His words spoke volumes … ‘Let us be done with all that now ….
Yesterday is behind the mist of night. Today is the gift of a new arising.
Tomorrow is the dawn of our awakening. The coming days belongs to us
(2009, p. 405)!’ (Robinson-Easley 2014, p. 131)
True transformational leaders should examine the assumptions they tend

to make. Doing so helps increase their sensitivity and openness to those
who are different from themselves, which leads to an understanding that
there are hidden as well as overt biases that direct one’s thinking about
individuals, groups, and particular circumstances (Daft 2011) that will
inhibit their ability to connect each person to the overarching connectivity
of our universe. “As a global society we have to learn to look at people
through a different lens, but more importantly, we have to learn to ‘look’
at them. When you look at an individual or group of people different from
yourself, you should be honest and ask the question—what are you choos-
ing to see?” (Robinson-Easley 2014, p. 133).
On the day I interacted with the woman who had identified herself as a
prostitute, I made the choice to initially look at her through a lens that bore
many preconceived notions about who she was and the choices she had
made in her life. Those were my lens, my paradigms and my assumptions
that may have had nothing to do with her reality. But, the lens through
which I ‘saw’ this woman reflected my superimposed morality and ethics.
Thankfully, I was able to step inside myself and ask what actions was I
choosing? How did my choices reflect my morality and ethics?
Moving towards transformational leadership requires self-reflection,
which invokes a challenge to one’s current guiding praxes, paradigms, and
belief systems (Robinson-Easley 2014). The answers we find may be very
disconcerting. Moving towards transformational leadership also requires
an internal dialogue about one’s values, assumptions about life, belief sys-
tems, expectations for a better life and what this world can and should
look like.
Moving towards transformational leadership also employs learning how

to celebrate what we have thus far accomplished in life. Yes, I berated
myself for how I acted that day, but it is a lesson I never forget and I am
grateful to my Creator for that lesson because it immediately made me
grow in spirit and feeling. Learning the lesson also helped me to appreci-
ate that which was good about me. You see, whenever I have felt chal-
lenged in life and even questioned my Creator, I always understood the
value of at least staying in the conversation in order to learn.
Turning inward and examining the potential for hypocrisy requires per-
sonal discipline to cope with the pain involved in examining your integrity
gaps in order to change behavior (Quinn et al. 2000).
It is okay when we discover that we may not be ‘okay’. The point is our
choice to learn and grow. Life is not going to be easy; yet, we can continue
to grow. Yes, we will come face to face with our shadow side that is not
pretty; but the positive force that should keep us going is that we continue
to look in that mirror, we continue to ask the hard questions, and we con-
tinue to strive to move beyond our current limitations. Facing our shadow
side entails a willingness to step outside ourselves and embrace disconfirming
feedback, see and hear unpleasant things about ourselves and understand
the process of growing (Quinn et al. 2000). We won’t always have a ‘tool
box’ to perform this type of task. Successfully altering the human system is
a critical part of adaptive change where needed expertise and tools do not
already exist. Real change will therefore require people to make very painful
adjustments in their attitudes, work habits and lives (Quinn et al. 2000).
Even in the process of making those adjustments, we will not always
get it right during our first round of internal work. It is possible to deviate
from the norm through an awakened attention which allows you to press
forward in uncertain and threatening situations; learning as you go—an
activity that is called action inquiry (Torbert 1987 as cited in Quinn et al.
2000). Leaders can learn to be open to reframing how they view a situa-
tion, as they consciously seek and choose new frames to ensure that their
behavior is aligned with key values. This means the change agent can be in
an ongoing process of self-creating and self-transfiguring (2000).
These types of activities help us to challenge our moral values and
resulting ethical behaviors. When leaders commit to self-reflection, it
allows them to imbed into their organizations similar reflection-reflexive
actions which can change the direction of how they embrace business eth-
ics and social responsibility.
Today, I will not back away from someone, no matter how much my
nose may “twitch”. I will not degrade that human being, or myself, and I
will not let my Creator down when He has put me in a place to do better
by people. I value those lessons I learned on that day, despite the fact that
they were not pretty lessons to learn. And, in any leadership position in
which I work, I will take that same position.
My last administrative position was at a community college, as the
Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. For far too many of the
students who attended this college, life was not easy. Many came from
very poor communities which were riddled with violence. And, it was not
uncommon to have homeless students in the classroom. My hard learned
lesson helped me to understand the importance of looking into the eyes
of each of them with love and appreciation for what they were working
towards accomplishing in their lives. Each time I addressed the students
and our faculty, I reminded them that as students, they had taken the first
step towards bettering their lives—they had crossed the threshold onto
the campus. Now, it was our responsibility as their leaders and teachers to
help them reach their goals, regardless of the difficulties they had previ-
ously encountered. Those difficulties were not shackles we would allow
them to wear.
Through the energy of self-worth, leaders can become motivated to
improve themselves. This energy can be passed on to others. The inspira-
tion for the greatest of human accomplishments in architecture, science,
poetry, art, industry, or any other human endeavor has been fueled by the
octane of self-worth and a positive self-esteem (Akbar 1996). Therefore,
when leaders work towards understanding how they can improve the treat-
ment of humanity by engaging in an appreciative self-assessment, even in
the midst of understanding that they should rid themselves of that layer of
‘negative shadow’, they bring forth a different level of consciousness that
has the ability to create a heightened spiritual awareness of who we are,
where we come from, and how our Creator desires for us to move forward
There is power in this self-assessment; a power that reframes our
conscious thought about change. I also posit that when one engages
in this self-assessment, the behaviors of many organizations and their
leaders who have participated in the Global Compact, and been criti-
cized, will change. Why? That answer is very simple. When leaders have
engaged in the internal work that is necessary to move them from a
surface level understanding of the horrors that people face across the
world, they relate to the situation from a deeply felt and internalized
view point. But more importantly, they internalize the proposition that
they are the drivers of change and as a result become fortified in their
actions.
So, how does one summarize the expression “teach us how”? I believe
it is first important for those aspiring to be transformational leaders to
vision how they believe our world can exist—the grandest vision of how
we can live in community. Remember the start list of my visions: none
which I listed is beyond our reach and I am sure that this list is shared by
many. In most situations to bring forth fundamental change means simply
letting go—letting go of all of our perceived barriers and learn to flow to
where our Creator is moving us. If we can vision the eradication of pov-
erty, it can happen. If we can vision the eradication of child labor, it can
happen. If we can vision organizations—all organizations—acting socially
responsible, it can happen. The same power that we utilize to succumb to
the mindset that ‘change is hard’ requires as much energy as it takes to
say, ‘We can do this’.
To change into a true transformational leader also simply means com-
ing face to face with your own demons and self-aggrandizement. This
personal confrontation is not only necessary for people to who want to
change our world, it is absolutely necessary for leaders who want to pro-
duce continually successful and ethical organizations. But we should not
beat ourselves up for our shortcomings, but accept that they exist, and also
understand where we have demonstrated strength and fortitude in our
lives in the midst of challenge. In other words, when we take an apprecia-
tive stock of ourselves, we are able to list the competencies and strengths
that emerge from our core and that truly describe our given talents and
reinforce our ability to move past our challenged behaviors. It is during
this time that we understand from the positive core assessment that we
can do better, because very simply we have already demonstrated how we
have done better in the past. But this work takes a tremendous amount of
effort, focus and determination.
NOTES
1. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/engage-locally.
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/mindfulness.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akbar, N. (1996). Breaking the chains of psychological slavery. Tallahassee, FL:
Mind Productions and Associates.
Akbar, N. (2003). Akbar papers in African psychology. Tallahassee, FL: Mind
Productions and Associates.
Bisoux, T. (2002). The mind of a leader. Biz Ed (September–October), 26–31.
Boesak, A. (2009). Running with horses: Reflections of an accidental politician.
Cape Town: Joho Publishers.
Boyatzis, R., & Kleio, A. (2006). The ideal self as the driver of intentional change.
The Journal of Management Development, 25(7), 624–642.
Clawson, J. G. (2009). Level three leadership. New York: Pearson Education.
Daft, R. L. (2011). The leadership experience. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage
Learning.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep get-
ting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2012). The humanitarian leader. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K., & Luthans, B. (2004). Positive psychological capital:
Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45–50.
Nichols, M. (1994). Does new age business have a message for managers? Harvard
Business Review, 72(2), 52–54.
Purser, R. (2011). Developing awareness of time in organizational change.
Organization Development Journal, 29(1), 45–62.
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. E. (2000). Change the world, how ordinary people can accomplish extraor-
dinary results. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Brown, M. V. (2000). Changing others through
changing ourselves: The transformation of human systems. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 9(2), 147–164.
CHAPTER 8
Living the Ideal: A Proposed Model

for Change
THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THE NEED FOR CHANGE:

THE ETHOS OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
On a global level, sustainable development coordinates growth in terms of
economics (organizing exchanges between countries and developing the
less privileged areas), addresses social issues (access to healthcare, educa-
tion and defending good working conditions) and protects the environ-
ment and the disappearance of natural resources (Bouglet et al. 2012).
Because these issues impact more than just an organization, there is no
way around the inclusion of multiple stakeholders (2012).
While stakeholders may sometimes view themselves as powerless com-
pared to organizational entities, they have power. Legitimacy is a critical
issue for organizations in today’s global environment, and it is important
for organizations to be viewed as desirable, proper, or appropriate within
some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions
(Suchman 1995 as cited in Marais 2012). Yet, being accountable when it
comes to corporate social responsibility is risky, primarily due to the politi-
cal nature of issues (Marais 2012).
With that said, organizations have to be inclusive, careful, politically
correct and authentically engaged. They also have to define the groups of
people who are important to their actions.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_8
When examining the literature, some stakeholder theorists suggest that

CEOs are responsible for making strategic decisions that reconcile varying
stakeholder interests (Marais 2012). Consequently, dialogue is a key ele-
ment in stakeholder management (2012).
While research studies indicate that there are several types of commu-
nication strategies executives use to engage stakeholders, the question
is whether this is an engaging dialogue, or a top-down communications
strategy. In other words, is there true engagement? Has the leadership
‘heard’ the hearts and souls of the stakeholders, or looked into their eyes
to understand their feelings about their environment and the organiza-
tion’s role in diminishing their environment? Or, do leaders portray inclu-
sion where it really does not exist?
To further understand and address this rhetorical question, let us first
examine the current strategy of the United Nation’s Global Compact.
THE 2014–2016 UN GLOBAL COMPACT STRATEGY:

EXPANDING THE DISCUSSION
The UN Global Compact 2014–2016 strategy and resulting tactical steps
are quite comprehensive.
The detailed goals are:
• Ensure effective participant engagement by enhancing internal

operating capacity, develop effective technological infrastructure,
improve communication with participants and introduce effective
recruitment strategies that aim to increase participation.2
• Empower and support the local networks via improved communica-
tion and technology capacity, buildings and platforms, and increase
the coverage of the local networks by launching at minimum three
new local networks annually with a focused endeavor on under-
represented areas such as Africa.3
• Ensure coherence of the global issues portfolio by positioning it as the
premier platform for businesses advancing corporate sustainability.4
• Work towards improving the quality and quantity of partnerships
undertaken by the participants to advance UN goals and issues, with
a particular focus on enhancing the partnerships with the private
sector.5
• Strengthen the governance of the local networks and improve the
interactions between the board, governments, and local networks.6
LIVING THE IDEAL: A PROPOSED MODEL FOR CHANGE 145
• Develop a sustainable funding model, via voluntary private and gov-

ernment contributions.7
The tactical implementation steps are extensive and admirable and

represent thoughtful reflection with respect to what has not worked as
expected and what requires re-modulation. And, they also identify plau-
sible new opportunities. However, from a change management perspec-
tive, there are several critical ‘voices’ that may be inferred but are not
directly identified. Yet, these voices can be germane to driving deep sys-
temic change. The strategy heavily focuses on the local networks. Local
networks are defined as:
… clusters of participants who come together to advance the United Nations

