Religion
and Respectful Pluralism in the Workplace:
A
Constructive Framework
DOUGLAS A. HICKS
Abstract:
How can leaders and followers
from a variety of religious backgrounds negotiate their diverse commitments in
the workplace? This paper proposes a
constructive approach to organizational leadership called respectful pluralism. The paper traces the reality of an increased
and increasing diversity of religions in the United States and considers how
religion in a post-Christendom society creates new challenges and benefits for
the workplace. The framework of
respectful pluralism provides an alternative to either a generic spirituality
approach or a Christian establishment approach. The paper considers examples in which the perspective of
respectful pluralism might help leaders and employees proactively to resolve
tensions based upon religiously based difference. As a whole, respectful pluralism enables significant expression
of religious beliefs and actions by employees while avoiding situations of the
degradation or coercion of coworkers.
Introduction:
Bringing Religion to Work[1]
When scholars of organizational
leadership discuss diversity in the workplace, they most often refer to gender,
race, ethnicity, nationality, age, ability-disability, and sexual orientation
as principal categories. Religion does
not receive significant attention in this scholarship; texts on leadership
treat diversity without mentioning religion.[2] One leading book specifically on diversity,
used in classrooms and corporate training sessions, considers religion only as
a sub-category within the experiences of workers who are immigrants to the
United States. A Pakistani Muslim
becomes the sole “voice” of religious diversity.[3] The authors’ decision to include only this voice
reinforces the view that Muslims are not Americans, and Americans are not
Muslims. Further, the text fails to
address the challenges that many Americans who are religious—Christian, Jewish,
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, or otherwise—confront or create in the
workplace.
Why do many scholars avoid religion
in their analyses of diversity and organizational leadership? Many state that religion is an inappropriate
topic altogether for the workplace (and for others spheres of public life),
thus reinforcing the view of religion as a private matter. Some understand religion as a “non-rational”
(often with the suggestion that it is a “primitive”) phenomenon that has no
place in the modern or postmodern workplace.
Other scholars may simply state that they do not have the background to
address religion adequately in the discussion.
I suggest that many scholars of organizational leadership overlook
religion because they accept a strong opposition between spirituality and
religion.[4] These thinkers view spirituality, but not
religion, as part of the “whole person” that should properly be welcomed at
work. A vast literature on spirituality
and leadership describes spirituality—in stark contrast to religion—as a unifying
force, a resource held in common that could bring workers together as a
community.[5] This perspective preempts the need to treat
religion as a category of diversity, because religious particularities and
differences should be transcended through “translating” religious insights into
generically spiritual ones.
Theologians, seminary professors,
and church leaders interested in the ways in which Christian faith and practice
help shape how people act in all spheres of life should see significant
problems with such an approach to spirituality and religion in the
workplace. The theological conceptions
of how to integrate faith, worship, work, and the rest of life vary
considerably, but the consensus claim that religious identity does (and should)
affect all aspects of one’s life arguably runs counter to the standard approach
to spirituality and organizational leadership.[6]
This paper acknowledges directly
that religiously based beliefs and actions in a diverse workplace can and often
will create situations of potential conflict.
At the same time, the wider framework assumes that negotiating conflict
is a central aspect of good leadership, that is, leadership that is ethical and
effective.[7] Examples of tension, often portrayed as
legal battles when the media covers them, range from expression of individuals’
religious commitments to decisions that companies or their leaders have to make
about religious accommodation. Rather
than viewing only religiously based conflicts—as if the workplace were
conflict-free if religion were kept out—it is also important to note that other
kinds of potential discord in the workplace arise from political, spiritual, or
cultural/aesthetic differences. This
paper argues that not just any religious (or political, spiritual, or cultural)
expression need be welcomed in the workplace.
Rather, leadership guided by the moral framework I describe will
evaluate all types of expression without trying either to exclude or include
everything that is religious.
After tracing
the reality of an increased and increasing diversity of religions in the United
States and considering how religion in a post-Christendom society creates new
challenges and benefits for the workplace, the paper proposes a constructive
approach to workplace leadership that I have termed respectful pluralism.
This framework provides an alternative to either a generic-spirituality
approach or a Christian establishment approach. Religious diversity and potential conflict are addressed, through
examples in which respectful pluralism might help leaders and employees to
negotiate religious and other kinds of diversity at work.
Taking
Stock of Religious Diversity
In her book A New
Religious America, Diana Eck calls the United States “the most religiously
diverse nation in the world.”[8] There are different ways to measure
diversity, of course, and it is important to state that over four in five
Americans still claim Christianity as their “religious preference.”[9] Along with other researchers, however, Eck
and her colleagues at the Harvard Pluralism Project have documented a
breathtaking breadth of religious traditions in the contemporary United States. Although it has been a gradual change,
American society has experienced a profound transformation of all aspects of
public life, including the workplace.
Even as the literature
on organizational leadership tends to leave out religion, the theological
discussions of linking Christian faith and life often overlook this reality of
increasing religious variety in U.S. public life. Theologians of faith and work often proceed as if the only two
alternatives are either secular workers or employees or bosses who live out
their Christian commitments in the workplace.
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and adherents of New Age spirituality, for
instance, are left out of the discussion.
