Thinking Theologically in the Business World: Part One
This post is the first of a four-part series following-up on the post titled "Why I chose a master's in theology over an MBA." In each of these four posts, we'll look at techniques for thinking theologically in the workplace.
Ryan Panzer is a theology blogger and learning and development professional in Madison, WI.
Theological reflection can take many different forms. It can incorporate myriad voices and perspectives, and it can serve all kinds of purposes. When we think of a framework for theological thinking that scales across secular contexts like the business world, we have to think of a model that is grounded in contextual reality, aware of the brokenness in that reality, and interested in concrete actions instead of abstract expressions. If we are going to use theology in the business world, we need to know what is happening, why it's happening, what should be happening, and what should be our way forward. We need to be able to reflect, but we also need to be able to get the job done.
When we hear the word "theology," we might think of God, scripture, ethics, morals, antiquated philosophers, or ivory tower academics. Each of these might have a role to play later on in the conversation. For now, we need to embed our inquiry in rock-solid, observable, quantifiable fact. We need to be able to objectively evaluate that which is happening in our contexts - to answer what Rick Osmer refers to as the "empirical" question. We need to start by asking "what is happening."
Picture a situation in which a director is tasked with defending their budget for the coming fiscal year. The director arrives at a budget planning session with the organization's vice-president, who will hear budget proposals from each of the five directors in the department. In order to ensure all voices are heard, each director will only have five minutes to present their proposal. The first presenter begins to state their case, when the VP interjects a question. The director answers the question, then continues the presentation. The VP asks another question. The director answers. The VP asks a third question, the director answers - and just like that, the five minutes is up. Flustered with not having a chance to complete their entire presentation, the director lets out an audible sign of exasperation. When making the budget decision, the VP slashes the director's funding - after all, they weren't able to get to the point. They appeared flustered, unprepared - even a bit surly. Clearly, their initiative was not worth the investment.
Picture a situation in which a director is tasked with defending their budget for the coming fiscal year. The director arrives at a budget planning session with the organization's vice-president, who will hear budget proposals from each of the five directors in the department. In order to ensure all voices are heard, each director will only have five minutes to present their proposal. The first presenter begins to state their case, when the VP interjects a question. The director answers the question, then continues the presentation. The VP asks another question. The director answers. The VP asks a third question, the director answers - and just like that, the five minutes is up. Flustered with not having a chance to complete their entire presentation, the director lets out an audible sign of exasperation. When making the budget decision, the VP slashes the director's funding - after all, they weren't able to get to the point. They appeared flustered, unprepared - even a bit surly. Clearly, their initiative was not worth the investment.
Answering the question "what is happening" might appear easy or simplistic at first. I would contend that it is by far the most difficult and vexing step in all of theology. Failing to adequately and accurately assess this question pushes us to a tenuous place where we will act not based on ethics or principles, but on emotion and subjectivity. Each of us comes from a particular social location that shapes and informs our perspectives. An honest evaluation of "what is happening" requires us to stash our assumptions, stop our inferences, and silence our biases. We cannot answer the empirical question from a place of subjectivity. We can only answer this question from the cold, observable data.
If we truly want an accurate and honest appraisal of the empirical question, we ideally would bring in a neutral mediator, someone with a distinctly different point of view. Of course, "mediator" sounds a bit starchy, which is why much of the business world uses the word "coach." An effective workplace coach is often one who moves us closer towards our goals by helping to tune out the noise of inference, assumption, and bias - to focus on observable data. Nobody is so attuned to their implicit preferences and unconscious biases as to take a more objective view of a situation. By enlisting the help of a coach, we can clear the clutter that distorts our answers to the "what is happening" question (for more on workplace coaching, check out my 'All Things Coaching' blog series with the Association for Talent Development).
Workplace coaches don't need to be accredited, trained practitioners - they can be a trustworthy colleague who knows you enough to understand your limitations. They do need to be self-aware enough to realize that they themselves assume certain skewed tendencies. They also need to be willing to keep things confidential.
If the VP in the previous example could have evaluated the situation with a neutral third party, they might have seen that their questioning prevented the director from completing their proposal - making them seem unprepared and indirect. They might have seen that the director's inability to complete their prepared presentation was the cause of their frustration - and that the contextual frustration had nothing to do with the viability of their budget ask. But because the VP answered the question with inferences and assumptions about the director's behavior, and failed to address their own social location, they were unable to think ethically through the important question of budget allocation. They were unable to think at a level of depth - let alone to think theologically.
If we fail to objectively answer the empirical question, any intention of thinking theologically or acting ethically is moot. Reasoning with chaotic inferences never reduces the chaos - it only strengthens the chaos' impact.
But if we find a way to leave our assumptions at the door and operate from a place of directly observable data, we have a chance to think clearly not just about what is happening - but why it is happening - and if we know what is happening, and why it is happening, we can think theologically in ways that will focus our resolve and illuminate the best path forward.
In part two of this series, we'll look at the "Why" question - step two of thinking theologically in the business world.
If we truly want an accurate and honest appraisal of the empirical question, we ideally would bring in a neutral mediator, someone with a distinctly different point of view. Of course, "mediator" sounds a bit starchy, which is why much of the business world uses the word "coach." An effective workplace coach is often one who moves us closer towards our goals by helping to tune out the noise of inference, assumption, and bias - to focus on observable data. Nobody is so attuned to their implicit preferences and unconscious biases as to take a more objective view of a situation. By enlisting the help of a coach, we can clear the clutter that distorts our answers to the "what is happening" question (for more on workplace coaching, check out my 'All Things Coaching' blog series with the Association for Talent Development).
Workplace coaches don't need to be accredited, trained practitioners - they can be a trustworthy colleague who knows you enough to understand your limitations. They do need to be self-aware enough to realize that they themselves assume certain skewed tendencies. They also need to be willing to keep things confidential.
If the VP in the previous example could have evaluated the situation with a neutral third party, they might have seen that their questioning prevented the director from completing their proposal - making them seem unprepared and indirect. They might have seen that the director's inability to complete their prepared presentation was the cause of their frustration - and that the contextual frustration had nothing to do with the viability of their budget ask. But because the VP answered the question with inferences and assumptions about the director's behavior, and failed to address their own social location, they were unable to think ethically through the important question of budget allocation. They were unable to think at a level of depth - let alone to think theologically.
If we fail to objectively answer the empirical question, any intention of thinking theologically or acting ethically is moot. Reasoning with chaotic inferences never reduces the chaos - it only strengthens the chaos' impact.
But if we find a way to leave our assumptions at the door and operate from a place of directly observable data, we have a chance to think clearly not just about what is happening - but why it is happening - and if we know what is happening, and why it is happening, we can think theologically in ways that will focus our resolve and illuminate the best path forward.
In part two of this series, we'll look at the "Why" question - step two of thinking theologically in the business world.
Ryan Panzer is a theology blogger and learning and development professional in Madison, WI.
Comments
Post a Comment