Global Compact and its principles within a particular geographic context.
They perform increasingly important roles in rooting the Global Compact
within different national, cultural and language contexts, and also in help-
ing to manage the organizational consequences of the Global Compact’s
rapid expansion. Their role is to facilitate the progress of companies (both
local firms and subsidiaries of foreign corporations) engaged in the Global
Compact with respect to implementation of the ten principles, while also
creating opportunities for multi-stakeholder engagement and collective
action. Furthermore, networks deepen the learning experience of all partici-
pants through their own activities and events and promote action in support
of broader UN goals.8
Change does not easily emerge, because for many it is very painful.
Change agents should make concerted efforts to strategically and sys-
temically design intervention strategies that can also begin a healing
process for people involved in the change processes as well as remove
unwarranted psychological barriers (Robinson-Easley 2012). The bar-
riers to change often do not make sense. When people are wounded
and feeling unheard, even the most sophisticated change strategies can
be blocked.
Goldstein reported that the search for an identity and self-esteem is said
to involve the production of a meaningful self-concept in which the past,
present, and future are linked. Unfortunately, for people who face disen-
franchisement, learning to value oneself and develop a meaningful self-
concept is difficult due to the social contexts in which they live (1991).
For example, even in the midst of a strong parental support system, far too
many children face multiple attacks on their self-esteem, through school,
media, and their daily interactions with individuals who challenge their
rights to an egalitarian society (Robinson-Easley 2012).
SO, WHAT COULD BE MISSING: AN INCLUSION OF ALL

STAKEHOLDERS?
By definition, local networks typically include a variety of stakeholders
such as business associations, including ICC National Committees, GC
participating companies, trade unions, CSR organizations, universities,
business schools, state ministries, local UN offices, development agen-
cies, foundations, and NGOs working in human rights, environment and
development.9
Their suggested primary tasks are to:
• Assist companies with the implementation of the Ten Principles and

the preparation of the annual ‘Communication on Progress’
• Facilitate dialogue on issues related to the principles, global events
while processing results and implementation recommendations of
global dialogue events within the local network.
• Serve as a learning mechanism and distribute the learning to the
Global Compact Office as well as the locale by establishing a learning
forum in the local languages
• Motivate the companies that participate in development partnership
projects that contribute to the goals
• Serve as the outreach mechanism for the Global Compact by devel-
oping strategies for other companies to join
• Identify emerging issues with a particular focus on the promotion of
inclusiveness and social responsibility
• Serve as the contact for government entities that work on human
rights, labor, environment, anti-corruption and development;
also serve as a liaison between civil society organizations (univer-
sities, NGOs) working in the fields of corporate responsibility and
development
• Serve as a liaison with other networks and the Global Compact Office
in New York on issues relating to dialogue, partnerships, outreach,
communications and learning10
Yet, when executing these primary tasks, one must ask if the organisations
are coming to the table armed with more than just an understanding of
the strategy. Are they critically understanding and engaging all stakehold-
ers, even those who are not directly employed by the local networks, but
whose consent and endorsement may be vital to the execution and sus-
tainability of a change effort? The many actors that are impacted by the
local networks, as well as those that comprise the local networks, will bring
many agendas, perceptions, and feelings to the table.
In my previous books, I referenced the work of the late Gloria Anzaldúa.
I did not become familiar with her writing until I entered seminary. But
her discourse on issues of identity, assimilation and marginalization speaks
volumes to the need to understand people beyond a surface level and is
worthy of being repeated within the context of this chapter.
Anzaldúa’s work takes us into the subconscious realms of her people;
many who feel marginalized as well as powerless to change their circum-
stances. But what is important for people to understand are the layers
of consciousness she describes that exist, but for many remain unspoken
words. Why is understanding this ‘realm of consciousness’ important? I
have learned that just when you are making breakthroughs, the layers of
unspoken words that reflect people’s true feelings can also emerge. When
this happens, you, as the intervenor should be prepared to take a step back
and help individuals deconstruct their feelings.
Throughout my years of researching, I learned that embedded in our
landscapes of varying cultures and locations, reside many micro-cultures
that affect how people relate to change. As a result, when working to cre-
ate change and engage varying stakeholders, there is a need to develop
a heightened awareness with respect to cultural sensitivity along with
deconstructing, understanding and valuing the different perspectives:
hurts, joys, as well as pain, that are critical elements of people’s conscious-
ness and sub-consciousness (Easley 2010).
To understand the foundations of these praxes, let’s take a brief look at
some of Anzaldúa’s perspectives, when she examined the Mestiza culture:
The dominant white culture is killing us slowly with its ignorance. By taking
away our self-determination, it has made us weak and empty. As a people
we have resisted, and we have taken expedient positions, but we have never
been allowed to develop unencumbered—we have never been allowed to
be fully ourselves. The whites in power want us people of color to barricade
ourselves behind our separate tribal walls so they can pick us off one at a
time with their hidden weapons; so they can whitewash and distort his-
tory. Ignorance splits people, creates prejudices. A mis-informed people are
a subjugated people. (Anzaldúa 2007, p. 108)
What are the lessons we can draw from Anzaldúa’s experiences and analy-
ses? Anzaldúa closely examined issues of walking a borderland of con-
sciousness, which she saw as being marked by a plurality of personality
that possesses psychic restlessness (Anzaldúa 2007; Anzaldúa and Keating
2002). As she observed this psychic restlessness, she also saw embedded
within it serious conflicts—perceiving oneself as visible and concomitantly
invisible because one has been forced to walk outside the boundaries of
that which was originally one's culture, a culture that was taken over by
outsiders. This taking over rendered those within the culture as in a state
of being “othered” (Anzaldúa 2007; Anzaldúa and Keating 2002).
I began to study the concept of othering as I studied liberation theology
in seminary. The term othering is often used to connote importing differ-
ence. When speaking about people who have different characteristics from
those considered to be ‘mainstream’, othering will also imply that those
that are perceived to reside outside the mainstream are considered less
than those who constitute the mainstream, thus demonizing and dehu-
manizing people, which in many respects is used as justification to civilize
and exploit these ‘inferior’ others.11
So, what does this mean as we relate the concept of othering to the
strategies of the Global Compact? All one has to do is to simply re-visit the
Ten Principles of the Compact. A significant majority of those principles
represent the need to understand and change how people have been mar-
ginalized and othered. And, while it is most admirable to want to create the
change, before that change can be successfully designed and implemented,
there should be a deep awareness of how people view their situations and
the people who are now trying to rectify their conditions.
Anzaldúa does offer hope. From her perspective and cultural experi-
ences, she posits that because the Mestiza endures and is able to cross
over these invisible (and physical) barriers the Mestiza evolves from this
othering experience and emerges a stronger and a more malleable species,
forced to embrace hybridity and flexibility; attributes which strengthen the
character and will to survive (Anzaldúa 2007).
From my perspective as an African American woman, I have seen peo-
ple in my race also possess that same hybridity and flexibility and display
it on a daily basis. However, I also believe because we have worn a mask
for so long we don’t recognize it for its strength and utility (Robinson-
Easley 2012). Equally critical, we do not actively engage in deconstructing
and understanding what othering processes have done to our psyches. For
example, our children are othered every day they walk into a school, yet
we do not empower them to see this process for what it really is. On the
contrary, Anzaldúa wanted to make sure her community understood its
existence as well as utility (2012).
Anzaldúa also pointed out the counter stance that the Mestiza assumes
as a step toward liberation (Anzaldúa 2007; Anzaldúa & Keating 2002).
What does this defiant ‘Hell no, I am not buying your attempts to mar-
ginalize me’ attitude mean when there are opportunities for the situation
to change? Do we trust the change agents? Can we really expect authentic
engagement? Can we really expect people working together side-by-side
to collectively work towards change?
People who face oppression have every right to take a counter
stance, and they have every right to be angry. However, the beauty
of what Anzaldúa brings to this contextual conversation, which paral-
lels so many of our own experiences, is that out of our anger we can
emerge far more actualized than we were when we initially embarked
upon crossing our own borders. Inherent in this emergence is also the
flexibility that we develop because of our counter stance to the rigid-
ity of definition and attempts to place us where the dominant culture
prefers us to reside.
Yet, sometimes this counter stance can also impede progress. Far too
many people who are marginalized may have difficulty navigating through
the psychological traumas that keep them imprisoned. Our answers are
not in textbooks, nor are they in the traditional paradigms of social service
and social work. Those paradigms typically address the desire to act upon
a situation rather than inspire people to take control of their lives through
introspection and internally driven change (Robinson-Easley 2012).
Perhaps the lessons we learn from Anzaldúa’s work include understand-
ing and learning how to effectively engage the people we want to help. It
is also important that we understand our motives and the paradigms we
bring to the change processes. There is indeed a more culturally sensitive
approach to change, which recognizes and respects the individualities of
the environments.
THE MERITS OF SAFE SPACE

When change agents embark upon their work, a place of safe space is rec-
ommended. When safe space is opened for people to communicate and
interact, there is more freedom for people to personally and collectively
deconstruct their blockages.
For example, I will never for a moment disrespect a family’s decision

to have their children work. If they are living in a developing country
where it is difficult to obtain essential resources, and the basics of life such
as food, water, etc., I cannot begin to understand what it is like to walk
in their shoes. However, what I do see that can be addressed is a fatalist
perspective regarding their situation. Yet, because of the demands of daily
existence, they may not be aware that they may have a fatalistic attitude.
Yes, they may have given in to working under poor working conditions
(poor physical conditions, subpar wages, long hours and inappropriate
child labor environments), but they also could be the only labor available
to the business in that region—a status which can change the balance of
power. I am not naive enough to believe that if one family refuses to work
in those conditions, another won’t be ready to take their place, which is
a problem. This is why engaging a community of people in a productive
dialogue where they communicate their feelings and desires is important.
What could emerge as a critical outcome of this conversation is an under-
standing of what constitutes a fatalist attitude and survival mentality at
any costs as opposed to a counter stance of solidarity where people insist
on their rights.
When people engage in this type of introspective dialogue they open
space for moving to a level of consciousness which brings to the forefront
their moral awareness as well as pragmatic views (Robinson-Easley 2014).
This higher level of consciousness can help the change process by moving
people towards an awareness of our interconnectedness (Marques 2008).
The leaders who are working in these local networks, who are heading
up the businesses, government entities, NGOs and other organizations
can also engage in their own intrapersonal dialogues that position them
to question why they are even working to help people. Where are they
in their own personal awareness of the issues and understanding of the
people who are impacted by the various issues? Can they truly connect
with the people or are they looking down on them from the platform of
the ‘local network’?
As intervenors we may possess unwarranted paradigms about the people
we want to help change, which can impact the results of our work. For
example, when working in New Orleans right before Hurricane Katrina, I
met with a group of people who were focused on helping individuals who
lived in the wards that were hardest hit by poverty. However, what became
apparent as we were moving through a strategic design process, utilizing AI
(Appreciative Inquiry), was how they identified the people (Easley 2010).
Terms like ‘those people’ continued to emerge during our dialogues, which
prompted me to halt the intervention and move into a discourse analy-
sis that required their deconstructing and understanding the labeling that
was being communicated. While many of the participants in the proposed
change process had moved out of the community and into more middle-
class neighbors, there were still a significant number of them who had not
left the communities. Those who identified themselves as change agents
did not even ‘hear’ their own dialogue and how it could have impacted or
disrespected the people they wanted to help (Easley 2010).
Simply stated, we have to understand where we are in the change
process, beyond the level of simply engaging in tasks. We have to move
beyond a simple business model of change and engage the hearts and souls
of people. We have to understand our state of being and how that state of
being can inform our receptiveness to change as well as our resistance to
it. Equally importantly, we need to understand the state of being for the
recipients of the change. Are they ready to step into their Creator-given
personal power? Because without that readiness, the sustainability of any
change initiative can be compromised.
There are no neutral educational processes (Freire 1970). Education
can either serve as an instrument that is used to facilitate the integration
of individuals into the logic of the present system and bring about confor-
mity, or as the practice of freedom where men and women deal critically
and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transfor-
mation of their world (Freire 1970).
I have also learned when working in African American communi-
ties, that one cannot arbitrarily apply strategies, particularly structurally
designed strategies to a community as a whole without first understanding
the historical context of the culture, the region in which the actors reside,
and the fact that the issues African American women face are different
from those African American men face (Easley 2010).
For example, when researching issues within the African American
female community, I have learned to acknowledge that there is also a
history specific to African American women’s experiences that is often
ignored—a history that is essential to understanding their perspective
on life in America, one that positions African American women within a
unique subculture that is not shared with African American men or White
women (2010). Therefore, while we may sympathize with White femi-
nists, their historical context and current realities are very different from
African American women.
It has been suggested that African Americans face a double con-

