Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion

    Posted 04-18-2007 13:38
    Hi Bob

    On Apr 18, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Robert A. Giacalone wrote:

    Second, the question is not if religion fits into MSR, but 
    how the R fits in. Just because it related to Management 
    doesn't make it necessarily appropriate. I, for one, see 
    absolutely no place for any article which tries to show that 
    one religion is superior to another (even if that means that 
    it is superior for organizational profitability); I see no 
    place for any article that seeks to show that any particular 
    religion is deleterious to organizational functioning.  
    Articles like this can only create anger, divisiveness, and 
    hate. It reduces religion to a kind of sporting event in 
    which one "wins" over the other, or to a political 
    discussion where invariably someone will translate 
    deleterious functioning to some sort of evil or religious 
    inferiority. 

    ...More importantly, it 
    is NOT now nor should it ever be, a forum for anyone to 
    engage in religious advocacy/evangelizing or religious 
    denigration. There are churches, synagogues, and mosques 
    that do a wonderful job of advocacy, and unfortunately, hate 
    groups that will welcome people who want to do the latter. I 
    see no place for that kind of thinking in this group. Others 
    may disagree, and this list is precisely the place where 
    such discussions may be had.

    I might be one of the others who disagrees, Bob. I'm not sure whether you would agree or disagree with what I'm about to say. One dictionary definition of denigrate is "to disparage or criticize somebody or something." I think that criticism of religion is perfectly appropriate in the MSR group in some cases. It has been happening for years with little to no fuss. 

    Let me mention just a couple of personal examples. Years ago I gave an Academy of Management presentation and published an article in the MSR newsletter where I denigrated a religion [McCormick, D. W. (2004). The "Elephant in the Meditation Hall": Religious Corruption's Lessons for Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical Development. Academy of Management Management, Spirituality and Religion Newsletter, 9-10. and McCormick, D. W. The "Elephant in the Meditation Hall": Religious Corruption's Lessons for Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical Development. Academy of Management Annual Meeting. All Academy Session. Seattle, WA. August 2003.]. In these I wrote about my experience in Siddha Yoga and how I left it as a result of finding out about the leader's (Swami Muktananda) sexual harassment of his students, his socking away millions in Swiss bank accounts, and of the vicious fight between his chosen successors over supremacy. It was fairly disparaging.

    I have also been critical in journal publications. In a Fall 2006 article in OMJ ([McCormick, D. W. (2006). Indoctrination, Diversity, and Teaching About Spirituality and Religion in the Workplace. Organization and Management Journal: A Refereed Online Publication Sponsored by the Eastern Academy of Management. 3(2) 77-91.], I discuss a particular spiritual/religious ideology (perennialism) and am fairly critical of its uncritical application in the classroom and the deleterious effects that result.  

    I'd like to continue to publish work that is critical. For example, I've often thought that a fruitful line of inquiry would be taking principles of business ethics and applying them to religious organizations. I practiced TM for many years and I would like to someday write about the questionable ethics of the recruitment and initiation methods that I experienced first hand. Some day I'd like to write about how, before the U. S. Civil War, some religions legitimated oppressive business practices such as slavery and how others legitimated opposition to such policies. I don't think we in MSR should cut off such lines of inquiry. Should we be able to examine Scientology and its questionable business practices? I think we should. 

    I'm worried that we might move toward conflict avoidant behavior that would be harmful for MSR as a field. I don't think it is healthy for most academic disciplines to have forbidden, taboo subjects that are protected from critical analysis. I don't think we should enforce a norm that we treat all spiritual traditions, ideologies or beliefs as equally valid. (That norm in itself is a spiritual/religious ideology.)  Think about how weak the academic field of politics would be if the norm was that one couldn't criticize others' political views in conferences or in print. I think a comparable norm in MSR would weaken our ability to theorize. 

    A good example of the problem with the we-are-going-to-treat-all-different-approaches-as-equally-valid assumption is Ken Wilbur's work. He doesn't assume this with regards to religious or spiritual issues, but he does assume this about approaches to psychotherapy. Although Wilbur's work contains a great deal of brilliance and I generally like it a lot, IMHO his ignoring the research about the differences in effectiveness of various psychotherapies and his insistence that relatively discredited or even harmful approaches (for example, traditional psychoanalysis) be treated as just as effective and valid as approaches that have a lot of empirical support (cognitive behavioral therapy) is the weakest part of his theorizing.