The challenges that either individuals or institutions face in drawing
upon particular religious traditions in public life is more complex today than
it was as recently as the Civil Rights struggles, in which public appeals to
Christianity in particular played a fundamental part.[10]
The
date of July 4, 1965 marks the beginning of a new and broad wave of immigration
that contributed to the multiplication of religious expressions in the
U.S. On that day, President Lyndon
Johnson signed the Immigration and Naturalization Act as he stood at the foot
of the Statue of Liberty. For forty
years before 1965, the small immigrant flow hailed almost completely from
Europe; more recent decades have included a steady stream from Asia and Latin
America, as well as Africa, and Eastern and Western Europe.[11] Numbers alone do not capture the new
landscape, but they provide some perspective.
While estimates vary broadly, scholars debate figures between 1.8 and 6
million Muslims in the U.S.[12] Asian American and white Buddhists total as
many as four million people, and there are about one million U.S. Hindus.[13] Jews number approximately six million
persons, ranging from Hasidic Jewish persons living in relatively closed
communities to Reform and secular Jews.
The diversity of Christians has also widened. Many of the over 30 million Hispanic Americans are Catholics but
increasing numbers are Pentecostals and evangelical Protestants as well. This latter group, supplemented by
increasing proportions of Asian Americans who are Protestant, comprise a kind
of “reverse missionary” impact on the country whose Protestants long supported
outreach efforts in Latin America, Korea, China, and other areas.
The
presumed Christian predominance (sometimes politely widened to refer to as the
“Judeo-Christian tradition”[14])
no longer fits demographic or religious reality. To be sure, such an assumed uniformity always excluded minority
expressions, including Native American traditions and many aspects of African
American religions. To what extent this
reality is a challenge to confront and to what extent it is an opportunity to
welcome, of course, is up for debate.
What is clear, however, is that anyone serious about understanding how
faith intersects with public life and business leadership must confront the
reality of this widening diversity.
An Increasingly Complicated Public Presence
The immigration noted above and
other trends in American religion and spirituality[15]
make for a more complex and, indeed, contested public presence of religion in
the workplace. Such a reality calls for
a more honest account of the potentially conflictual encounter of diverse
perspectives than the account offered by the spirituality-as-unifying view
articulated in the organizational leadership literature. Appreciating the potential for conflict is
not to discount the importance or value of religious expression for employees,
but it is to strive for realism in understanding potential pitfalls as well.
In
his book Religion in Public Life: A Dilemma for Democracy, Ronald
Thiemann delineates how the contemporary U.S. society experiences the
“unresolved tension” created by the national founders’ treatment of religion.[16] The authors of the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights laid a framework for the legal disestablishment of religion but they
still assumed an effective cultural establishment of Christianity. They could do so because an overwhelming
majority of the population hailed from Christian backgrounds. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed
that the multiplicity of religious sects and groups in America could fit within
the “great union” of Christendom.[17] Tocqueville went on to assert that Americans
agreed on basic “common beliefs” and “leading ideas.” Religion—that is, in this case, Christianity—provided a common
core of ideas on which nearly all Americans could agree. This commonality, in Tocqueville’s view,
provided stability for American democracy.[18] Although he was impressed by the variety of
religious expression in America, Tocqueville also realized that that diversity
was circumscribed within the category of Christianity. One could take issue with his view that even
Christians could agree upon basic essentials of faith or society. His own emphasis, to be sure, was on the
variety of ideas and practices that voluntary (non-established) religious
communities contributed to the rich texture of American democracy. Yet he believed that the common foundation
of Christian belief contributed to an a priori assent to central social
values.[19]
During that earlier epoch, the
cultural establishment of Christianity in the U.S. made it less noticeable than
it is today when Christianity (or allusions to a Judeo-Christian tradition)
operates as a quasi-official state or civil religion. As one visible contrast to an earlier Christendom, the memorial
services to remember and grieve the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks
witnessed to how diverse America has become.[20] Contrast the diverse religious expression in
response to those events with the understandings of religion described by
Tocqueville.
The reality of a more diverse
workforce means that the religious symbols of the workplace common to
Christendom are no longer common to all employees. When two workers discuss their faith around the water cooler, the
likelihood that they are coming from the same broad tradition is lower than it
was a few decades ago. The attire or
dress that people wear to work varies widely, partly based upon religion. More people are likely to ask for vacation
time to celebrate religious holidays—or, at a minimum, the number and variety
of those holiday dates has increased.
Even as we recall that a model of conflict is not (and should not be)
the only way to understand religious encounter, it is important to acknowledge the
leadership challenges created when people seek to live out their faith—diverse
faiths—in the workplace.
Religious
convictions are deeply held and include obligations that necessarily affect the
way religious adherents look and behave as employees. Not only religious persons, but all persons, bring the basic
aspects of their identity to the workplace.
Their views and actions related to politics, culture, art, spirituality,
religion, and family life shape their actions and attitudes. When beliefs and actions entail strong views
or commitments, and when they differ among employees, they can be potentially
divisive. None of these spheres of
human activity, though, should be considered divisive in most or all cases.
Respectful
Pluralism: A Constructive Framework
Thus far the
paper has already delineated the descriptive reality of increased and
increasing religious diversity in many U.S. workplaces. Alternatives such as translating or reducing
religion to so-called common spiritual values, or maintaining an era of
Christian cultural establishment do not adequately attend to the complexities
of religious commitments of employees.
The central aim of the remaining sections is to provide a defensible and
compelling moral justification for the approach of respectful pluralism.