sciousness along with issues of duality because of continued oppression
(Robinson-Easley 2012). As a result, we question our value and worth
within this society while concomittantly working through socioeconomic
issues such as hunger, homelessness, unemployment, ill health, and drug
abuse (Terhune 2005; Townes 2005; West 1993).
In some cases, those that feel disenfranchised will exhibit anger, which
may be a politically necessary tool for addressing injustice (Frye 1983;
Lyman 1981, 2004; Spellman 1989 as cited in Simola 2009)—that coun-
ter stance Anzaldúa referenced. Yet, despite the possibility that anger can
contribute to positive change, the anger is often suppressed 2009.
As I write this book, in the USA there have been multiple killings of
African American males, and now more recently females, by police offi-
cers. African American communities across the country have been in an
uproar. Yet, those who criticize the community responses to these killings
and challenge the street riots that have occurred have failed to understand
that people are not just reacting to single incidents. They are reacting
to the history that has been embedded in their consciousness. Equally
importantly, in these cases, what many appear to not understand is that the
cloth of marginalization is not just worn by the poor. It is worn by African
American people from all walks of life and socio-economic status.
While investigations into the deaths of African Americans by predomi-
nately White police across several states in the USA have started, we have
heard the cry that ‘Black lives Matter’; a cry that has developed into a
movement.
Why is it necessary for people to have to reiterate that lives—regardless
of the ethnicity—matter? Are the underlying tenets of these actions any
different from those that gave rise to a Bhopal, the series of BP incidents,
the jelly bean fiasco at Texaco, and so on?
I have often, in my writing, referred to this quote by the late Rev. Dr.
Howard Thurman, and I believe it bears repeating now:
A profound piece of surgery has to take place in the very psyche of the dis-
inherited before the great claim of the religion of Jesus can be presented.
The great stretches of barren places in the soul must be revitalized, brought
to life before they can be challenged. (Thurman 1976, p. 9 in the 1996
forward by Vincent Harding)
Whether we are referencing Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, or other reli-

gious figures, I believe a critical tenet of Dr. Thurman’s quote is that
oppressed people have to face and deconstruct the psyche in order to

effectively return to a place in the soul where hope remains alive, and at
any given moment, a person can feel the hope and know that the ‘self’ is
capable of change.
Throughout the years I have studied the theory and practice of dis-
course analysis, where conversations are deconstructed in order to under-
stand the themes that are immersed in the conversations. Thematic
analyses can speak volumes and provide information that typically is not
heard. Globally, we need those conversations to emerge in a strategic and
systemic manner within a safe space that helps leaders truly understand
the next steps.
Some may believe that the involvement of people who are on the fringe
of a centralized network, or are totally out of the mainstream of change
agents, could pose threats to the viability of the initiatives. But Hart and
Sharma (2004, as cited in Simola 2009) suggested that the engagement
of fringe members, e.g., those who are disenfranchised and may not be in
the main flow of the change strategies, could also suggest highly profit-
able innovations for the organization(s). This level of engagement may be
particularly true for businesses working in developing countries where the
people are at the base of the economic pyramid, and organizations could
produce profitable technological solutions to widespread and pressing
needs in ways that also provide other benefits to members of indigenous
communities (Hart Christensen 2002 as cited in Simola 2009).
The same can hold true for addressing the increasing violence in chal-
lenged communities across the USA. What has to be understood is that
all stakeholders are critical to eradicating these problems. Yet, no one wins
when people feel disenfranchised and disrespected.
TAKING THE WORK TO THE NEXT LEVEL

While I see so much good in the UN work, I also see additional oppor-
tunities. In the June 24, 2004 session of the Global Compact, Dr. David
Cooperrider from Case Western Reserve University facilitated the session
at the UN headquarters using the methodology of Appreciative Inquiry
(AI). A year later, I attended a lecture given by him and listened with
intense interest as he described that session.
That 2004 session brought together over 500 CEOs, civil society
leaders, labor and UN leaders. Dr. Cooperrider utilized AI, which is
an organization development intervention strategy grounded in the
behavioral sciences for motivating the participants around a vision for
change. AI was first developed in 1986 by Dr. Cooperrider, who, at

the time was a doctoral student at Case Western Reserve University.
A primary foundation upon which AI is built is the proposition that
people are purposeful creatures with the capacity to select and produce
desirable outcomes, and that they will take responsibility for a task they
consider meaningful.
What intrigued me even more was the DVD recording of the session
that he shared with us. After his lecture Dr. Cooperrider most graciously
gave me his copy, which I have used in many of my management classes.
In that recording you could feel the energy in the room, and you could
also feel the commitment of the participants.
AI was utilized to identify common ground for the participants, who
were people in leadership positions. Their task was to vision change and
how their respective organizations could contribute to that change. What
was missing, albeit intentionally, were the people for whom the change
would be designed. However, that is not a criticism of this session. It was
important to get the leadership represented in that room focused on a
common vision where they could see, hear, and feel the power of a col-
lective effort. Dr. Cooperrider’s comments regarding this event and the
resulting report by the UN Secretary-General speaks volumes:
When you peruse the report I think you will feel, like I do, that what we
are capable of as human beings together as a global family is remarkable.
All we have to do, literally, is get in the same room with one another. While
it is beyond this commentary to go into the details, we continue to learn
how powerful it is to break down all the barriers and bring people together
to search for the true, the good, the better and the possible. ‘Yes’ It takes
courage to do what the UN did with its June summit. But in reality the risk
is low. Why? Because somehow the best in human beings comes out when
the ‘whole system’ is in the room, when people take the time to hear and
see the best in one another, and when the stories of innovation are ‘mined’
at a deeper level of systematic and rigorous inquiry into the good. Inquiry
itself is what matters—this is what leads to change—indeed we live in worlds
our questions create.12
The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his opening remarks said:
This is the largest and highest-level gathering of leaders from business, labor
and civil society ever held at the United Nations. Indeed, far more of you
were determined to attend than we anticipated in our wildest estimations.13
What was also important about this session was the utilization of AI as
the strategy for initiating conversation and the beginning of strategic
initiatives.
Human beings are quite capable of self-directing their behaviors and
possess the capacity to give meaning to their actions (Heron 1971).
However, as I suggested in the beginning of this book, drawing from
the work of Dr. Peter Reason, the investigative methods and change
strategies often utilized are generally grounded in orthodox scientific
methods, which more often than not systematically and intentionally
exclude the very people who are supposed to benefit from the change
from all choice about the subject matter of the investigation and the
resulting change strategies (Reason 1988). Another proposition posited
by Reason and worth noting is that the exclusion of people from meth-
ods designed to produce change can be deemed by critical stakeholders
as epistemologically unsound, thereby potentially impacting either the
implementation processes or the sustainability of the change. People will
rebel when not involved, which can contribute to the continued decline
of our society, a decline that fosters a mechanistic and disparate world-
view (Reason 1988). A classic example is continued gang violence. It
should not be a surprise after years of research that pointed to economi-
cally unstable communities being the foundation for gang violence that
gangs continue to thrive in such communities. Nor should it be a sur-
prise that when asked, gang members point to the need for jobs as a way
to address the violence. Consciously or unconsciously, we have allowed
little to change.
The utilization of AI is important for producing a new vision of
change for our world. Our world needs an worldwide ecumenical move-
ment that will call up an inner spiritual awakening to the unity of life and
consciousness (Korten 1996). Our world needs a different foundational
paradigm for engaging in a visioning process to facilitate a dream of the
future.
AI incorporates a structured mode of inquiry where individuals can be
inspired, mobilized and moved on the road for sustaining human systems
change (Cooperrider 1986). This is why so much energy was generated in
that 2004 summit. People became excited about what they could do and
how they could build on the core strengths they already possessed.
As a methodology, AI seeks to locate and heighten the life-giving prop-
erties or core values of organizations and their workforce. When we focus
on what gives us life, we are more inclined to think beyond the boundaries
of external differences and limitations (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987;

Thatchenkery 1996). And, when we focus on what gives us life, our
vision of innovation can rapidly expand. In other words, when we seek
out the very best of ‘what is’ we set the stage for imaging ‘what might be’
(Thatchenkery 1996).
I am grateful for the opportunity to study under Dr. David Cooperrider
as one of my first instructors in my doctoral program and also to have him
as a member of my doctoral committee. It was during that first class in
1996 with Dr. Cooperrider, that I became acquainted with Appreciative
Inquiry. I developed a passion for utilizing the strategy in my work. I felt
David’s passion as he described the many AI projects that had emerged
since publishing his first article on AI—projects that had significant effects
on social and business issues. While I don’t have the opportunity to speak
with him often, each time I have connected I still feel the excitement and
energy associated with his work.
It was very appropriate to hold the 2004 summit with the leaders
of organizations who communicated their commitment towards change
and had the resources to do so. However, as I am completing this book
in 2016, it is now twelve years since that 2004 summit, which means it
is quite possible that many of the people who led these organizations
then are no longer with them. And, it is very possible that those who
committed to the Ten Principles have experienced challenges in their
social responsibility history that will raise significant questions regarding
their current commitment. For example, Lord John Browne, who was an
active participant in the 2004 summit, left BP in 2007. Yet, BP’s issues
continue.
STEP ONE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE MODEL:

A RECONVENING CALL FOR LEADERS
Step one in my model suggests a broad call to leaders and other critical
stakeholders, and potential new participants, to join the Global Compact
and attend a session similar to the one held in 2004, a multi-day summit
that could require up to a week of participation. I believe it is appropriate
for the UN to initiate this expanded call and reconvening of leaders. While
there may be many meetings held under the broad umbrella of the Global
Compact, I respectfully posit that this call for assembly would go beyond
the scope of a normal meeting.
Fig. 8.1 Evoking phenomenal global change
Leaders that will choose to attend this call to action should understand
that a critical component of the impending summit will be their collec-
tively visioning a world of change. They will be asked to commit to a col-
lective vision and not just principles of what should not be in our world,
which means the work can be even more challenging.
Yes, we want to eradicate child labor, but what are the visions for an
optimum society where children across the globe are reaching their fullest
potential, going beyond the basic aims of eradicating hunger, poor hous-
ing, and so on? What will enable our children to build this world? What
are the foundations we need to give them? And, how can we begin to
help them process their personal experiences in order to ensure that their
current circumstances will never be experienced by future generations?
Therefore, if eliminating world hunger is a vision, they and others will
need to develop the vision that can exceed the paradigmatic parameters
we currently allow.
Far too often when we work from a deficit orientation, we subcon-
sciously become limited in our view. However, when we focus on the
optimum, our generative worldview can expand to limits previously not
experienced. Therefore, when we work to eradicate something, there is a
very different level of energy associated with that perspective. Yet, when
we work from the perspective of what can be—the optimum we can strive
for—the energy expands as do the ideas people generate. What were previ-
ously perceived barriers, can shift into opportunities. Our worldview can
dramatically expand.
STEP TWO OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE MODEL: LEADERS