    I'd like to end with a point of agreement. 
    "Others may disagree, and this list is precisely the place where such discussions may be had." 
    I completely agree with this and I'd like to build on this idea. I think the accumulated discussion of this topic would be a good newsletter article and also would make a good symposium. If a symposium does develop from this discussion, please count me in.

    - Don McCormick


  • 2.  On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion

    Posted 04-18-2007 19:19
    Hi Don
    > I might be one of the others who disagrees, Bob. I'm
    > not sure whether you would agree or disagree with
    > what I'm about to say. One dictionary definition of
    > denigrate is "to disparage or criticize somebody or
    > something." I think that criticism of religion is
    > perfectly appropriate in the MSR group in some
    > cases. It has been happening for years with little
    > to no fuss. 
    > Let me mention just a couple of personal examples.
    > Years ago I gave an Academy of Management
    > presentation and published an article in the MSR
    > newsletter where I denigrated a religion [McCormick,
    > D. W. (2004). The “Elephant in the Meditation
    > Hall”: Religious Corruption’s Lessons for
    > Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical
    > Development. Academy of Management Management,
    > Spirituality and Religion Newsletter, 9-10.
    > and McCormick, D. W. The “Elephant in the
    > Meditation Hall”: Religious Corruption’s Lessons
    > for Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical
    > Development. Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
    > All Academy Session. Seattle, WA. August 2003.]. In
    > these I wrote about my experience in Siddha Yoga and
    > how I left it as a result of finding out about the
    > leader's (Swami Muktananda) sexual harassment of his
    > students, his socking away millions in Swiss bank
    > accounts, and of the vicious fight between his
    > chosen successors over supremacy. It was fairly
    > disparaging.


    I detest Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These are people
    who I believe do not represent their religions. It seemes
    to me that you are doing the same here...Your problem isn't
    with Yoga, it's with the leadership. I have problems with
    the Pope and the Papacy as well...but that's not a problem
    with Catholicism.


    > I have also been critical in journal publications.
    > In a Fall 2006 article in OMJ ([McCormick, D. W.
    > (2006). Indoctrination, Diversity, and Teaching
    > About Spirituality and Religion in the Workplace.
    > Organization and Management Journal: A Refereed
    > Online Publication Sponsored by the Eastern Academy
    > of Management. 3(2) 77-91.], I discuss a particular
    > spiritual/religious ideology (perennialism) and am
    > fairly critical of its uncritical application in the
    > classroom and the deleterious effects that
    > result. 

    Again, I don't think that you are denigrating an entire
    religion here, but are questioning/critically evaluating as
    aspect of that group (I also don't think that perennialism
    is associated with just one faith, though, is it?)

     
    > I'd like to continue to publish work that is
    > critical. For example, I've often thought that a
    > fruitful line of inquiry would be taking principles
    > of business ethics and applying them to religious
    > organizations. I practiced TM for many years and I
    > would like to someday write about the questionable
    > ethics of the recruitment and initiation methods
    > that I experienced first hand.

    Don, the more I read, the more I think we agree...You aren't
    denigrating TM (which I don't consider a religion, in any
    case), but how the ideology is being executed. This would be
    a great article.


    Some day I'd like to
    > write about how, before the U. S. Civil War, some
    > religions legitimated oppressive business practices
    > such as slavery and how others legitimated
    > opposition to such policies. I don't think we in
    > MSR should cut off such lines of inquiry.

    Neither do I. This is NOT criticism of Catholic ideology,
    for example...it's not criticism of basic tenets of any
    religion...it's a criticism of how they operate.

    Should we
    > be able to examine Scientology and its questionable
    > business practices?

    Of course we should...but we don't need to denigrate their
    belief systems in the process. I don't agree with
    Scientology, but denigrating those belief systems doesn't do
    any good. Criticizing their business practices is perfectly
    legitmate. If we can criticize IBM's practices, why not
    Scientolgy?


    >I think we should. 
    > I'm worried that we might move toward conflict
    > avoidant behavior that would be harmful for MSR as a
    > field. I don't think it is healthy for most academic
    > disciplines to have forbidden, taboo subjects that
    > are protected from critical analysis. I don't think
    > we should enforce a norm that we treat all spiritual
    > traditions, ideologies or beliefs as equally valid.