Constructing the
framework begins not with the nature of the workplace, but with a series of
basic assertions about the employee as a human person. The
specific concerns and contextual factors of the workplace should fit within the
general moral understanding of the human being. The most fundamental claim of the framework is that all persons
possess an inviolable human dignity. There are many ways to ground such a basic
assertion about dignity—that all humans are vulnerable or suffer pain, that
they are all created by God, that all are in some sense sacred, etc.[21] Scholars and practitioners of various
religious and moral traditions will have different ways in which to ground the
claim.
If the assumption that
each person possesses human dignity is granted, the next claim is that every
human being deserves to be accorded respect. It will be necessary, of course, to debate
precisely what obligations people and institutions (including companies) owe to
each human being based on that respect.[22] These fundamental assertions do not
differentiate among human beings in terms of any feature that individuals
possess that would make them merit respectful treatment. Persons simply have dignity and deserve to
be accorded respect because they are human.[23]
The third assertion is
that all human beings possess equal
dignity and thus deserve equal
respect. Since the concept of human
dignity is not based on human merit, or distinctive features of some people and
not others, there is no justifiable reason to differentiate in the degree of
respectful treatment due each person.
Given that excluding any person would constitute a differentiation among
persons, the scope of equality must extend to include all people. Some philosophers posit that equality (and
the prior assertions) should be accepted as self-evident.[24] As Amartya Sen has argued, few if any
contemporary moral philosophers debate whether moral equality exists among
humans; they generally concur on that point.
Rather, a central and contested moral question is, Equality of what?[25] In other words, while they agree that equal
respect should be accorded to each human being, ethicists argue over precisely
how moral equality should be guaranteed and what it demands.
Respectful pluralism
begins from human dignity and equal respect and seeks to show what they require
of companies and coworkers, given the circumstances of the workplace. What conditions must be operative in the
workplace relationship in order to guarantee equal respect for all employees
and employers?
A just society morally
precedes and constrains the economic system.
It should be seen as a precondition for the efficient operation of
markets. Adam Smith, moral philosopher and
founder of classical economics, states that “justice … is the main pillar that
upholds the whole edifice” of society.[26] No relationship in the market sphere or any
other sphere of life can justifiably violate the equal respect owed to each
person. The basic human dignity of both
employees and employers, by virtue of their status as persons, constrains the
profit-seeking activities of firms. At
a minimum, employees and employers must uphold commutative justice; the terms
of the employment transaction (labor for salary) must be just.
The
market relationship of work involves, among other things, the operation of
power among various parties. Kurt
Nutting claims that the labor relationship always entails coercion,[27]
but I differentiate between the morally justifiable power to influence, on the
one hand, and coercion, which is the morally illegitimate use of power to
influence, on the other. In my frame,
coercion is a normative term that signifies inappropriate action or
relationship.[28] The commitment to dignity and respect limits
what demands a firm should make on its employees. To be sure, the work-for-pay relationship has a significant
instrumental dimension to it, but at the same time, workers cannot be treated
as other “inputs” to the production process, like capital or land, or simply as
a means to some economic end. [29] Only while upholding the basic tenets of
justice and protecting the dignity of workers can companies pursue profit. Instrumental relations are framed by a
fundamental commitment to dignity and respect in a just society. Thus, we ask: What does a moral commitment to the dignity of persons require of
companies and employees in terms of religious expression at work? When persons enter into a market-based
relationship of work, how free and welcome are they to express themselves
religiously (and in other ways)?
Working
Conditions and Religious Expression
The framework proceeds
from the assumption that work is a fundamental part of one’s identity and that
one’s sense of dignity is significantly affected by one’s work. Many Americans are self-employed and have
significant control over their working conditions and ways in which they can
express themselves while working. Even
more Americans, however, labor as employees, working for companies large and
small. In business ethics, attention to
respect and dignity customarily focuses on the guarantee of fair wages and
decent working conditions for employees.
In legal terms, the latter commitment has been translated into minimum
occupational safety and health standards, such as those enforced by OSHA
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration) in the United States. In moral terms, some ethicists call for a
fuller approach to ensuring that policies and cultures create a workplace in
which the dignity of all is acknowledged and working conditions are humane and
fair.[30]
Such conditions should
be understood, I assert, within a wide view of health and well-being. Manuel D. Velasquez, citing Adam Smith’s
concern about the human costs of labor, argues that moral attention to working
conditions should include a worker’s mental as well as physical health.[31] Smith emphasized, for example, the ways in
which the repetition of a few tasks, under the division of labor, could dull
workers’ minds and lead to lives of monotony.[32] Within the framework of determining morally
acceptable working conditions and workers’ health, it is necessary to discuss
the proper role of religious, spiritual, political, and cultural expression by
employees.
At this point in the
argument, a question arises: How vital to an individual’s sense of human
dignity is the freedom to express one’s religious identity (or other aspects of
one’s identity) in the workplace? My
moral argument depends upon the understanding—articulated in different ways by
differing religious or philosophical traditions—that religious, spiritual, and
cultural commitment is a constitutive
part of one’s identity that cannot be compartmentalized and should not be
silenced from explicit expression during work hours. Employees’ fundamental beliefs and actions are evident in
multiple kinds of expression. I do not
offer a universal account of “how religion is essential to identity in all
spheres of life,” because I do not believe there is one such account. Further, my argument for respectful
pluralism cannot provide an a-contextual, once-and-for-all answer to the
question of “how much” religion is appropriate in the workplace and what
specific expressions can be legitimately excluded. It is clear, however, that not to permit employees to express
their religion in some measure would be a violation of their dignity. The possible contention that employees enter
freely into a presumably voluntary work-for-pay contract must be considered
within the prior constraint of the need to guarantee each employee’s human
dignity. In situations of genuine
voluntariness, employees would arguably be less likely than in many present
situations to exchange their rights of explicit religious expression for wages.