DO THEIR INTERNAL WORK
Before attending this session, leaders should be challenged to venture
deep inside and meditate upon what fears and preconceived barriers they
may hold that could interfere with seeing their visions manifest them-
selves. So the internal work that was previously described becomes the
pre-work for the session. As previously discussed, it is important that
they identify what could be their shadow side. What if anything, is caus-
ing them to not move in the direction of their dreams and visions? Why
do these barriers exist?
You might say that taking this step could be perceived as antithetical
to the foundational principles of AI. However, during my many years of
consulting and working in whole systems change, in environments where
there has been significant challenges and deeply rooted psychological
trauma, I have learned that if the internal barriers are not faced, the rest
has the potential to simply become ‘happy talk’ because we have failed
to do the intrapersonal work that is necessary to move ourselves beyond
these self-imposed barriers.
Change can only effectively occur if there is a change of consciousness.
And, this change of consciousness can only occur when we are committed
to doing the hard work.
These are very personal questions that require the leaders go deep inside
their own connection to the universe and understand that there is a space
where they will find the courage to move this world towards their visions,
utilizing their personal strength as well as their organization’s strengths
and resources. But, they should ask what has held them back in the past
from this forward movement.
Once they have this very personal dialogue with themselves, it becomes
important for them to understand that which they have done to make
positive change—identify the positive core that resides within. It is this
alignment to this positive core that will help them understand that barriers
to their visions do not have to exist.
Sufficient time should be given to leaders to go through this level of
introspection. And, before moving forward with a summit, leaders should
connect with their respective leadership teams and invite them to engage
in the same introspective processes. It is not enough for just one leader
to go through this self-reflection process; they need their leadership team
on board. After each member of the leadership team has gone through his
or her personal process, they should come together and share that which
they feel comfortable with sharing. Sharing enables the leadership team to
understand what they have individually learned and how it applies to the
collective organization. They should also examine the process. I often ask
my students what they learned after I have taken them through similar
processes. Understanding the value proposition of a process can bring
significant insight.
The sharing of insights also affords time for this team to reflect upon
how their organization has embraced social responsibility, moral and ethi-
cal behavior and deep systemic change, and what organizational changes
will be needed as they move forward. In other words, it allows the leader-
ship to engage in reflection/reflexive actions that allows them to establish
if they are even on the same page. The barrier to change that one person
perceives can be construed as opportunities by another individual.
A quote I referenced in an earlier chapter, bears repeating as it pertains
to the critical relationship between reflection and reflective action …
When the remembered promises press for the liberation of people and
for the humanizing of their relationships, the reverse of this thesis is true:
everything depends upon interpreting these transformations critically. The
way of political hermeneutics cannot go one-sidedly from reflection to
action. That would be pure idealism. The resulting action would become
blind. Instead, this hermeneutic must bind reflection and action together
thus requiring reflection in the action as well as action in the reflection. The
hermeneutical method to which this leads is called in the ‘ecumenical discus-

sion’ the action-reflection method. (Moltmann 2006, p. 44)
We should also not allow Dr. Moltmann’s reference to the concept of

ecumenical discussion impede our understanding of the magnitude of
this concept (Robinson-Easley 2014). You see, a critical definition of the
adjective ‘ecumenical’ is: ‘of worldwide scope or applicability; universal’.14
STEP THREE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE MODEL:

A MULTI-DAY INCLUSIVE SUMMIT
Yes, it is important to bring together governments, business, civil soci-
ety and labor, but it is also important to bring together the people for
whom the work has to be done. It is through their participation and per-
spective that we begin to understand what a new vision for a future can
really mean. It is through their participation that we can understand how
their cultural norms and values will affect successful implementation. And
equally important, it is through their participation that people can ‘hear’
if the proposed visions for change are even aligned to what people at the
grassroots levels need.
When we call for the participation of civil society members, we assume
that the voices of the people are heard, but that may not always be true.
Those institutions and organizations that comprise ‘civil society’ may have
their own vested interests that will not completely align with the interests
of the people who work in the sweatshops, the parents and children who
work for substandard wages, the women who do not work and play on
level playing fields. No one should presume to be able to speak for them
or articulate their needs. Their voices must be heard and understood.
For example, when addressing concerns regarding the impact of the
Global Compact upon Africa, early into its inception, it was suggested that
the key to successful change might lie in building upon African cultural val-
ues that share common ground with the Global Compact’s commitment to
partnership. Research on culture in Africa consistently reveals that collec-
tivism is highly valued.15 There are many people who, under the umbrella
of civil society, participate in the Compact and are said to represent the
people. But, as I respectfully suggested earlier, humans are quite capable of
self-directing their behaviors and possess the capacity to give meaning to
their actions (Heron 1971). So, what does this really mean? If the goal is
to serve the world’s poorest people—then these are the people who should
also have a seat at the table alongside the corporate leaders, civil society,
government and any other entity that believes they represent their voices.
From the onset of a change initiative, they should be active participants.
They can selected by different methods to attend this leadership. The
local networks can select people; or corporations can bring in workers
who reside in the areas that have most problems. For example, I wonder
what people who work in sweatshops would have to say regarding their
vision for a better world, given the opportunity to sit at the table? Equally
challenging, I wonder what the leaders of corporations, NGOs and civil
society would have to say if they were to hear those voices?
The United Nations promotes the concept that dialogue is criti-
cal. Productive dialogues can impact how policy is framed and understood,
how incentives for change are structured and what regulatory changes are
required. Yet, even in the midst of productive dialogues, if the voices of
the people for whom the efforts are designed are not included, a change
process can be negatively impacted.16
THE STRUCTURE AND OUTCOMES OF THE SUMMIT

Utilizing an appreciative process to vision what our world can look like can
be a powerful endeavor, similar to the 2004 summit. The energy of that
summit was powerful. Visioning a changed world that values the humanity
of all people can also be an overwhelming process because the needs are so
great. The utilization of AI is important because it positions the propen-
sity to be overwhelmed just where it belongs—outside of the site. It is also
important to order the priorities that emerge based upon time constraints,
manpower and other resources. Each strategic goal should have a value
proposition associated with it that includes the immediacy of need and the
likelihood of adhering to implementation timetable.
While I believe the strategic implementation plan for the local networks
is a good design, the major point with which I differ is their rolling out
different change strategies per locale. The bottom-up approach which
describes the UN’s integrated global-local strategic planning process states
that local networks have the opportunity to choose from the full portfolio
of Global Compact platforms and issue areas. Therefore the global agenda
priorities and best practices are brought to the local level, with each locale
identifying their priorities for implementation.17
Additionally, individuals who participate as Global Compact signato-

ries will participate in public policy dialogues to define and shape local
and national development plans that are addressed in the Post-2015 UN
agenda. These individuals will take an active role in multi-stakeholder
partnerships and in other collective actions as a means for implement-
ing the agenda, and will participate in defining local accountability frame-
works that promote convergence and complementarity among public and
private actions.18
There are many theories and praxes that address the interconnectivity
of our world. And, when you factor in the distance of countries, it can be
challenging to imagine each local network working a different agenda,
even if the respective agendas fall under the broader umbrella of a Global
Compact. Additionally, when entities are embarked upon different efforts,
it becomes a little more difficult to gage how much progress and change
actually has been made.
Consequently, a key objective I recommend from the summit is a com-
mon agenda, with common timetables, metrics and platforms utilizing
postmodern organization development intervention strategies for roll-out.
Within these common frameworks, country culture and micro-cultural
values, norms and behaviors can clearly be factored in. I am reminded of
a presentation years ago by a GE (General Electric) executive with whom
I completed my doctoral program. She talked about specific initiatives on
a global level for her corporation. Each of the initiatives represented key
points of the corporation’s strategic plan. When asked how these initia-
tives were implemented, what struck me was the proposition by GE that
under no circumstance would they compromise the key strategic points of
the corporation. However, when implementing on a local level, the imple-
mentation strategies would take into consideration country culture. In
other words, senior leadership understood that country culture could
impact the “how to” of implementing a common strategy and resulting
steps.
The UN signatories through the identification of its Ten Principals
clearly understood the challenges facing this world. When you view the
challenges as opportunities to vision a different future—a world where
lack is turned into prosperity, similar to GE’s perspective, I do not believe
that strategy design and implementation can be compromised. Yes, there
will be differences in terms of the practicalities of implementation and
country culture, but a strategy that lacks continuity and commonality of
vision risks failure.
A strategy that lacks a focused implementation where people converge

at each stage of the process risks failure because it becomes very difficult
to manage how the metrics are being met. And yes, there is a fine line
to be managed between being prescriptive and utilizing sound project
management skills. Equally importantly, a common strategy and tactical
implementation steps can quickly promote transparency and trust which
are common themes in the local network initiatives.
THE APPLICATION OF APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY (AI)

What would this multi-day session look like? Similar to the 2004 session,
the utilization of AI as a whole systems change process would be most
appropriate. Why? Throughout my years researching challenged commu-
nities, I have found that some of the most pervasive psychological charac-
teristics with people who live in challenging environments are insecurity
and the belief that the mainstream’s vision of the future is unattainable to
them. However, if people are to believe in change, dislodge hopelessness
and vision a new future, they must be a part of the change process and believe
that they have control over their future. Equally importantly, they need
to vision a different reality, one that is important to them as individuals
and as a collective organization. They cannot vision this future via others
representing them. Of course you cannot get the whole system into the
room as we see it from a global basis, but if people begin to see that others
have had the opportunity to be heard, it can release a spiral of hopefulness.
With today’s technology, the incorporation of additional voices—those
people who may not be able to physically get into the room—can easily
be accomplished, and the sharing and relationship building can also be
enhanced. It might be argued that not everyone has access to technol-
ogy, but that is not really a barrier as we have enough global resources to
ensure shared access.
So, what could this look like? Let me explain my perspective via an
example. In 2008, I attended a conference in Turkey. Someone took the
initiative to set up a group forum on Facebook, a social media site I was
not familiar with at the time. I am not one to spend a lot of time on the
telephone, but now through social media, beginning with Facebook, I
have been able to stay in contact with my international colleagues who
have become friends, share their joys and celebrations and, importantly,
interact and exchange intellectually. Technology has enabled many walls
to come down, allowing people to understand and experience in real time
that the many perceived differences we have are not as marked as we may
have thought.
Most inquiries into the lives of people who live in challenged environ-
ments are a focus on what is wrong, broken, and not working. The images
and language surrounding them are negative—messages of despair.
As a methodology, AI it seeks to locate and heighten the life-giving
properties or core values of organizations and individuals (Cooperrider and
Srivastva 1987). And, while AI is a mode of action research (different, how-
ever, from the traditional Lewinian approach) that meets the criteria of sci-
ence as spelled out in generative-theoretical terms, it also has as its basis a
metaphysical proposition that posits that social existence is a miracle that can
never be fully comprehended (Quinney 1982; Marcel 1963; Cooperrider
and Srivastva 1987). In contrast to traditional action research, AI addresses
the question of how organizations and individuals can engage in dialogue
that is focused on the goal of seeking a common positive vision of a collec-
tively desired future (Barrett and Cooperrider 1990).
AI has four basic principles:
1. Inquiry into the “art of the possible” in organizational life should

begin with appreciation.
2. Inquiry into what’s possible should be applicable.
3. Inquiry into what’s possible should be provocative.
4. Inquiry into the human potential of organizational life should be
collaborative (Cooperrider 1986).
The key phases of the AI process include defining the topic, inquiring
into the life-giving properties that includes data collection and discovery,
articulating possibility propositions (e.g. visioning the ideal), establishing
consensual validation/agreement through dialogue, and discussing co-
construction of the future (the participants leave the session with specific
action steps) (Williams 1996).
The first principle of AI assumes that every system works to some
degree. The second principle of AI assumes that inquiry into what is possi-
ble should be applicable—which further supports the need to bring to the
table the voices of people for whom the change is intended (Cooperrider
1990). The third principle assumes that an organization is an open-ended,
indeterminate system that is capable of becoming more than it is at any
given moment while learning how to take part in guiding its own evolution
(1990). This perspective is critical for leaders, but more so if they have
gone through their personal work which helps them to understand that
barriers may only exist within their own minds. The last principle of AI
assumes collaborative interaction and action (1990).
Throughout the years of utilizing AI, researchers and change agents
continue to purport that one of the strengths of AI rests with its self-
reinforcing and self-generative capacity (1990). Unfortunately, when one
reviews the literature on social programs, they seldom have representation
from the ranks of those they are supposed to serve (Claerbaut 1983).
There are other principles embedded within AI, namely: the heliotropic
evolution, the Pygmalion effect, and the anticipatory principle. Over the
years, research has suggested that the power of AI and its Pygmalion effect
is evident when the investigation and intervention is approached from a
positive orientation, where valuing is inherent in the methodology and is
expected of the participants (Cooperrider 1986). The greatest value from
the perspective of the Pygmalion theory is that it begins to provide empiri-
cal understanding of the relational pathways of the positive image-positive
action dynamic and of the transactional basis of the human self (1986).
To understand the ‘self’ as a symbolic social creation is to recognize
that human beings are essentially modifiable, are open to new develop-
ment, and are products of the human imagination and mind. Like the
placebo response, it appears that the positive image plants a seed that redi-
rects the mind of the perceiver to think about and see the other with
affirmative eyes (Cooperrider 1986). This is particularly germane to get-
ting a true representation of the whole system in the room (all critical
stakeholders) when looking to take the Global Compact to a higher level.
Leaders should hear the voices of people who need the change, yet at the
same time look at them with affirming eyes. The same principle holds
true for those who are impacted by the challenges described in the Global
Compact. Imagine the power of hearing the voice of a child worker and
his or her dreams, while at the same time looking into the eyes of that
child and truly seeing their desires. And imagine the dialogue that could
ensue between that child worker and the leader of his or her organization.
Imagine what in the past has been the unimaginable!
Another principle is the heliotropic evolution, which suggests that
humans are metaphorically heliotropic in character in the sense that there
is an automatic tendency to evolve in the direction of positive imagery. The
same is suggested for organizations. We tend to move more rapidly and
effectively in the direction of affirmative imagery (moving toward light)