    Maybe not as equally valid, but as equally worthy of
    respect. It's one thing to say that I disagree with what the
    Catholic Church has done, it's another to attack the
    divinity of Jesus in an article on business practices. It's
    one thing to be a practicing Christian, Jew, Muslim in good
    faith, it's quite another to engage in an ideologic attack
    on the other faiths. The objective of our group is not to
    prove what faith is better...if it is, I'm in the wrong
    group. I don't think that science can do that.


    > Think about how weak the academic
    > field of politics would be if the norm was that one
    > couldn't criticize others' political views in
    > conferences or in print. I think a comparable norm
    > in MSR would weaken our ability to theorize. 
    > A good example of the problem with the
    > we-are-going-to-treat-all-different-approaches-as-
    equally-valid
    > assumption is Ken Wilbur's work. He doesn't assume
    > this with regards to religious or spiritual issues,
    > but he does assume this about approaches to
    > psychotherapy. Although Wilbur's work contains a
    > great deal of brilliance and I generally like it a
    > lot, IMHO his ignoring the research about the
    > differences in effectiveness of various
    > psychotherapies and his insistence that relatively
    > discredited or even harmful approaches (for example,
    > traditional psychoanalysis) be treated as just as
    > effective and valid as approaches that have a lot of
    > empirical support (cognitive behavioral therapy) is
    > the weakest part of his theorizing.


    Psychotherapy isn't a fair comparison though. As one who
    was trained in psychology, I can tell you that you can
    scientifically show that one therapeutic approach is better
    than another. You cannot do the same with faith. I have no
    data on God that is incontrovertible, I have no way to
    compare on a fair basis whether the Koran or the Bible
    have "better ideas" for business...

    > I'd like to end with a point of agreement. 
    >
    > "Others may disagree, and this list is precisely
    > the place where such discussions may be had." 
    >
    > I completely agree with this and I'd like to build
    > on this idea. I think the accumulated discussion of
    > this topic would be a good newsletter article and
    > also would make a good symposium. If a symposium
    > does develop from this discussion, please count me
    > in.

    I agree that it's a great topic...I'm not really interested
    in doing a symposium on it, but I think it's a wonderful
    dialogue.

    Thanks, Don!

    bob

    Robert A. Giacalone, Ph.D.
    Department of Human Resource Management
    Acting Director, Center for Ethics and Organizational Integrity
    313 Speakman Hall, FSBM
    Temple University
    1810 N. 13th St.
    Philadelphia, PA 19122
    e-mail: ragiacal@temple.edu
    Work phone: (215) 204-7038
    Fax: (215) 204-8362

    Without a rich heart, wealth is an ugly beggar.--Ralph Waldo Emerson

    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society - Krishnamurti

    To care for anyone else enough to make their problems one's own, is ever the beginning of one's real ethical development--Felix Adler


  • 3.  On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion

    Posted 04-18-2007 21:22
    My two cents...
     
    I would like to suggest that whether we are viewing religion as a personal choice or as a research endeavor, that we view religion objectively as the philosophy, doctrine, or principles it espouses. If we choose to focus upon individuals that operate under a particular religion, we have chosen to focus upon fallable humans that have difficulty keeping simple things such as schedules and checkbooks in order much less represent a single religion that will can be scrutinized by the world. While religious leaders may strive to lead a good life, they are only human. As such, I would have to say that disillusionment with a particular yoga instructor should not discount the religion itself. If that is case, the search for enlightment will be a long fruitless endeavor.
     
    Jesus said to a mob that was willing to stone a woman for adulty...
    "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."
    Jn 8:7, NKJV
     
    In addition,
     
    While any particular religion should not be argued as superior to another, it must be conceeded that a corporate decision to acknowledge a particular religion because it serves as the foundation for thier inherent culture or services (as in the case of faith based organizations) should be approached objectively. As such, to discount the impact a particular religion has on the success of an organization should be addressed objectively and with regard to generalizability. To disregard any religion because of bias or a narrow belief that it has no place in business is to disregard that which serves as the spiritual foundation for the workforce at large.
     