This argument, based on
the respect that is due workers and managers because they possess dignity, has
implications beyond the specific focus on religion and the workplace. Expression based upon other aspects of
identity, including gender, race, ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation, similarly
should be allowed.
The argument for significant religious and other expression at
work is not based upon the instrumental value of religion or spirituality for
the company’s level of motivation, quality of communication, or overall
productivity. My analysis makes no
claims about whether or not permitting such expression will make employees or
companies more efficient or profitable.
The features of respectful pluralism that invite, rather than repress,
conflict may well contribute to efficiency, but I do not make that empirical
claim. It is also reasonable to assert
that allowing employee expression may well help with morale—but such a
convenient overlap with efficiency is not necessary to make the policy a
morally acceptable one. Instead, the
approach argues for a significant degree of employee expression based upon the
prior moral obligation to uphold workers’ dignity.
The
Presumption of Inclusion, with Limiting Norms
The
essential framework of respectful pluralism, based upon dignity and equal
respect, can be stated in the form of a principle and three limiting
norms. The guiding principle of
respectful pluralism is termed the presumption
of inclusion. It states: To the greatest extent, workplace
organizations should allow employees to express their religious, spiritual,
cultural, political, and other commitments at work, subject to the limiting
norms of non-coercion, non-degradation, and non-establishment, and in
consideration of the reasonable instrumental demands of the for-profit
enterprise.
The
term presumption of inclusion
contrasts starkly with an understanding of the workplace as a secular
sphere. Unlike that view, the principle
entails the moral claim that workers can properly bring their religious
commitments to work. It places the
moral burden of justification on policies that would limit personal
expression. The framework does not,
however, assert that any and every action by employees or managers is
appropriate at work simply because an employee claims that it is a part of his
or her identity. Rather, the essential criteria
of inclusion and exclusion—the limiting norms—are the same, whether the
expression is seen to be religious, gender-based, cultural, political, or
otherwise. The essential point is that
the moral status of employees, possessing dignity and deserving respect, builds
a presumption for a high degree of “personal” expression. Thus, even when workers are engaged in the
market relationship of employment, it is generally permissible for them to
express religious and other aspects of their identity. Note that this moral argument exceeds the
legal minimums. Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act (as amended) protects employees against discrimination and
harassment based on many aspects of identity, including religion; but
respectful pluralism is more expansive in calling for leadership that respects
and allows employees to express their identity.
The
first limiting norm is non-degradation. This norm prohibits coworkers from employing
speech or symbols or otherwise conveying messages directed at particular individuals
or groups of coworkers that show clear disrespect for them. As with other dimensions of the framework,
this norm requires the exercise of judgment, by applying the moral commitment
to uphold the dignity of each employee, in determining what types of expression
are degrading or seriously disrespectful to other employees. Certainly, adherence to this norm has the
potential to label many forms of religious, cultural, political, and other
expression unacceptable.
The
second limiting norm, non-coercion,
suggests that just as firms should not coerce employees in the employment
relationship, employees must not use their power illegitimately to influence
coworkers or subordinates. In
particular, this norm suggests that employees should not use their position or
proximity to colleagues or subordinates to impose their religious, spiritual,
or political values on coworkers or to subject coworkers to unwanted
invitations in ways that violate coworkers’ human dignity.
The
third limiting norm, non-establishment,
addresses not individual employees but the workplace organization as an
institution. It asserts that, given the
circumstance of employee diversity, it is not morally acceptable for a company
to endorse, or in any way promote, one particular religious or spiritual
worldview over others, even if that worldview is deemed “generic” or is the
religion of the majority. Upholding the
equal respect of each
worker amidst diversity requires that individual employees be allowed to work
within an environment in which leaders apply the principle and limiting norms
of respectful pluralism to all worldviews in a consistent manner.
It is important to
acknowledge that all organizations have an organizational culture; some
scholars will call any such culture a functional equivalent of a religion. Respectful pluralism is itself a set of
ideas for creating a culture that models, as the name suggests, mutual respect
amidst diversity. Yet respectful
pluralism, while it depends upon substantive moral commitments, is not designed
to offer a complete or an exclusive view of truth; rather, its purpose is to
encourage coworkers of multiple perspectives and worldviews to communicate with
each other and to work together in relative harmony. In short, the framework arguably meets its own criteria of
non-coercion and non-degradation, and it respects the various aspects of
identity that employees bring to work.
Another limiting
consideration acknowledges the legitimate end of profit-seeking by
companies. Accordingly, in addition to
the moral constraints on personal expression, companies may place other
reasonable constraints on expression, as long as they uphold the
non-establishment norm and do not degrade or coerce employees. As should be clear from the entirety of the
framework, however, appeals to profitability cannot be made callously as an
excuse to exclude all religious or spiritual expression. Further, a company may not make policies
that grant the opportunity for one type of expression (e.g., religious,
spiritual, or political) but exclude another type.[33] Notice that one of the attractive features
of respectful pluralism is that it does not require managers or others to
determine whether an expression is driven by, or is seen by observers as
having, religious, spiritual, or political motivations. Instead, managers and coworkers should apply
the tenets of inclusion and limiting norms—which, admittedly, is no simple
task. Employers retain legitimate
rights to restrain personal expression of various kinds for legitimate safety
or efficiency reasons, as long as they do so on an equal basis for all
employees. The spirit of the
presumption of inclusion, however, does suggest that managers need to have
sound reasons to justify any decision not to allow personal expression. That is, the fundamental commitment to equal
respect places the moral burden (but not necessarily the legal burden) is on
the company to show employees why a limit on personal expression is necessary. The legal limitations of Title VII and other
federal and state laws are also in place as minimum guarantees against
discrimination and harassment.