than in the opposite direction towards negative imagery (Cooperrider
1986). While it was evident that there was movement towards light in
the 2004 session, this movement can be immensely enlarged by bringing
more people to the table who are the actors in the day-to-day play of the
circumstances being addressed. Inherent in AI is the concept of helping
an individual visualize (and grow) with positive imagery. Cooperrider sug-
gests that positive imagery can and often does awaken the body to its own
self-healing powers (1990).
Therefore, where in the past people have been reluctant to believe that
they have the personal power to create their own change—imagine the
awakening that can occur when you truly have all the critical stakeholders
in the room in the midst of an abundance of positive energy.
The last principle associated with AI is the anticipatory principle. It is
suggested that our future reality is permeable, emergent, and open to the
mind’s causal influence. Reality is conditioned, reconstructed, and often
profoundly created through our anticipatory images, values, plans, inten-
tions, and beliefs (Cooperrider 1990). Embedded within this proposition
is the thought that every social action somehow involves anticipation of
the future, in the sense that it involves a reflexive looking-forward-to and
backward-from movement; similar to that described by Moltmann.
When actors in the day-to-day play of life are continually exposed to
interventions that focus on prescriptive techniques that emerge from a
focus on changing what is ‘wrong’ (e.g., deficit orientations), we risk sup-
pressing any anticipatory images they could envision that would suggest
moving from their present condition. People across the world need a posi-
tive purpose for continuing to live, and they need an alternative vision for
using the skills they already possess. People truly are capable of generating
alternative ways in which they can view their world, and they are equally
capable of generating options for change. Yet, we seldom bring them to
the table. We engage people we believe to be their representatives, but
rarely their personal voices.
Imagine the strength of change if people around the globe saw that
people who have similar experiences to them, and have gone through
similar challenges, are suddenly invited to design the next steps of change.
Imagine the power in that action; imagine the dreams that would begin
to unfold, and imagine the accountability that organizations would now
face. Failure would not be an option, nor would lackadaisical behaviors,
simply because the risks would be far too high, as would the exposure. The
architects of the Global Compact would not be the only people viewing
and evaluating the change strategies; the whole world would be looking
and evaluating results.
AI fosters the opportunity for people to talk about their ideals. The
greatest instrument of achievement and improvement is the ideal, which
is an intricate part of our value systems. When we truly have all the criti-
cal stakeholders in the room talking about ideals, the ability to shift the
dynamics associated with morality, ethical behaviors and the resulting
social responsibility actions can shift to a level that we have yet to reach.
Why? The answer is quite simple.
AI as a change strategy compels people to collectively inquire into the
deeper life-generating essentials and potentials of existence. This inquiry,
through a positive language, also facilitates deeper inquiry relative to self
and to relationships with one another, which suggests that one cannot
escape the dialogue that addresses a change in moral code. It is inevitable,
and it is truly needed if we are to change the dynamics of our world.
Inclusively, the ability to learn to value others is interconnected with the
ability to socially relate to others in the context of common goals, trust,
respect, and a constructive learning environment. And, as previously
stated, through the use of technology people can keep all critical stake-
holders, regardless of location, informed of progress.
STEP FOUR OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE MODEL: ENGAGE

THE LOCAL NETWORKS AND LOCAL CITIZENRY
IN A DIALOGUE AND CHANGE STRATEGY THAT ADDRESSES
IDENTITY AND OPENS PSYCHOLOGICAL DOORS
FOR CHANGE
So what can emerge from this multi-day summit is the vision and outline
of the strategy, implementation steps, metrics, and tactics for keeping the
communication channels ongoing—daily if necessary—to insure vigor and
energetic movement, which will be communicated broadly to all who have
identified themselves as partakers in this worldwide initiative. The next step
is to bring the processes to a localized level after the proposed AI summit.
For far too long, people who live and work in challenged environments
have drowned in negative imagery and language that has inappropriately
impacted their collective and individual voices (Robinson-Easley 2012).
They need the tools to learn how to alternatively view those images,
language, and hear the resulting voice, which is why AI is an important

strategy for creating change.
Yet, in addition to the positive imagery and visioning AI inspires, peo-
ple who are looking to create deep systemic change should also critically
examine the role of metaphors in their life and how they have deflected
their ability to draw upon the strengths of their historical context. Quite
simply, before we look to change behaviors at all stakeholder levels, we
should examine the human choices we make. I propose this internal
examination for the leaders and suggest spiraling this process throughout
their leadership teams. However, this process is equally important for the
people who live and work in the environments we are looking to change,
beginning with the local networks.
The imagery that we have been historically exposed to must be studied
because it represents ways we see an object as if it were something else
(Barrett and Srivastva 1991). Sweatshops, child labor, communities with
inadequate water, housing and infrastructures—our global ‘mess’—are
images which constantly bombard people who reside in these environ-
ments. The meanings people attach to those images can and often do
impact how they categorize other areas of their lives, which acts as a way of
organizing their perceptions regarding their ability to successfully design,
develop and experience sustaining change (Srivastva and Barrett 1988).
It has been suggested that sense-making is socially situated in a local
organizational context (Weick 1995). When looking to understand how
people interpret and attaching meaning to localized situations we have
to also understand how metaphors impact the social consciousness of a
locale. Metaphors can and do work as a framework for selecting, naming,
and framing characteristics of an experience by asserting similarity with a
different, seemingly unrelated object or experience. Metaphors transfer
meaning from one domain onto another and can either enrich or enhance
meaning, or make sense out of something in a new and different way
(Srivastva and Barrett 1988).
Metaphors are more capable of capturing the continuing flow of experi-
ence than literal language and can transfer more meaning than that which
can be said in literal translation (Srivastva and Barrett 1988), which means
people should examine the metaphors of life they have internalized. Simply
put, if we are not aware of how we have internalized meaning, or how we
daily engage in sense-making, bringing about change is risky because we
do not have the internalized psychological mechanisms in place to sustain
the change, or understand when and why we become uncomfortable.
Critically examining our metaphors can also be clues to the underlying

paradigms of a given social system. Let me give you an example. During
my gang research in the late 1990s I asked the youth participating in the
research what they knew about people who lived in projects in the city
of Chicago. Now, these young people were deeply entrenched in gang
life, but this particular group did not live in projects. On the opposite
side of the spectrum, they lived in middle- to upper-middle-class neigh-
borhoods and had middle-class parents. Their responses were interesting.
Drawing upon the imagery, and I might add often negative images of
African American people who lived in projects that were portrayed in mul-
tiple media outlets, they stated that people who lived in projects were bad
people. I then further inquired by asking what would they be like if they
lived in the projects—their response: they would be bad people.
These children had never lived or actually visited projects, but the
images that they had internalized about people whom they knew nothing
about was very insightful when examining how images have the ability to
be influential in people’s vision of reality. Yet, when we learn to decon-
struct and concomitantly alter our vision of reality by understanding the
negative as well as positive images we have internalized and how they have
impacted our perception and understanding of additional metaphors in
our life, this information can also be seen as frame expanding and a facilita-
tor of radically new knowledge (Srivastva and Barrett 1988).
To actively understand and change how people socially construct their
world and the relational interpretations of their environment also calls for
people to possess a fundamental knowledge of their historical context and
the positive social imagery that can reside in their past (Robinson-Easley
2012). This knowledge and reminder of who you are is very important.
You see, if you are continually bombarded with messages that convey you
are drowning in despair, and you do not have the knowledge or under-
standing of how you have overcome that despair in your past (or the past
of your ancestors), it becomes extremely hard even to begin to conceptu-
alize alternatives (Robinson-Easley 2012).
Therefore, in addition to a critical examination of the metaphors people
have internalized, there is the need for a conversation that focuses on
historical inquiry, which can help people envision a new understanding of
the present and potential for a richer future (Barrett and Srivastva 1991).
Engaging in historical inquiry is also a very important foundation for
appreciating new possibilities because the recognition of the positive past
concretizes one’s understanding of core strengths, which is foundational
to envisioning possibilities (Robinson-Easley 2012). Or, as Anzaldúa so

profoundly stated:
The struggle has always been inner, and is played out in the outer terrains.
Awareness of our situation must come before inner changes, which in turn
come before changes in society. Nothing happens in the ‘real’ world unless
it first happens in the images in our heads. (Anzaldúa 2007, p. 109)
So, how can we begin these deep conversations?
THE CONCEPT OF INTENTIONAL DIALOGUE

Throughout my research and work, I have coined the term ‘intentional
dialogue’. While there are many variations on the concept of intentional
dialogue, for me the concept utilizes specific methodologies, such as dis-
course analysis to unclog the internalized emotions, beliefs, and visions
of the continuation of a dismal future that persist even in the midst of
change.
You see, even the best structural strategies will not bring people around
to the highest level that they can perform because they are holding so
much inside—distrust, anger, even hatred of their circumstances and the
people they associate as being their oppressors. Real or imagined circum-
stances, these emotions exist. Yes, they can vision a better future, but when
working to bring about this future, invariably they can and will go back to
their submissive behaviors because it is so ingrained in them.
If we are to engage people successfully at the local level, there is also
a need to facilitate their listening to their own voices and engaging in a
methodology to deconstruct the real meaning behind their actions, and
even more importantly the words they use as descriptors of their lives.
The local network implementation strategy calls for Compact signatories
and other relevant stakeholders to design an implementation plan that
addresses the needs of the locale. However, beyond a surface change, how
do they know what the local people really need? Yes, there may be a need
in the structure of jobs, the economic circumstances that prevail and other
structural change processes. But there are real questions that have to be
addressed, such as how quickly can people adapt to structural change, and
what internalized issues might keep them from sustaining a mindset of
entitlement to the change, which is necessary for the change processes to
be systemic?
Utilizing a methodology that helps people deconstruct the vary-

ing meanings they have internalized also helps them better understand
how they have walked away from a historical context that may suggest
that they actually have a long history of strength, and how they have
allowed various forms of external stimuli, such as the media, to formu-
late their perceptions (e.g. their metaphorical analysis) of how they see
their world.
In many respects people may have accommodated to these environ-
ments in order to survive and as a result their response actions may have
become an assimilated part of who they are.
Anzaldúa addressed this issue when she described the cognitive disso-
nance faced by Mexicans who had migrated to the United States:
The ambivalence from the clash of voices results in mental and emotional
states of perplexity. Internal strife results in insecurity and indecisiveness.
The mestiza’s dual or multiple personality is plagued by psychic restlessness.
(Anzaldúa 2007, p. 100)
So, what does this mean? Until people who face strife dig deep into their
psychological blockages and work through the hidden representations
they carry inside, their ability to design, develop and sustain deep sys-
temic change could be compromised. There are many methodologies for
structuring a conversation that focuses on deconstructing these hidden
representations. The methodology I have favored over the years is dis-
course analysis, previously mentioned, which allows individuals, preferably
in facilitated group settings, to engage in a dialogue and critically examine
the themes that emerge from that dialogue. When they see these themes
emerge, new conversations have to develop that question the psychology
of why these themes even exist and why they continue to endure, along
with asking how their internalized beliefs have impacted their ability to
make a difference in their lives.
The individualities of people’s histories, joys, and pain typically run
deep, which means they should work towards acknowledging each aspect
because these components help make up who they are and, in many
respects, constitute the foundation for moving forward (Robinson-Easley
2012). Appropriately stated:
At some point, on our way to a new consciousness, we will have to leave

the opposite bank, the split between the two mortal combatants somehow
healed so that we are on both shores at once and, at once, see through
serpent and eagle eyes. Or perhaps we will disengage from the dominant
culture, write it off altogether as a lost cause, and cross the border into
a wholly new and separate territory. Or we might go another route. The
possibilities are numerous once we decide to act and not react. (Anzaldúa
2007, p. 101)
Even though people can and will come to the table to vision a better future,
there will be suppressed feelings regarding their circumstances, the people
who they see as oppressors, and any related situations and/or individu-
als. I also suggest there will be a high level of frustration because they see
themselves powerless to produce change. Cognitive dissonance can and
will prevail. Butler (2006) suggested that it is thinly veiled line that exists
between a cry for justice and expressions of hate. He saw rage as a way
of being uncontrollable and unstoppable unless its energy is redirected.
If this rage is not redirected, it will consume you. He also suggested that
rage will develop when one’s humanity is denied and an individual’s or
race’s existence is controlled by those who attempt to objectify their exis-
tence. However, there is also a duality in rage—the creative transformation
which conquers circumstances and restores the soul to living a life with joy
(2006).
Therefore, beginning with the local networks before any engagement
of strategy implementation steps begins, people should have these con-
versations, and they should be conversations facilitated by people who are
trained in the intervention and varying thematic analyses modalities.
SPIRAL THE DIALOGUE AND CHANGE STRATEGIES