    Aaron Cuevas

    > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:19:24 -0400
    > From: ragiacal@TEMPLE.EDU
    > Subject: Re: On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion
    > To: MSR@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >
    > Hi Don
    > > I might be one of the others who disagrees, Bob. I'm
    > > not sure whether you would agree or disagree with
    > > what I'm about to say. One dictionary definition of
    > > denigrate is "to disparage or criticize somebody or
    > > something." I think that criticism of religion is
    > > perfectly appropriate in the MSR group in some
    > > cases. It has been happening for years with little
    > > to no fuss. 
    > > Let me mention just a couple of personal examples.
    > > Years ago I gave an Academy of Management
    > > presentation and published an article in the MSR
    > > newsletter where I denigrated a religion [McCormick,
    > > D. W. (2004). The "Elephant in the Meditation
    > > Hall": Religious Corruption's Lessons for
    > > Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical
    > > Development. Academy of Management Management,
    > > Spirituality and Religion Newsletter, 9-10.
    > > and McCormick, D. W. The "Elephant in the
    > > Meditation Hall": Religious Corruption's Lessons
    > > for Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical
    > > Development. Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
    > > All Academy Session. Seattle, WA. August 2003.]. In
    > > these I wrote about my experience in Siddha Yoga and
    > > how I left it as a result of finding out about the
    > > leader's (Swami Muktananda) sexual harassment of his
    > > students, his socking away millions in Swiss bank
    > > accounts, and of the vicious fight between his
    > > chosen successors over supremacy. It was fairly
    > > disparaging.
    >
    >
    > I detest Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These are people
    > who I believe do not represent their religions. It seemes
    > to me that you are doing the same here...Your problem isn't
    > with Yoga, it's with the leadership. I have problems with
    > the Pope and the Papacy as well...but that's not a problem
    > with Catholicism.
    >
    >
    > > I have also been critical in journal publications.
    > > In a Fall 2006 article in OMJ ([McCormick, D. W.
    > > (2006). Indoctrination, Diversity, and Teaching
    > > About Spirituality and Religion in the Workplace.
    > > Organization and Management Journal: A Refereed
    > > Online Publication Sponsored by the Eastern Academy
    > > of Management. 3(2) 77-91.], I discuss a particular
    > > spiritual/religious ideology (perennialism) and am
    > > fairly critical of its uncritical application in the
    > > classroom and the deleterious effects that
    > > result. 
    >
    > Again, I don't think that you are denigrating an entire
    > religion here, but are questioning/critically evaluating as
    > aspect of that group (I also don't think that perennialism
    > is associated with just one faith, though, is it?)
    >
    >  
    > > I'd like to continue to publish work that is
    > > critical. For example, I've often thought that a
    > > fruitful line of inquiry would be taking principles
    > > of business ethics and applying them to religious
    > > organizations. I practiced TM for many years and I
    > > would like to someday write about the questionable
    > > ethics of the recruitment and initiation methods
    > > that I experienced first hand.
    >
    > Don, the more I read, the more I think we agree...You aren't
    > denigrating TM (which I don't consider a religion, in any
    > case), but how the ideology is being executed. This would be
    > a great article.
    >
    >
    > Some day I'd like to
    > > write about how, before the U. S. Civil War, some
    > > religions legitimated oppressive business practices
    > > such as slavery and how others legitimated
    > > opposition to such policies. I don't think we in
    > > MSR should cut off such lines of inquiry.
    >
    > Neither do I. This is NOT criticism of Catholic ideology,
    > for example...it's not criticism of basic tenets of any
    > religion...it's a criticism of how they operate.
    >
    > Should we
    > > be able to examine Scientology and its questionable
    > > business practices?
    >
    > Of course we should...but we don't need to denigrate their
    > belief systems in the process. I don't agree with
    > Scientology, but denigrating those belief systems doesn't do
    > any good. Criticizing their business practices is perfectly
    > legitmate. If we can criticize IBM's practices, why not
    > Scientolgy?
    >
    >
    > >I think we should. 
    > > I'm worried that we might move toward conflict
    > > avoidant behavior that would be harmful for MSR as a
    > > field. I don't think it is healthy for most academic
    > > disciplines to have forbidden, taboo subjects that
    > > are protected from critical analysis. I don't think
    > > we should enforce a norm that we treat all spiritual
    > > traditions, ideologies or beliefs as equally valid.
    >
    > Maybe not as equally valid, but as equally worthy of
    > respect. It's one thing to say that I disagree with what the
    > Catholic Church has done, it's another to attack the
    > divinity of Jesus in an article on business practices. It's
    > one thing to be a practicing Christian, Jew, Muslim in good
    > faith, it's quite another to engage in an ideologic attack
    > on the other faiths. The objective of our group is not to
    > prove what faith is better...if it is, I'm in the wrong
    > group. I don't think that science can do that.
    >
    >
    > > Think about how weak the academic
    > > field of politics would be if the norm was that one
    > > couldn't criticize others' political views in
    > > conferences or in print. I think a comparable norm
    > > in MSR would weaken our ability to theorize. 
    > > A good example of the problem with the
    > > we-are-going-to-treat-all-different-approaches-as-
    > equally-valid
    > > assumption is Ken Wilbur's work. He doesn't assume
    > > this with regards to religious or spiritual issues,
    > > but he does assume this about approaches to
    > > psychotherapy. Although Wilbur's work contains a
    > > great deal of brilliance and I generally like it a
    > > lot, IMHO his ignoring the research about the
    > > differences in effectiveness of various
    > > psychotherapies and his insistence that relatively
    > > discredited or even harmful approaches (for example,
    > > traditional psychoanalysis) be treated as just as
    > > effective and valid as approaches that have a lot of
    > > empirical support (cognitive behavioral therapy) is
    > > the weakest part of his theorizing.
    >
    >
    > Psychotherapy isn't a fair comparison though. As one who
    > was trained in psychology, I can tell you that you can
    > scientifically show that one therapeutic approach is better
    > than another. You cannot do the same with faith. I have no
    > data on God that is incontrovertible, I have no way to
    > compare on a fair basis whether the Koran or the Bible
    > have "better ideas" for business...
    >
    > > I'd like to end with a point of agreement. 
    > >
    > > "Others may disagree, and this list is precisely
    > > the place where such discussions may be had." 
    > >
    > > I completely agree with this and I'd like to build
    > > on this idea. I think the accumulated discussion of
    > > this topic would be a good newsletter article and
    > > also would make a good symposium. If a symposium
    > > does develop from this discussion, please count me
    > > in.
    >
    > I agree that it's a great topic...I'm not really interested
    > in doing a symposium on it, but I think it's a wonderful
    > dialogue.
    >
    > Thanks, Don!
    >
    > bob
    >
    > Robert A. Giacalone, Ph.D.
    > Department of Human Resource Management
    > Acting Director, Center for Ethics and Organizational Integrity
    > 313 Speakman Hall, FSBM
    > Temple University
    > 1810 N. 13th St.
    > Philadelphia, PA 19122
    > e-mail: ragiacal@temple.edu
    > Work phone: (215) 204-7038
    > Fax: (215) 204-8362
    >
    > Without a rich heart, wealth is an ugly beggar.--Ralph Waldo Emerson
    >
    > It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society - Krishnamurti
    >
    > To care for anyone else enough to make their problems one's own, is ever the beginning of one's real ethical development--Felix Adler
    >



    Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more!


  • 4.  On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion

    Posted 04-18-2007 21:51
    Amen! (Or should I not say that . . .) ;)
    Drumm McNaughton

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management, Spirituality & Religion [mailto:MSR@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On
    Behalf Of Robert A. Giacalone
    Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:19 PM
    To: MSR@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion

    Hi Don
    > I might be one of the others who disagrees, Bob. I'm
    > not sure whether you would agree or disagree with
    > what I'm about to say. One dictionary definition of
    > denigrate is "to disparage or criticize somebody or
    > something." I think that criticism of religion is
    > perfectly appropriate in the MSR group in some
    > cases. It has been happening for years with little
    > to no fuss. 
    > Let me mention just a couple of personal examples.
    > Years ago I gave an Academy of Management
    > presentation and published an article in the MSR
    > newsletter where I denigrated a religion [McCormick,
    > D. W. (2004). The “Elephant in the Meditation
    > Hall”: Religious Corruption’s Lessons for
    > Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical
    > Development. Academy of Management Management,
    > Spirituality and Religion Newsletter, 9-10.
    > and McCormick, D. W. The “Elephant in the
    > Meditation Hall”: Religious Corruption’s Lessons
    > for Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical
    > Development. Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
    > All Academy Session. Seattle, WA. August 2003.]. In
    > these I wrote about my experience in Siddha Yoga and
    > how I left it as a result of finding out about the
    > leader's (Swami Muktananda) sexual harassment of his
    > students, his socking away millions in Swiss bank
    > accounts, and of the vicious fight between his
    > chosen successors over supremacy. It was fairly
    > disparaging.