Examples: Respectful Pluralism
in Operation
A
few examples of workplace scenarios related to personal or institutional
expression of religion (among other kinds of potential conflict) will give an
idea of how respectful pluralism might look in operation.
When is it
morally acceptable for employees to wear their religious garb at work? Since September 11, the media have focused
attention on the religious attire worn by Muslims (as well as Sikh men who have
been mistaken for Muslims). Many Muslim
women uphold a religious commitment to wear the hijab, a loose-fitting outfit of clothing that
customarily includes a headscarf. A
host of employers have protested this garb for employees—for reasons ranging
from appearance to uniform policies to safety concerns. In recent months, many women wearing hijab
have reported cases not only of harassment or discrimination on the part of
employers. In addition, fellow employees
and customers have muttered anti-Muslim statements, have deemed hijab to
be inappropriate for the U.S. context, and have demanded removal of the
headscarf. Many Muslim women have
reported a threatening workplace environment—partly due to their wearing of the
scarves.[34]
The presumption of inclusion calls
for a high level of understanding and flexibility on the part of the employer
and coworkers towards religiously motivated dress. Respectful pluralism’s approach to such examples requires
accommodation—on moral grounds—that goes beyond the standard de minimus
interpretation of the legal framework required in Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act.[35] Given that the workplace is a public or
quasi-public institution, the company’s decision to exclude women in hijab
would not only send a message of exclusion to Muslim women, but it would
reinforce the idea that Muslims’ religious obligations place them outside of
U.S. public life. Muslim women who wear
the headscarf must be treated with the same respect accorded other employees;
dress codes should be accommodated unless compelling dangers are
demonstrated. As a practical matter,
examples of suitable compromises abound in which religious persons were able to
uphold their commitments while still meeting safety requirements.[36] In rare cases when genuine safety concerns
prohibit a person in loose-fitting clothing to hold a position, corporations
have a moral obligation beyond de minimus costs to find a suitable
alternative position for the employee.
As a second example,
consider an employee who wishes to hang a religious poster in his or her work
area. For instance, a worker wishes to
display a poster that says, “Jesus Saves!” in his cubicle. A few other workers complain about the
poster: “It has no place in the office”
or “He shouldn’t be declaring that his faith is better than mine.” In a framework of respectful pluralism, this
employee would be allowed to hang such a poster, as long as adherents of other
religious and cultural groups are permitted to hang their own respectful
posters as well. To be sure, some
employees will find the Christian message to be disrespectful, at least in
intention. In this author’s judgment,
this message in isolation is neither coercive nor degrading of persons of other
faiths; but reasonable persons may disagree, and applications of respectful
pluralism will have to be made in any particular setting. Indeed, the very discussion of whether or
not something is perceived as coercive or degrading may well be a way to
identify tension already latent among coworkers and to produce a beneficial
outcome. Critics might say that this
kind of debate is a distraction from work.
I would make two kinds of argument in response to that criticism: First,
I assert that conflicts will arise among workers whether explicit religious
messages are allowed or not. Second, I
reiterate the more fundamental claim that, based upon respect for workers, it
is impermissible to forbid religious and other expressions at work. Some limit on the number of posters, works
of art, and plants, etc. could certainly be established, but those limits
should be set and upheld for all persons, regardless of their rank and
irrespective of the religious, political, or cultural tradition they reflect. It is not acceptable, however, to prohibit
all employees from hanging any decorations or expressions in their work
area.
As these examples show,
it is incorrect to say that the substantive content of posters and other
messages should not be evaluated. The
general presumption of permitting religious, political, and other expression is
limited morally by the three norms, in addition to relevant legal constraints,
especially the legal limits placed on libelous or hate-inspiring speech. The norms of non-coercion and non-degradation
require reflection on the substance of the message. It is not necessary, though, to ask whether a given expression is
religious in nature.
Contrast the Christian poster discussed above with
a scenario in which an employee hangs a poster that states, “Homosexuals:
repent and turn to Jesus Christ.” This
message entails a clear condemnation of certain persons’ sexual
orientation. Since sexual orientation
is widely (though admittedly not universally) acknowledged as an important part
of human identity, the poster’s denigration of a personal identity violates the
limiting norm of non-degradation.
Whether or not a poster with such a message cites religious scripture
(e.g., biblical texts) or makes other directly religious appeals should not
make a difference in determining its inclusion or exclusion. An employer’s personal view regarding
homosexuality is not a determining factor for the response in this case;
regardless of his or her personal conviction, an employer should forbid the
display of such a poster on the grounds that many employees will interpret the
poster’s message as degrading to homosexuals.
Respectful pluralism focuses on whether the content of the message
itself reflects respect or disrespect for human dignity.