These conversations, however, should not stop with individuals asso-
ciated with the local networks. They should be moved into the vari-
ous communities, which expands the number of people asking critical
questions that are important for a change process. When critical ques-
tions are posited and their answers deconstructed, people can awaken
to their right to live a productive life and insist that the playing fields
become equalized. When we change our perspective on poverty, we can
change the world. When we understand that even those who sit in the
boardrooms of corporations, whose questionable ethics produce the
despair that has been discussed throughout this book, have issues of
poverty—the poverty of spirit previously mentioned, will we be able to

design and implement change. You see:
We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless.
The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest
poverty. We must start in our own homes to remedy this kind of poverty.
Mother Teresa19
NOTES
1. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/about_the_gc/UNGlobal
8. http://unglobalcompact.org/NetworksAroundTheWorld/.
9. http://unglobalcompact.org/NetworksAroundTheWorld/Guidelines_
and_Recommendations.html#Create.
10. http://unglobalcompact.org/NetworksAroundTheWorld/Guidelines_
and_Recommendations.html#Create.
11. http://therearenoothers.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/othering-
101-what-is-othering/.
12. http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/commentFeb05.cfm.
13. http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/commentFeb05.cfm.
14. http://www.wordnik.com/words/ecumenical.
15. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/newsandevents/articles_and_papers/
african_enterprises_and_gc.html.
16. http://greenleaf-publishing.com/content/pdfs/jcc11kell.pdf.
17. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/engage-locally/about-local-networks.
18. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/engage-locally/about-local-networks.
19. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mothertere130839.
html.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anzaldúa, G. (2007). Borderlands/La Frontera, the New Mestiza (3rd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.
Anzaldúa, G., & Keating, A. (Eds.). (2002). This bridge we call home, radical
visions for transformation. New York: Routledge.
Barrett, F., & Cooperrider, D. (1990). Generative metaphor intervention: A new
approach for working with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive
perception. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(2), pp. 222–224.
Barrett, F., & Srivastva, S. (1991). History as a mode of inquiry in organizational
life: A role for human cosmogony. Human Relations, 44, 236–244.
Bouglet, J., Joffre, O., & Simon, E. (2012). How to reconcile business with sus-
tainable development: An innovation approach. Society and Business Review,
7(3), 212–222.
Butler, L. H. (2006). Liberating our dignity, saving our souls. St. Louis, MO:
Chalice Press.
Claerbaut, D. (1983). Urban ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House.
Cooperrider, D. L.. (1986). Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for under-
standing and enhancing organizational innovation. Unpublished dissertation,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of
organizing. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative manage-
ment and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational
life. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change
and Development, Vol. 1, pp. 129–169. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Easley, C. A. (2010). Expanding a conversation: Is how we live as a culturally
diverse society congruent with our underlying assumptions, methodologies and
theories regarding change? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(1), 55–72.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.
Goldstein, A. P. (1991). Delinquent gangs, a psychological perspective. Champaign,
IL: Research Press.
Heron, J. (1971). Experience and method: An inquiry into the concept of experien-
tial research. Human Potential Research Project, University of Surrey.
Korten, D. C. (1996). When corporations rule the world. West Hartford, CT:
Kumarian Press.
Marais, M. (2012). CEO rhetorical strategies for corporate social responsibility
(CRS). Society Business Review, 7(3), 223–243.
Marcel, G. (1963). The existential background of human dignity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Marques, J. (2008). Toward higher consciousness: A time for “US”. Interbeing,

2(1), 33–41.
Moltmann, J. (2006). The politics of discipleship and discipleship in politics. Oregon,
OR: Wipf & Stock.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 570–581.
Quinney, R. (1982). Social existence: Metaphysics, marxism, and the social sciences.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Reason, P. (1988). Human inquiry in action, developments in new paradigm
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Simola, S. (2009). Anti-corporate activist anger: Inappropriate irrationality or
social change essential? Society and Business Review, 4(3), 215–230.
Srivastva, S., & Barrett, F. (1988). The transforming nature of metaphors in group
development: A study in group theory. Human Relations, 41(1), 31–64.
Terhune, C. P. (2005–2006). Biculturalism, code-switching, and shifting: The
experiences of black women in a predominately white environment.
International Journal of the Diversity, 5(6), 9–15.
Thatchenkery, T. (1996). Affirmation as facilitation. A postmodernist paradigm in
change management. OD Practitioner, 28(1–2), 12–22.
Thurman, H. (1976). Jesus and the disinherited. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Townes, E. (Ed.). (2005). A troubling in my soul: Womanist perspectives on evil and
suffering. New York: Orbis Books.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
West, C. (1993). Race matters. New York: Vintage Press.
Williams, R. (1996). Survey guided appreciative inquiry: A case study. OD
Practitioner, 28(1/2), 43–51.
CHAPTER 9
Living and Sustaining the Ideal
Intentionally added to the model discussed in Chapter Eight are arrows

that suggest the need to repeat the cycle. The reasons for this are simple.
First and foremost, albeit a cliché, we do indeed live in a global envi-
ronment that is dynamically changing. Yet, I believe that this dynamic
change is also calling for a dynamic shift in consciousness for everyone
that inhabits our globe. Not everyone will be able to make that shift in
consciousness, which produces a shift in behaviors and subsequent actions
and outcomes. But I believe when we engage a critical mass of people,
change at all levels can and will occur.
I also respectfully suggest that the people who have been identified as
promulgators of the issues discussed in this book are not all intention-
ally invoking negativity. There is a need to teach people to do better.
Consequently, I believe when people make the choice to read about issues
from a different prespective and open their eyes, hearts and souls to want-
ing to do better, while everyone does not have to be on board, a critical
mass is indeed important.
In order to ensure that change is sustained within the confines of the
dynamics of change within our world, there has to be a mechanism for
reviewing the present circumstances and thereby repeating the cycle.
Again, I suggest that a body such as the UN which has its eyes and ears
open to these dynamics is an appropriate one to monitor when it is time
to reconvene.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_9
Sustaining the change, however, before engaging in a new cycle is criti-

cal, and there are steps that cannot be avoided because if they are, we risk
spiraling back into the abyss from which we have emerged.
SUSTAINING THE CHANGE—UNDERSTANDING
THE DYNAMICS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND A COMMON BASE
FOR STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
Far too often, strategies and tactical steps fail or encounter slow move-
ment because there is a lack of accountability measures put into place
to promote specific goals and outcomes, to identify accountable people,
and to determine specific objectives and outcomes. Equally importantly,
communication strategies, such as linking people globally via technology,
identifying who will lead the communications and how often will there be
communications and to whom, in concert with timelines for appropriate
feedback are important elements for staying on task.
Once the stakeholders that have attended the call to action set forth a
vision, specific goals and implementation steps should be set. However, a
critical component of setting goals is setting ones that can be accomplished
within a specific time frame. People have been disappointed enough as it
is, therefore the setting of lofty goals that cannot be implemented within a
designated time period only sends out additional messages that people are
not serious regarding the change processes.
When you have a common strategy and goals, even if their implementa-
tion processes may be moderated by country culture, a real common dia-
logue that evaluates the success of the processes can ensue because there
is more commonality.
Reasonable timetables for implementation should be set according to the
reality of achieving those goals and obtaining the requisite resources. Goals
that require more time and resources can be placed ‘on the docket’ for a
later schedule. Strategy implementation is also broken into tactical steps that
are disseminated to individualized operating units, which would have to be
defined as they pertain to the local networks. Yet, again local networks will
need to be careful not to create operating silos. It is important to understand
when and where collaboration across countries and contexts can occur.
Strategic implementation also suggests the need for very tight feed-
back processes that should be defined from the initial level of reporting/
accountability at the UN level and disseminated throughout all the local
networks. To ensure that the agreed-to strategies remain on target also
LIVING AND SUSTAINING THE IDEAL 179
requires a constant check on goal congruency among all units, in addition

to a dialogue that promotes a convergence of ideas.
People who drive the strategy at all levels need to possess the core com-
petencies and be willing to actively engage in learning. This means that a
critical part of the conversation at the summit is participants identifying
what are in fact those requisite critical core competencies and resources.
Additionally, performance outcomes along with the enactment of those
critical core competencies should be constantly viewed and measured.
These accountability measures for performance also imply that if needed,
corrective action is implemented.
So, what if it is found that there is a lack of critical core competencies?
Clearly, an important tactical step is training and development, which if we
are looking to bring forth a change in consciousness can be an important
step.
A critical component of strategic implementation is also scenario plan-
ning, which is why there is a loop back to the beginning in the model.
Very simply, scenario planning implies that people are on the constant
look out for the unexpected or for changes in the environment, which can
either be abrupt or occur over time. Scenario planning requires a careful
and ongoing examination of the political, economic, social, cultural, and
global contexts which help leaders understand what the possibilities of an
immediate shift in our environment could be, and how we would have to
incorporate potential change into the strategic-planning processes at the
UN level as well as the impact that could occur at the local network levels.
STRATEGIC PLANNING AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL

Strategic planning just does not entail changing our external environment.
As people in the local networks walk through their critical dialogues, an
important part of the outcome of those conversations should also include
the development of their individual change strategies.
Intrapersonal change has to be intentional, which is why intentional
dialogues are critical. It is suggested that the most sustainable behavioral
change can be affected by your will, values and motivations—self directed
by what drives you and gives you joy versus what you believe you must
endure. Stakeholders should learn to feel the possibilities that they can
personally accomplish, and allow themselves the job of visioning what they
want to be versus where they currently find themselves. This may not be a
linear process (Boyatzis 2010).
Change at the intrapersonal level will challenge people to be authen-

tic about where they want to live in alignment with their core values
(Robinson-Easley 2013). This change will also mean people understand
and commit to a morality and level of personal ethics and integrity that
is rarely if ever compromised. It is also suggested that the pieces of one’s
life need to fit together to feel coherence and consistency. Equally impor-
tantly, one needs to maintain the will to continually learn while helping
others do the same (Friedman 2006). This is why bringing people in from
all walks of life in the local communities is important. Not only is there
a need for holistic change, but there is a widespread need for movement
towards a revitalization of people’s personal power and vision for a better
life.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyatzis, R. (2010). How people change. Leadership Excellence, 27(10), 17.
Friedman, S. (2006). Learning to lead in all domains of life. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 49(9), 1270–1297.
CHAPTER 10
Concluding Comments
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
In the beginning of this book, I said our world is in crisis. We have issues
that have continued to manifest for far too many years and many still
remain either unaddressed or insufficiently addressed. These issues impede
people living productive lives and in many cases, in developing as well
as undeveloped countries, they impede the productive lives of our most
important resource—our children. As I have worked towards finishing this
book, our situations, nationally and internationally, worsen.
We have corporations that are continuing to destroy our environment,
creating imbalances in our economies and leaving the varying environ-
ments and people scathed by hardships. And, equally critically, we have
governments and government officials who fail to serve the people who
elect them and are viewed by many as supporting agendas that are only
serving personal interests. We have school systems that are not educating
children adequately, and throughout our world we have children who do
not even have the privilege of having an education. We have people living
in environments where there is abject poverty, unhealthy living condi-
tions, and lack of the basic necessities of food and clean water.
The list can go on. Yet, in the midst of these tragedies, we have people
who care, corporations who have committed to making a difference, and
government officials as well as NGOs that are striving to make a difference.
The needs are great and there has to be a critical mass of change agents.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_10
I also believe that the strategy for change has to be different. Twenty-one
years ago, I cited two noted organization development strategists, French
and Bell, who suggested that change intervention strategies must be mul-
tidimensional, multileveled, and qualitative, and should include complete
paradigmatic shifts (French and Bell 1995). Twenty-one years later, I still
believe that their propositions are true—perhaps even more so today due
to the increasing complexities in our world.
The work that is being done by the UN is to be admired; it is necessary
and is on the right path. At no point in this book, do I want anyone to
think I am denouncing what they are doing. I do, however, believe that
the foundations upon which their work is built as well as some of their
resulting strategies can be morphed to a different level in order to deliver
quicker and more robust results that embrace far more people than have
actively been involved.
Over the years, I have written books and articles that are intention-
ally designed to push against the grain. This book is no different. I don’t
purport to have all the answers, but I do have a different lens. Over the
course of the past few years, the books, journal articles and book chapters
I have written have intentionally focused on moving past programmatic
initiatives. My major theme that has streamed through all of my work is
simple—help people engage in conversations that promote sharing ideals,
dreams, desires and concerns at micro and macro levels; conversations that
are designed to remove barriers and bond people at a different level of
consciousness (Robinson-Easley 2014).
I believe these dialogic engagements will alter the ethical behavior of
organizations, force people from all walks to life to look into the eyes of
the individuals with whom they are conversing, and understand that there
is a common humanity that we should all embrace; a common humanity
that also shares a common core of morals and ethical values. I have never
forgotten my experience with the woman who identified herself as a pros-
titute, and I hope by sharing that story, you will feel in the deepest recesses
of your souls why it is important to look into the eyes of people.
If we don’t collectively engage in conversations that have the poten-
tial to spiral beyond our immediate boundaries, we won’t understand
our common ground. If we do not understand our common ground, we
won’t see and understand the changes that are needed in our global vil-
lage. And, if we do not engage in conversations, it will be hard to embrace
radical change—a change that all by itself will push people past their com-
fort zones. Yet, when you have a collective vision for how our world can
CONCLUDING COMMENTS 183
look, it is much easier to embrace the idea of going past your personal
zone of comfort.
So, I ask of each of you who have chosen to read this book, walk with
me as we work toward change, pray with me as we continue to ask for
strength and most important believe with me that:
‘‘The future has several names. For the weak, it is impossible; for the faint-
hearted, it is unknown; but for the valiant, it is ideal.’’—Victor Hugo, Les
Misérables1
I deeply believe each of us has the ability to be valiant as we embrace a new

reality that is waiting for us!
NOTE
1. http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3208463-les-mis-rables.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
French, W., & Bell, C. (1995). Organization Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
INDEX
A appreciative process, 161

abject poverty, 25, 64, 110, 122, 181 articulation of possibility propositions,
Academy of Management, 68 164
accountability measures, 178, 179 art of the possible, 164
action inquiry, 139 authoritarian, 45, 46
action research, 164 awakening, 25–9, 65, 76, 77, 134,
active actors, 17, 75 138, 155, 166
actors, 11, 17, 20, 21, 26, 37, 75, awakening of consciousness, 155
108, 115, 117n1, 118n7,
119n11, 147, 151, 166
Affordable Health Care Act, 64 B
Africa, 26, 28, 63, 90, 91, 108, 114, Baha’i International Community, 80
144, 160 belief systems, 9, 81, 121, 122, 138
Africa Foundation for Development, Bhopal, India, 22–4, 94
90 Biblical context, 77
African American woman, 148 Bill Gates, 132
African cosmological perspective Boesak, Allan Rev., 138
AIDS virus, 63 borderland of consciousness, 148
Annan, Kofi, 66, 109, 154 BP. See British Petroleum (BP)
anticipatory principle, 165, 166 Brazil, 44, 66
Anzaldúa, Gloria, 147–9, 152, 170–2 British Petroleum (BP), 94, 95, 96,
appreciation, 18, 36, 140, 164 152, 156
appreciative inquiry, 33, 150, 153, Browne, Lord John, 156
156, 163–7 budget crisis in Illinois, 56
Note: Page numbers followed by “n” denote notes.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3
186 INDEX
business case, 19, 22, 67, 69, 74, 98 critical mass, 47, 49, 75, 115, 117–19,
business ethics, 1, 4, 5, 12, 21, 30, 32, 177, 181
34, 41–50, 63, 64, 68, 79, 139 “C” suite, 120
business model, 151 cultural differences, 41, 119
C D
challenged communities, 81, 108, data collection and discovery, 164
153, 163 deep systemic change, 21, 29, 34, 98,
change agent, 21–6, 62, 79, 115, 117, 100, 101, 116, 145, 159, 168,
127, 139, 145, 149, 151, 153, 171
165, 181 deficits, 18, 120, 158, 166
change model, 3, 11, 34, 35, 156–61, desensitized, 65, 79
167–70 deteriorated economic conditions, 61
Chicago, 60–2, 78, 100, 169 developing countries, 20, 21, 24–6,
Chief Seattle, 36 58, 64, 71, 73, 82, 97, 98, 110,
child labor, 26, 66, 67, 71, 72, 107, 150, 153
130, 141, 150, 157, 168 different reality, 163
civil society, 18, 21, 66, 110, 114, disconfirming feedback, 139
115, 118, 121, 146, 153, 154, discourse, 8–10, 47, 54, 79, 82, 88,
160, 161 109, 117, 147, 151, 153, 170, 171
code of ethics, 34, 41, 67, 68 discourse analysis, 117, 151, 153, 170,
cognitive dissonance, 10, 171, 172 171
collaborative action and interaction, discrimination, 11, 18, 19, 24, 27, 57,
165 67, 71, 72, 93, 94, 108
Collins, Jim, 136 discursive, 4, 7, 26
commitment to old patterns, 134 disenfranchisement, 27, 145
common agenda, 10, 162 dislodge hopelessness, 163
Communication on Progress report, Disney, 94
111 diversity, 1, 19, 22, 27, 28, 32, 44, 97,
compliance, 26, 28, 30, 31, 91, 115 108, 137
concept of leadership, 118 dominance, 8
conceptual and contextual reality, 11, domination, 7, 9, 12, 22, 28, 29, 71,
19, 41, 46, 61, 81, 92, 117, 131, 76–81, 89, 98, 133
145 domination of powers, 76
consensual validation/agreement, 164 duplicities, 72
Cooperrider, David, 153–6, 164–6 Dyer, Wayne, 122
cosmologies, 19, 20, 91
counter stance, 149, 150, 152
country culture, 162, 178 E
courage, 77, 154, 159 ecumenical movement, 155
Creator, 75, 83, 121, 122, 137, education systems, 57, 62
139–41, 151 egalitarian, 115, 116, 117n1, 146
INDEX 187
Egypt, 44 gender equality, 19, 67

Empowerment Zone monies, 70 General Electric (GE), 162
enforcement, 62, 110 General Motors, 29
environmental health risks, 59 geopolitically, 2, 45, 46
epistemology, 82 geopolitics, 41, 46, 108
eradication, 107, 108, 141 global capitalism, 92
eradication of poverty, 101, 141 global change, 3, 8, 36, 37, 49, 109,
ethical leadership, 42 111, 113–15, 117, 127–9, 157
Eurocentric attitude of superiority, Global Compact, 3, 28, 29, 66, 67,
135 72, 75, 92, 107–25, 127, 133,
Europe, 2, 35, 44–6, 48, 49, 65, 88, 137, 140, 144–6, 148, 153, 156,
107, 113, 115, 135 160–2, 165, 167
European Union, 2, 44, 88 global integration, 80
existential concrete imperative, 74 global poverty, 4, 110
Exxon Valdez oil spill, 95 global sustainability, 113
global village, vi, 31, 36, 41, 53, 115,
124, 127, 182
F grandest vision, 141
Facebook, 163 Guadeloupe, 130, 131
fatalism, 34, 74
feedback processes, 178
Flint, Michigan, 59, 60, 94 H
Florence, Italy, 57 Haiti, 130, 131
Francis, Pope, 33, 36, 121, 122 happy talk, 158
fraud, 89, 137 hearts and souls, 3, 4, 17, 19, 35, 120,
freedom, 2, 4, 12, 44, 46, 66, 72, 80, 144, 151, 177
88, 98, 101, 122, 149, 151 heliotropic evolution, 165
Freeport-McMoRan, 94 hermeneutic, 35, 82, 159, 160
Freire, 4, 34, 59, 74, 77, 151 hermeneutics of the “self,” 82
French and Bell, 182 hidden representations, 171
Friedman, 69, 87–102, 113, 180. See higher education, v, 27, 49, 56, 57,
also Friedman, Milton 65, 66
Friedman, Milton, 87–103, 113, 180. higher level of consciousness, 78, 135,
See also Friedman 150
fringe members, 153 historical context, 151, 168, 169, 171
Fundamental Principles of Rights at historical inquiry, 169
Work, 109 historical trends, 116, 117
Hitler, 9
HIV/AIDS, 92, 108
G holistic, vi, 50, 70, 97, 101, 180
Gandhi, 28, 77 hopelessness, 34, 61, 64, 74, 76, 100,
gang violence, 18, 60–2, 70, 155 120, 131, 163
GE. See General Electric (GE) Hudson Institute, 19
188 INDEX
human development, 119, 120 J

humanistic, 98, 101, 109 Japan, 30
humanitarian leader, 129, 132 Japanese, 30, 41
humanity, 1, 6, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 50,
59, 78, 80, 95, 97, 99, 101, 108,
121–4, 127–30, 132, 133, 136–8, K
140, 161, 172, 182 Kelleher, Herb, 99, 100, 132
human potential, 164 King, 77
human rights, 23, 25, 32, 44–7, 66, Korten. See Korten, David
71–3, 83, 88, 92, 94, 95, Korten, David, 22, 25, 29, 33, 54, 82,
109–11, 122, 146 87–103, 111, 122, 123, 155
humility, 136, 137
hybridity, 148
L
Lafasto, F., 129–32
I language, 8, 9, 47, 71, 109, 117, 145,
ideals, 31, 143–73, 177–80, 182, 183 146, 164, 167, 168
Illinois, v, 56, 57, 60, 65, 94 Larson, C., 129–32
Illinois state budget, 57 leadership team, 41, 99, 159, 168
impoverished communities, 8, 136 lens of ethics, 26, 101
individuation, 78 Levi Strauss, 94
industrialized countries, 32, 57 liberation, 3, 35, 76, 80, 124, 148,
inferior, 78, 136, 148 149, 159
inner cities, 20, 28, 57, 61–5, 71 liberation theology, 76, 80, 148
insecurity, 25, 28, 163, 171 life generating essentials, 167
intentional change, 74 life giving properties, 155, 164
intentional dialogue, 117, 170, 179 linchpin, 101, 107, 127–41
intent of community, 135 linear processes, 128, 129, 179
interconnectedness, 150 live in community, 1, 141
intercultural management, 1, 19, 22, local area networks, 115
27, 28, 44, 97, 130, 137, v local networks, 114, 115, 129, 144–7,
interior spirits, 120 150, 161–3, 168, 170, 172, 178,
internal work, 139, 140, 158 179
international, 2, 18, 19, 21, 26, 44,
46, 49, 55, 65, 67, 72, 73, 80,
91, 98, 109, 111, 112, 120, 121, M
132, 136, 163 malleable species, 148
International Labor Organization, 26 malleable to change, 128, 148
international symbols of corporate manpower, 161
greed, 111 masses of people, 58
intervenors, 147, 150 McKinsey study, 113
ISO 26000, 72, 73, 75 mechanistic world views, 3
INDEX 189
mediates, 8 Office of the High Commissioner for