    I detest Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These are people
    who I believe do not represent their religions. It seemes
    to me that you are doing the same here...Your problem isn't
    with Yoga, it's with the leadership. I have problems with
    the Pope and the Papacy as well...but that's not a problem
    with Catholicism.


    > I have also been critical in journal publications.
    > In a Fall 2006 article in OMJ ([McCormick, D. W.
    > (2006). Indoctrination, Diversity, and Teaching
    > About Spirituality and Religion in the Workplace.
    > Organization and Management Journal: A Refereed
    > Online Publication Sponsored by the Eastern Academy
    > of Management. 3(2) 77-91.], I discuss a particular
    > spiritual/religious ideology (perennialism) and am
    > fairly critical of its uncritical application in the
    > classroom and the deleterious effects that
    > result. 

    Again, I don't think that you are denigrating an entire
    religion here, but are questioning/critically evaluating as
    aspect of that group (I also don't think that perennialism
    is associated with just one faith, though, is it?)

     
    > I'd like to continue to publish work that is
    > critical. For example, I've often thought that a
    > fruitful line of inquiry would be taking principles
    > of business ethics and applying them to religious
    > organizations. I practiced TM for many years and I
    > would like to someday write about the questionable
    > ethics of the recruitment and initiation methods
    > that I experienced first hand.

    Don, the more I read, the more I think we agree...You aren't
    denigrating TM (which I don't consider a religion, in any
    case), but how the ideology is being executed. This would be
    a great article.


    Some day I'd like to
    > write about how, before the U. S. Civil War, some
    > religions legitimated oppressive business practices
    > such as slavery and how others legitimated
    > opposition to such policies. I don't think we in
    > MSR should cut off such lines of inquiry.

    Neither do I. This is NOT criticism of Catholic ideology,
    for example...it's not criticism of basic tenets of any
    religion...it's a criticism of how they operate.

    Should we
    > be able to examine Scientology and its questionable
    > business practices?

    Of course we should...but we don't need to denigrate their
    belief systems in the process. I don't agree with
    Scientology, but denigrating those belief systems doesn't do
    any good. Criticizing their business practices is perfectly
    legitmate. If we can criticize IBM's practices, why not
    Scientolgy?


    >I think we should. 
    > I'm worried that we might move toward conflict
    > avoidant behavior that would be harmful for MSR as a
    > field. I don't think it is healthy for most academic
    > disciplines to have forbidden, taboo subjects that
    > are protected from critical analysis. I don't think
    > we should enforce a norm that we treat all spiritual
    > traditions, ideologies or beliefs as equally valid.

    Maybe not as equally valid, but as equally worthy of
    respect. It's one thing to say that I disagree with what the
    Catholic Church has done, it's another to attack the
    divinity of Jesus in an article on business practices. It's
    one thing to be a practicing Christian, Jew, Muslim in good
    faith, it's quite another to engage in an ideologic attack
    on the other faiths. The objective of our group is not to
    prove what faith is better...if it is, I'm in the wrong
    group. I don't think that science can do that.


    > Think about how weak the academic
    > field of politics would be if the norm was that one
    > couldn't criticize others' political views in
    > conferences or in print. I think a comparable norm
    > in MSR would weaken our ability to theorize. 
    > A good example of the problem with the
    > we-are-going-to-treat-all-different-approaches-as-
    equally-valid
    > assumption is Ken Wilbur's work. He doesn't assume
    > this with regards to religious or spiritual issues,
    > but he does assume this about approaches to
    > psychotherapy. Although Wilbur's work contains a
    > great deal of brilliance and I generally like it a
    > lot, IMHO his ignoring the research about the
    > differences in effectiveness of various
    > psychotherapies and his insistence that relatively
    > discredited or even harmful approaches (for example,
    > traditional psychoanalysis) be treated as just as
    > effective and valid as approaches that have a lot of
    > empirical support (cognitive behavioral therapy) is
    > the weakest part of his theorizing.


    Psychotherapy isn't a fair comparison though. As one who
    was trained in psychology, I can tell you that you can
    scientifically show that one therapeutic approach is better
    than another. You cannot do the same with faith. I have no
    data on God that is incontrovertible, I have no way to
    compare on a fair basis whether the Koran or the Bible
    have "better ideas" for business...