This example reveals that not all readers (or
employers or employees) will agree with the framework of respectful
pluralism. For some religious persons,
homosexuality is incompatible with their (religiously, culturally, familially,
or politically influenced) understanding of human nature and society. They might argue that respectful pluralism
promotes (or is itself a form of) moral relativism because it allows
theologically or morally unacceptable behavior to go unquestioned. The view of respectful pluralism does not
require workplace leaders even to take a position on the truth or falsity of
the message, but, rather, it evaluates the actions and speech of employees in
terms of the specific, substantive principle and norms.
The norms that limit the general presumption of
inclusion of employee expression apply, in parallel fashion, to political
messages as well as religious ones. For
instance, employees are welcome to hang an American flag or a poster that
states, “God bless America!” Similarly,
workers should be allowed to hang flags of other nations as well. It would not be permissible, however, for an
employee to hang a poster (or wear a t-shirt or button) that says, “Foreigners,
go home!” or, conversely, “Death to America!”
Much like the religiously based case above, these messages are directed
at a particular group of persons and suggest that their national identity is
not welcome in the workplace. These
messages fail the non-degradation test.
The second limiting norm
within respectful pluralism prohibits situations in which coworkers, regardless
of intention, have the effect of coercing other employees through their
religious, spiritual, or other expression at work. On this point, consider cases of employees who wish to invite
coworkers to religious events.
Supporters of the secular workplace would view the extension of any religious invitation at work
as coercive, that is, as an illegitimate use of one’s potential influence and
proximity to put pressure on coworkers.
Yet given the importance of religion and the problems of
compartmentalization, it is morally acceptable for employees to invite
colleagues to religious events (or political rallies or cultural celebrations,
for that matter) as long as they are willing to accept “no” for an answer and
then refrain from extending further unwanted invitations. After a coworker has indicated he or she
does not want to receive such invitations, then it is, in fact, coercive (i.e.,
a violation of the norm of non-coercion) to continue making advances.[37] As with other examples, the line between
invitation and proselytization is not always clear-cut, especially since
coworkers might be unwilling to state their discomfort at being
approached. The coworker’s genuine
ability to say no without fear of negative repercussions is a significant
determining factor.
With coercion as with degradation, religious
expression is not the only form of expression subject to debate. The case of selling Girl Scout cookies and
other solicitations in the workplace—comprising a $2 billion-per-year industry—provide
a colorful example.[38] When an employee approaches a coworker with
the offer to buy some product, whether for a charitable cause or otherwise,
that invitation need not necessarily be interpreted as coercive. Many employees might appreciate the
opportunity to make a contribution to an organization or to buy the
product. Others find the practice to be
a terrible abuse of the goodwill of coworkers.
As with religiously based invitations, when a boss or supervisor
solicits employees to buy a product, the potential for coercion is even
greater. Whether or not this is a
violation of the non-coercion norm is dependent on the context, but once again,
the guiding principle’s presumption of inclusion and the ability of the person
being approached to decline the offer are important guideposts.
The two previous
examples concern the first two limiting norms and deal with individual
employees who seek to make religious or other kinds of “personal” expression
while at work. The third norm,
non-establishment, applies to situations in which the expression is not merely
individualistic but in some way reflects or suggests an undue institutional
preference for a specific religious worldview.
Leaders’ individual religious beliefs and actions may easily be mistaken
for institutionally supported expression.
As a consequence, religious expression by formal leaders in any
workplace is potentially more problematic than religious expression by
employees who are not formal leaders.
That is, because a leader has formal power, a leader’s invitations,
statements, or actions may be interpreted as unfair to employees of differing
commitments, regardless of his or her intention. This point is admittedly a contentious one, especially since most
of the spirituality and leadership literature focuses disproportionately on the
faith of leaders.[39] The potential for coercion by bosses based
upon their formal or positional power is often overlooked in these
discussions. Both the Christian
establishment view and the generic spirituality view tend to discount this
problem, since in different ways each perspective supports the belief that
employees generally hold the same set of values espoused by the manager.
Consider a manager who
invites employees to a New Age ritual in her office before work once a
week. The case would be essentially the
same if the boss offered a Bible study or a yoga session. Employees generally know about the weekly
meeting, whether through word-of-mouth, e-mails, or bulletin board
invitations. The boss or manager does
not intentionally seek to exclude anyone—indeed, she would love for all to
come—but she is unabashedly specific in presenting the content of her beliefs
and practices. In other words, whether
she is a Christian or Hindu or a New Age adherent, many employees would not
recognize the meeting’s religious/spiritual approach as reflective of their own
beliefs and practices. Despite the fact
that the manager makes efforts to assure that workers are neither rewarded for
participating nor penalized for not attending, it is clear that she comes to
know the regular attendees particularly well.
Other employees feel they are losing access to her because they are not
a part of this intimate circle.
This is a difficult
situation, because managers, just like employees, should not have to sacrifice
their faith or religious values when they enter the workplace. Yet in order to avoid even the appearance of
favoritism or coercion, the boss should find ways to hold or attend religiously
based meetings in contexts other than the workplace. There are at least two possible alternatives. First, she could meet with employees, not in
office space, but rather in a setting outside the workplace. (Holding such a meeting for subordinates in
her home, however, might still create feelings of favoritism, though such a
situation would still be preferable to meeting in her office.) A second alternative would be to attend
meetings that lower-level employees hold in their own offices. Even this, however, would not dispel all of
the questions about a preferred circle of employees.