mestiza, 147–9, 171 Human Rights, 109
Mestiza culture, 147 one pebble, 79
metaphors, 165, 168, 169, 171 ontology, 82
micro-cultures, 41, 147 operating silos, 178
Midas curse, 25 oppression, 28, 71, 81, 97, 149,
Middle East, 46 152
mindfulness, 11, 134, 135 organizational behavior, 11, 17, 21,
Mitsubishi Motor, 30 33, 41, 42
Moltmann, 12, 35, 160, 166 organizational culture, 5, 55, 68
moral initiative, 78 organization development, 3, 4, 17,
morality, 1, 4, 6, 7, 18, 19, 23, 57, 58, 25, 35, 70, 153, 162, 182
94, 98, 138, 167, 180 othered, 137, 148
moral point of view, 6, 7 othering, 148
moral principles, 9, 18, 97
moral society, 4
moral systems, 1, 6 P
moral values, 6–10, 121, 133, 139 paradigm, 29, 35, 36, 48, 49, 53, 68,
multi-billion dollar, 48, 79 80, 82, 83, 87, 97, 101, 121–3,
multi-dimensional, 7, 76, 182 131, 134–6, 138, 149, 150, 155,
multi-leveled, 181, 182 158, 169, 182
multinational, 21, 32 paradigmatic shift, 35, 53, 182
Mussolini, 9 passive, 55, 69
mutuality, 6 passive aggressive, 55
passive defensive, 55
Pennsylvania, 56, 65
N personal agenda, 9
negative shadow, 140 personal change, 5, 6, 133,
neoliberal policies, 111 137, 179
new models of leadership, 55, 56 personal power, 5, 32, 66, 69, 74–82,
new patterns of language, 117 108, 151, 166, 180
New York Times, 44, 45, 94 personal transformation, 18, 78
Nike, 94 personal worthlessness, 74, 75
non-governmental organizations Peter Reason, 3, 155
(NGO’s), 31, 43, 53, 72–4, 92, Picket, Kate, 131
93, 109, 111, 112, 120, 132, placebo response, 165
146, 150, 161, 181 plurality of personality, 148
positive image-positive action dynamic,
165
O positive organizational
objectification, 75, 76 scholarship, 33
Occupy Wall Street, 96 positive psychology, 135
190 INDEX
poverty, 4, 7, 11, 25, 26, 28, 58, 61, Rio Declaration on Environment and
64, 71, 76, 88, 92, 97, 107, 110, Development, 109
113, 119, 121–3, 128, 141, 150, roadmap, 29–32, 47, 133
172, 173, 181 Roddick, Anita, 132
poverty and domination, 7, 71 Royal Dutch/Shell, 94
power of dialogue, 11, 31
presidential race, 2
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 113 S
prisons, 20, 62–4 sacred space, 123
prison system, 20, 62–4 safe space, 20, 149–53
privatization of the development scenario planning, 179
process, 111 sea of poverty, 113, 119
prostitute, 137, 138, 182 Secretary-General Annan, Kofi, 66,
provocative, 164 154. See also Annan, Kofi
proximity of countries, 1, 2, 7, 9, “self,” 6–8, 35, 76–8, 81, 82, 97, 110,
19–21, 23–9, 32, 35, 36, 41, 42, 112, 127, 128, 132–6, 138–41,
44–6, 48, 49, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 145, 147, 153, 155, 158, 160,
71–3, 76, 82, 87, 88, 92, 94, 97, 165–7, 179
98, 107, 110, 114, 116, 143, self-aggrandizement, 136, 141
150, 152, 153, 162, 178, 181 self-assessment, 140
psychic depression, 74 self-esteem, 128, 140, 145
psychic restlessness, 148, 171 self-healing powers, 166
psychological blockages, 118, 171 self-reflection, 138, 139, 159
psychological contracts, 41, 99, 100 self-worth, 140
psychological traumas, 149, 158 seminary, 4, 19, 20, 35, 76, 135, 136,
public policy dialogues, 162 147, 148
Pygmalion theory, 165 semiotic interpretations, 92
sense making, 168
sexism, 27, 76
Q shackles, 140
Quinn, Robert E., 6, 18, 132–4, 136, shadow, 54, 64, 78, 93, 118n9,
139 138–40, 158
shadow organizations, 54, 93
shadow self, 138
R Shakespeare, William, 12
racism, 7, 24, 27, 76 short-term financial results, 120
rage, 172 silo mentalities, 54
redemptive violence, 76 slow death, 133, 134
reflection, 35, 138, 139, 145, 159, social capital, 127
160 social construction theory, 7
reflection-reflexive actions, 139 social contract, 91
refugees, 36, 94, 108 social despair, 75
relational interpretations, 169 social fabric, 4, 10
INDEX 191
social imagery, 169 temporary compliance, 115

socially construct, 8, 92, 143, 169 ten Principles, 66, 71, 108, 109, 111,
socially constructed concept, 92 114, 115, 122, 145, 146, 148,
social reform, 10 156
social trust, 131 terrorism, 108
societal levels of values, 92 Texaco, 94, 95, 136, 152
socio-economic, 64, 65, 76, 152 theologies, 19, 20, 122, 128
South Asia, 26, 28 Thrasher, 61, 64
Southwest Airlines, 99, 100 Thrasher, Frederick M., 61, 64. See
spike of prosperity, 113 also Thrasher
spirituality, 11, 17, 19, 121, 135, 136 Thurman, Howard (Rev., Dr.), 81,
stakeholders, 12, 37, 73–5, 82, 83, 124, 135, 152
91–3, 98, 113, 118n9, 143, 144, time constraints, 161
146, 147, 153, 155, 156, 165–7, tool box, 139
170, 178, 179 top down communications strategy,
strategic implementation, 81, 118n9, 144
161, 178, 179 topic choice, 27, 28
strife, 9, 25, 171 transcendental monism, 121
structural change, 17, 115, 116, 120, transformational leaders, 132, 133,
124, 129, 170 138, 139, 141
structured mode of inquiry, 155 transformative change, 78
students, 2, 33, 42, 43, 49, 55–7, 63–5, transnational, 21, 29, 115
69, 79, 87, 99, 100, 107, 140, 159 travesties, 2, 32, 43, 72, 92
Sub-Saharan African, 28 truth, 3, 10, 116
suppressed emotions, 172 Turkey, 2, 44–6, 48, 163
sustainable development, 73, 112, 143
sustainable wage, 57, 58, 61, 74, 128
sweat shops, 26, 71 U
symbolic social creation, 165 UN. See United Nations (UN)
system, 6, 20, 23–5, 55, 56, 59, 60, underdeveloped countries, 116
62–5, 76, 78, 81, 89, 107, 121, UN Development Program, 109
122, 139, 143, 145, 151, 154, Union Carbide, 22–5, 94, 136
163–5, 169 Corporation, 22, 24
systemic change processes, 26 United Nations (UN), 3, 11, 18–19,
systems oriented perspective, 54 25, 28–9, 37, 66–9, 71, 72, 75,
systems thinking, viii 76, 80, 97, 107–25, 131, 144–6,
145, 153–4, 156, 161, 162,
177–9, 182
T United Nations Convention against
tactical steps, 115, 118, 129, 144, Corruption, 109
178, 179 United Nations Industrial
technology, 65, 101, 114, 124, 144, Development Organization,
163, 167, 178 109
192 INDEX
United Nation’s Office on Drugs and visioning process, 118, 155

Crime, 109 Vogel, David, 69
United Nations’ Women’s voice, 9, 10, 20, 47, 69, 71, 124, 145,
Empowerment Principles-Equity 160, 161, 163–8, 170, 171
Means Business, 67 voices of people, 10, 164, 165
United States of America (US), 1–3,
9, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30,
36, 56, 63, 65, 88, 113, 131, 171 W
unity of life, 155 wake up, 58, 75
Universal Declaration of Human Wal Mart, 94
Rights, 71, 109 well-developed strategy, 11, 75
Unocal Oil Corporation, 94 White feminists, 151
unspoken words, 147 whole systems, 20, 32, 54, 55, 75,
uprising, 44 154, 158, 163, 165
US. See United States of America (US) whole systems change, 20, 32, 55,
158, 163
whole systems change process, 163
V Wilkinson, Richard, 131
value proposition, 22, 30, 59, 74, 98, Wink, W., 76–8, 83, 120
108, 119, 123, 159, 161 Women’s Empowerment Principles,
vicious cycle, 64, 116 19, 67
Vienna World Conference on Human work conditions, 26, 27, 64, 93
Rights, 71 World Economic Forum, 90, 121

Christopher Anne Robinson-Easley (Auth.) - Leadership For Global Systemic Change - Beyond Ethics and Social Responsibility-Palgrave Macmillan (2017)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Christopher Anne Robinson-Easley (Auth.) - Leadership For Global Systemic Change - Beyond Ethics and Social Responsibility-Palgrave Macmillan (2017)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Leadership for

Global Systemic Change

Beyond Ethics and Social Responsibility

Leadership for Global

ISBN 978-3-319-38948-6 ISBN 978-3-319-38949-3 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016956586

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover image © Don Smith / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

THE INSERTION OF SELF

I continue to be grateful to my Creator as He continues to guide me in my

seventeen-year-old man, Travyon Martin. In countries such as Egypt,

from a more sophisticated perspective—lessons which I have incorporated

Part I The Issues and Parameters of Plausible Change 15

2 Our World, Our Lens, Our Choices 17

3 Through the Lens of Business Ethics 41

4 The Current Landscape 53

5 The Friedman Versus Korten Argument: Are These

Part II Through the Lens of Ethics and Social

6 Reclaiming Our World: The United Nations Global

7 Leaders as the Linchpins of Change 127

8 Living the Ideal: A Proposed Model for Change 143

9 Living and Sustaining the Ideal 177

10 Concluding Comments 181

Fig. 8.1 Evoking phenomenal global change 157

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 1

civic virtues, organizational structure and political philosophies—areas in

contradiction is superseded by the humanization of all people. Or

As an organization development strategist, I quickly learned that to

THE INTERMINGLING OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS ETHICS

However, my personal experiences, particularly through the lens of

personal change, typically, the organization’s willingness to create change

As our lives grow more complicated, we often find ourselves engaging in

Yet, what can complicate this introspective contemplation and questions

take these concepts to the organizational level, it becomes much eas-

an obligation to introspectively assess what drives your belief systems and

discourse? In other words, do people recognize privatized agendas and

THE INTENDED OUTCOMES OF THIS BOOK

stakeholders is what creates a new vision of freedom in our world … a

Therefore, I employ you to walk with me as we vision a different world

The Issues and Parameters of

Our World, Our Lens, Our Choices

Over the past few years, my perspectives on change have dramatically

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 17

management literatures regarding a need for new hope, a reconnection

… if we re-visit the propositions of the Hudson Institute in the late 1980’s,

Is there really a separation between social responsibility, diversity and

because the knowledge I obtained from seminary helped me to under-

defy logic. Just a small sample of these issues include adequate personnel

CORPORATIONS AS A PRIMARY NEXUS OF CHANGE AGENTS

Yet, overarching this conversation regarding just and virtuous actions,

Corporate globalization is neither in the human interest nor inevitable. It is

Albeit a rhetorical question—why are we still compelled to make the busi-

The plausible outcomes seem simple—the privilege they may desperately

Clearly, the tragedy of Union Carbide Corporation in Bhopal, India con-

1. Union Carbide demonstrated reckless or depraved indifference to

practices at the UCIL plant, resulting in severe contamination of the

Various US laws and supporting legislation such as the Declaration of

As I researched issues plaguing African Americans in the academy in 2010

My book, Beyond Diversity and Intercultural Management pushes the con-

Valuing diversity, managing diversity, managing intercultural relations and

THE POWER TO PRODUCE CHANGE