    > I'd like to end with a point of agreement. 
    >
    > "Others may disagree, and this list is precisely
    > the place where such discussions may be had." 
    >
    > I completely agree with this and I'd like to build
    > on this idea. I think the accumulated discussion of
    > this topic would be a good newsletter article and
    > also would make a good symposium. If a symposium
    > does develop from this discussion, please count me
    > in.

    I agree that it's a great topic...I'm not really interested
    in doing a symposium on it, but I think it's a wonderful
    dialogue.

    Thanks, Don!

    bob

    Robert A. Giacalone, Ph.D.
    Department of Human Resource Management
    Acting Director, Center for Ethics and Organizational Integrity
    313 Speakman Hall, FSBM
    Temple University
    1810 N. 13th St.
    Philadelphia, PA 19122
    e-mail: ragiacal@temple.edu
    Work phone: (215) 204-7038
    Fax: (215) 204-8362

    Without a rich heart, wealth is an ugly beggar.--Ralph Waldo Emerson

    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society
    - Krishnamurti

    To care for anyone else enough to make their problems one's own, is ever the
    beginning of one's real ethical development--Felix Adler


  • 5.  On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion

    Posted 04-19-2007 11:00
    Wow, reading Dr. Giacalone's post made me (for the first time) want to engage the MSR interest group. Thank you for taking the time to write that response and I could not agree more. While I am a "practicing Christian...in good faith" to not question, analyze, and potentially criticize our leaders, organizational practices, and historical decision making would be intellectually dishonest and irresponsible. We have made mistakes and we should study those mistakes so as not to repeat them.



    Todd C. Darnold
    PhD Candidate
    Tippie College of Business
    University of Iowa
    319-335-1809

    ________________________________

    From: Management, Spirituality & Religion on behalf of Dr. Drumm McNaughton CMC
    Sent: Wed 4/18/2007 8:51 PM
    To: MSR@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion



    Amen! (Or should I not say that . . .) ;)
    Drumm McNaughton

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management, Spirituality & Religion [mailto:MSR@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On
    Behalf Of Robert A. Giacalone
    Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:19 PM
    To: MSR@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: On the MSR Newsletter Issue & Critical analysis of religion

    Hi Don
    > I might be one of the others who disagrees, Bob. I'm
    > not sure whether you would agree or disagree with
    > what I'm about to say. One dictionary definition of
    > denigrate is "to disparage or criticize somebody or
    > something." I think that criticism of religion is
    > perfectly appropriate in the MSR group in some
    > cases. It has been happening for years with little
    > to no fuss.
    > Let me mention just a couple of personal examples.
    > Years ago I gave an Academy of Management
    > presentation and published an article in the MSR
    > newsletter where I denigrated a religion [McCormick,
    > D. W. (2004). The "Elephant in the Meditation
    > Hall": Religious Corruption's Lessons for
    > Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical
    > Development. Academy of Management Management,
    > Spirituality and Religion Newsletter, 9-10.
    > and McCormick, D. W. The "Elephant in the
    > Meditation Hall": Religious Corruption's Lessons
    > for Democratic Management, and Spiritual and Ethical
    > Development. Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
    > All Academy Session. Seattle, WA. August 2003.]. In
    > these I wrote about my experience in Siddha Yoga and
    > how I left it as a result of finding out about the
    > leader's (Swami Muktananda) sexual harassment of his
    > students, his socking away millions in Swiss bank
    > accounts, and of the vicious fight between his
    > chosen successors over supremacy. It was fairly
    > disparaging.


    I detest Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These are people
    who I believe do not represent their religions. It seemes
    to me that you are doing the same here...Your problem isn't
    with Yoga, it's with the leadership. I have problems with
    the Pope and the Papacy as well...but that's not a problem
    with Catholicism.


    > I have also been critical in journal publications.
    > In a Fall 2006 article in OMJ ([McCormick, D. W.
    > (2006). Indoctrination, Diversity, and Teaching
    > About Spirituality and Religion in the Workplace.
    > Organization and Management Journal: A Refereed
    > Online Publication Sponsored by the Eastern Academy
    > of Management. 3(2) 77-91.], I discuss a particular
    > spiritual/religious ideology (perennialism) and am
    > fairly critical of its uncritical application in the
    > classroom and the deleterious effects that
    > result.

    Again, I don't think that you are denigrating an entire
    religion here, but are questioning/critically evaluating as
    aspect of that group (I also don't think that perennialism
    is associated with just one faith, though, is it?)