This concern about institutional expressions of
religion in the workplace also applies to religious symbols employed by
companies themselves. The
non-establishment norm implies that neither the effective establishment of a
religion nor the creation of a civil-corporate religion is compatible with
respectful pluralism. Consideration of
an example of effective establishment and an example of civil-corporate religion
will support this claim. First, consider
a company that wishes to adopt a logo that includes the Christian symbol of a
cross or a fish. After all, a member of
the board of trustees states, the founder of the company was a strong Christian
and believed in putting his faith to work.
The company stands for care and service, board members reason, just as
Christ embodied love and service. In
addition, most of the workforce is Christian and no one objected when the
company sponsored various Christian benevolence programs in the past. Surely, such a desire to reflect a
religiously based value system can be well intentioned. Yet the practice violates the norm of
non-establishment. It does not attend
adequately to the possible public impact that the effective Christian
preference could have on the sense of place of non-Christians, particularly,
but not exclusively, those in the workforce.
This reasoning applies
not only to Christian or Jewish or Muslim expressions of religion. Consider a more generically spiritual
approach that may be at least as potentially exclusive or coercive. I have in mind, for instance, corporate
continuing education seminars that require employees to meditate in order to
“discover” their spiritual self at work.
Leadership scholars have pointed out the potentially problematic nature
of such “nontraditional” spiritual training programs, including their “high
potential for psychological and legal fallout.”[40] Because the framework of respectful
pluralism does not depend on whether or not an argument is religious in order
to be included or excluded, it is not necessary or relevant to determine
whether a particular seminar takes a faith-based or secular approach to
meditation, leadership, or professional development. The relevant question is whether or not the potential exists for
employees to feel coerced or degraded in such training. In various cases, employees, including those
from traditional religious backgrounds, have reported such negative effects. This practice violates the norm of
non-establishment, and in the process, probably violates the other two norms as
well.
Conclusion,
Limitations, and Implications
These
examples do not settle or provide a definitive resolution to the myriad
problems of diverse employee expressions in the workplace. On the contrary, the framework of respectful
pluralism is not meant to be a checklist with easy answers for any
workplace. Particular contexts will
require different negotiation and creative resolution of potentially divisive
situations. It is also worth noting a
few other limitations of the model—and further considerations.
The issue of respect for
the dignity of workers, and hence the space for religious and other expression
by employees in the workplace, is more than a micro- or firm-level
problem. Just as with issues of
equitable pay or with other aspects of safe and healthy working conditions, the
wider legal, social, and cultural context impacts the “deal” that individual
employees and individual firms can negotiate.
For example, merely because workers “voluntarily” accept employment in
sweatshops does not attend adequately to the alternative options available to
potential workers when they opt for that job.
When potential employees have no other viable employment choices available
to them, one of the basic conditions for a fair employment contract is
violated.[41] Analogously, on the issue of religious and
other expression by employees, we need a wider society-wide or structural
analysis of what opportunities employees have in various workplaces to express
aspects of their identity. This wider
analysis includes attention to laws (such as Title VII) as well as to cultural
norms and mores about religious expression.
For instance, both the generic-spirituality and the Christian
establishment views continue to hold sway, not only in the workplace, but in
most aspects of American life today.
Such analysis complements the firm-level analysis of the problem. The basic assumptions of respectful pluralism
should be discussed in various aspects of public life, including within religious
communities.
Many important
theological discussions about the nature of pluralism—and claims about truth
and morality—are not answered by a framework for negotiating differences in the
workplace. Indeed, on this point, my
account of respectful pluralism tries to avoid situations in which managers
must become theologians or must make assessments of whether or not a religious
claim is appropriately grounded or genuinely held. On the contrary, the presumption of inclusion and the limitations
based upon respect for human dignity are designed to avoid theological debates
about the truth of religious (or political or cultural) expressions at
work. I do not mean to claim, however,
that the framework is merely procedural and value-neutral. It is not.
Coercion or degradation of employees, whether it is by the imposition of
religious values or by the denial of their own religious expression, is
rejected on moral grounds. The
framework calls workplace leaders to embrace a conception of basic justice and
protection of the dignity of all workers that assumes that a diverse workforce
can work together respectfully and even productively.
The approach of
respectful pluralism also allows for a significant pedagogical component.
That is, the presumption of inclusion of religious and other expression
helps create a working environment in which people are able to share their
faith understandings and practices with others to a significant degree. As long as the discussion (whether around
the water cooler or in open lunchtime forums) is undertaken in the spirit of
respect and non-coercion, then employees have an opportunity not just to argue
with each other about religious matters, but also to learn from one
another. The media tend to focus on the
divisive nature of religion in public life (and, admittedly, some of the
examples considered above may reinforce that view). The quieter, more mundane discussions at work, in which people
share their own personal narratives, are less newsworthy but perhaps
cumulatively more significant.
Although there are
parallels between religious expression and other aspects of diversity in the
workplace, it is difficult to discuss religious expression predominantly in
terms of discrimination. (Analysis of
discrimination is the most frequent, but not wholly satisfactory, mode of
discussing race-based and gender-based diversity in the workplace.) In some cases, religious expression by
employees does lead to discrimination against them (e.g., Muslims who wear hijab)
in the workplace. In other cases,
however, religious expression by some can contribute to explicit or implicit
discrimination against other employees (e.g., Christian prayers at official
workplace functions without acknowledgment of employees from other
traditions). In other cases, the
relationship of religious expression and discrimination is ambiguous (e.g.,
evangelical Christians who claim to suffer discrimination because of their
religious expression but in other ways enjoy the fruits of an effective
Christian establishment in terms of working calendar, etc.). My framing of respectful pluralism in
positive terms is intended to move beyond a merely conflict-ridden or defensive
treatment of religion in the workplace.
Finally, I reiterate that scholarly arguments
promoting the religious or spiritual expression by managers and employees are
often couched in terms of the promotion of employee motivation, employee
retention, and other factors that lead to increased productivity in the
workplace. These are instrumental arguments that may or may not be accurate
empirically. The framework for
respectful pluralism is, rather, based on the inherent dignity of employees
(and others) and the need to create conditions within which that dignity is
respected. Within, and only within,
that framework can the efficiency concerns have full sway. Without settling all potential
conflicts—indeed, by suggesting that most conflicts can be healthy—respectful
pluralism expands and clarifies the space given employees to express the
religious and other aspects of their identity while at work.
Bibliography
Blank, Renee, and Sandra
Slipp. Voices of Diversity: Real People
Talk about Problems and Solutions in a Workplace Where Everyone Is Not Alike.
New York: Amacom, 1994.
Boylan, Michael. Business Ethics: Basic Ethics in Action.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
Challenger, James E.
“Firms Make Room for Different Religions.” Chicago
Sun-Times, May 14, 2000.
Ciulla, Joanne B.
“Leadership Ethics: Mapping the Territory.” In Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, edited by Joanne B. Ciulla, 3-25.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.
Clinton, William
Jefferson. “Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the
Federal Workplace.” Washington, DC: The White House Office of the Press
Secretary, 1997.
Cohen, Arthur Allen. The
Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.
Conger, Jay Alden. Spirit
at Work: Discovering the Spirituality in Leadership. The Jossey-Bass
Management Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.
Eck, Diana L. A New Religious America: How a “Christian
Country” Has Now Become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation. San
Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2001.
Eck, Diana L., Rebecca K. Gould, and Douglas A. Hicks.
“Encountering Religious Diversity: Historical Perspectives.” In On Common Ground: World Religions in
America, edited by Diana L. Eck
and the Pluralism Project at Harvard University, CD-ROM. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1997.
Fairholm, Gilbert W. Perspectives on Leadership: From the Science
of Management to Its Spiritual Heart. Westport, CT: Quorum, 1998.
Gallup, George, and D.
Michael Lindsay. Surveying the Religious
Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishers,
1999.
Hickman, Gill Robinson. Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a
New Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
Hicks, Douglas A. “Spiritual and Religious Diversity in the
Workplace: Implications for Leadership.” Leadership
Quarterly 13 (2002): 379-96.
Hicks, Douglas A. Inequality and Christian Ethics. New Studies in Christian Ethics 16.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Hicks, Douglas A. Religion
and the Workplace: Pluralism, Spirituality, Leadership. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003 (in press).
Lewis, Diane E.
“Workplace Bias Claims Jump after Sept. 11.” Boston Globe, November 22, 2001.
Lipton, Mark. “’New Age’
Organizational Training: Tapping Employee Potential or Creating New Problems?” Human Resources Professional 3, 2
(1991): 72-76.
Lischer, Richard. The Preacher King: Martin Luther King, Jr.
and the Word That Moved America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
McFadden, Robert D. “In
a Stadium of Heroes, Prayers for the Fallen and Solace for Those Left Behind.” New York Times, September 24, 2001.
Mitroff, Ian I., and Elizabeth A. Denton. A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A
Hard Look at Spirituality, Religion, and Values in the Workplace. The Warren Bennis Signature series. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.
Morris, Aldon. “The Black Church in the Civil Rights
Movement: The SCLC as the Decentralized, Radical Arm of the Black Church.” In Disruptive Religion: The Force of Faith in
Social Movement Activism, edited by Christian Smith, 29-46. New York:
Routledge, 1996.
Nash, Laura L., and Scotty McClennan. Church on Sunday, Work on Monday: The Challenge of Fusing Christian
Values with Business Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Neuborne, Ellen.
“Charity Begins at Work: Parents Work the Workplace as Fund-Raisers.” USA Today, January 22, 1997.
Niebuhr, Gustav. “Studies Suggest Lower Count for Number of
U.S. Muslims.” New York Times,
October 25, 2001.
Nutting, Kurt. “Work and
Freedom in Capitalism.” In Moral Rights
in the Workplace, edited by Gertrude Ezorsky, 97-104. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1987.
Sanchez, Rene, and Bill
Broadway. “A Kinship of Grief: With Prayers and Patriotism, a Nation Comes
Together.” Washington Post, September
15, 2001.
Sen, Amartya. “Equality
of What?” In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, edited by S. McMurrin.
Salt Lake City: Utah University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations. Edited by R. H. Campbell, A. S. Skinner and W. B. Todd.
2 vols. Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Translated by D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie. Glasgow Edition of the Works and
Correspondence of Adam Smith. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Thiemann, Ronald F. Religion in Public Life: A Dilemma for
Democracy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1996.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by
George Lawrence. Edited by J. P. Mayer. New York: HarperPerennial, 1969.
Velasquez, Manuel G. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases.
Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Wolf, Michael, Bruce
Friedman, and Daniel Sutherland. Religion
in the Workplace: A Comprehensive Guide to Legal Rights and Responsibilities.
Chicago: Tort and Insurance Practice Section, American Bar Association,
1998.
Yukl, Gary. Leadership in Organizations. Fifth
Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.