    > I'd like to continue to publish work that is
    > critical. For example, I've often thought that a
    > fruitful line of inquiry would be taking principles
    > of business ethics and applying them to religious
    > organizations. I practiced TM for many years and I
    > would like to someday write about the questionable
    > ethics of the recruitment and initiation methods
    > that I experienced first hand.

    Don, the more I read, the more I think we agree...You aren't
    denigrating TM (which I don't consider a religion, in any
    case), but how the ideology is being executed. This would be
    a great article.


    Some day I'd like to
    > write about how, before the U. S. Civil War, some
    > religions legitimated oppressive business practices
    > such as slavery and how others legitimated
    > opposition to such policies. I don't think we in
    > MSR should cut off such lines of inquiry.

    Neither do I. This is NOT criticism of Catholic ideology,
    for example...it's not criticism of basic tenets of any
    religion...it's a criticism of how they operate.

    Should we
    > be able to examine Scientology and its questionable
    > business practices?

    Of course we should...but we don't need to denigrate their
    belief systems in the process. I don't agree with
    Scientology, but denigrating those belief systems doesn't do
    any good. Criticizing their business practices is perfectly
    legitmate. If we can criticize IBM's practices, why not
    Scientolgy?


    >I think we should.
    > I'm worried that we might move toward conflict
    > avoidant behavior that would be harmful for MSR as a
    > field. I don't think it is healthy for most academic
    > disciplines to have forbidden, taboo subjects that
    > are protected from critical analysis. I don't think
    > we should enforce a norm that we treat all spiritual
    > traditions, ideologies or beliefs as equally valid.

    Maybe not as equally valid, but as equally worthy of
    respect. It's one thing to say that I disagree with what the
    Catholic Church has done, it's another to attack the
    divinity of Jesus in an article on business practices. It's
    one thing to be a practicing Christian, Jew, Muslim in good
    faith, it's quite another to engage in an ideologic attack
    on the other faiths. The objective of our group is not to
    prove what faith is better...if it is, I'm in the wrong
    group. I don't think that science can do that.


    > Think about how weak the academic
    > field of politics would be if the norm was that one
    > couldn't criticize others' political views in
    > conferences or in print. I think a comparable norm
    > in MSR would weaken our ability to theorize.
    > A good example of the problem with the
    > we-are-going-to-treat-all-different-approaches-as-
    equally-valid
    > assumption is Ken Wilbur's work. He doesn't assume
    > this with regards to religious or spiritual issues,
    > but he does assume this about approaches to
    > psychotherapy. Although Wilbur's work contains a
    > great deal of brilliance and I generally like it a
    > lot, IMHO his ignoring the research about the
    > differences in effectiveness of various
    > psychotherapies and his insistence that relatively
    > discredited or even harmful approaches (for example,
    > traditional psychoanalysis) be treated as just as
    > effective and valid as approaches that have a lot of
    > empirical support (cognitive behavioral therapy) is
    > the weakest part of his theorizing.


    Psychotherapy isn't a fair comparison though. As one who
    was trained in psychology, I can tell you that you can
    scientifically show that one therapeutic approach is better
    than another. You cannot do the same with faith. I have no
    data on God that is incontrovertible, I have no way to
    compare on a fair basis whether the Koran or the Bible
    have "better ideas" for business...

    > I'd like to end with a point of agreement.
    >
    > "Others may disagree, and this list is precisely
    > the place where such discussions may be had."
    >
    > I completely agree with this and I'd like to build
    > on this idea. I think the accumulated discussion of
    > this topic would be a good newsletter article and
    > also would make a good symposium. If a symposium
    > does develop from this discussion, please count me
    > in.

    I agree that it's a great topic...I'm not really interested
    in doing a symposium on it, but I think it's a wonderful
    dialogue.

    Thanks, Don!

    bob

    Robert A. Giacalone, Ph.D.
    Department of Human Resource Management
    Acting Director, Center for Ethics and Organizational Integrity
    313 Speakman Hall, FSBM
    Temple University
    1810 N. 13th St.
    Philadelphia, PA 19122
    e-mail: ragiacal@temple.edu
    Work phone: (215) 204-7038
    Fax: (215) 204-8362

    Without a rich heart, wealth is an ugly beggar.--Ralph Waldo Emerson

    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society
    - Krishnamurti

    To care for anyone else enough to make their problems one's own, is ever the
    beginning of one's real ethical development--Felix Adler