Thinking Theologically in the Business World: Part Three
This post is the third 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.
If the first two steps in theological thinking in the business world are asking "what is happening" in concrete, observable terms - and then discerning "why it is happening," our third step is where the spiritual rubber hits the busy roads of the workplace. The third question is the "ought" question - a critical reflection of what should be happening, of what would truly be ideal.
The "ought" question is the question of creativity and imagination - grounded in practicality. When we think about what should be happening (instead of the directly observable reality in which we presently find ourselves), we are always constrained by feasibility. The "ought" question is not some fantasy factory of impossible pipe dreams, but a sober assessment of performance improvement aimed at root causes. When we think theologically in the business world, this assessment lifts up the voices of theological conviction. What we believe, or aspire to believe, about God propels our understanding of what is to be done.
There is no single blueprint for applying theological conviction to business questions. Some might seek to ask "what would Jesus do?," though I find that question rather reductive and frankly a bit unfair to an understanding of Christ that functions at a universal/cosmic level.
My method for connecting theology with the "ought" question will inevitably be different than your method - and thank God for that! What matters is not so much the shape of our particular method, but that we are willing to bring scripture and faith tradition into the big questions of our day to day experiences. We don't need a monolithic pattern for bringing perspectives of faith, spirituality, and religion into our decision making. We need diversity, plurality of experience, and a willingness to change our approach over time.
I might distill my current method for connecting theology with the "ought" as a twofold process.
First, what do scripture and my Christian tradition have to say about this inquiry? If I'm making a decision that merits theological thinking (and keep in mind that many decisions do not necessitate this deeper mode of thought), I hope that I am capable of taking some of the primary arcs of scripture into consideration. While I likely cannot bring each of these arcs to bear in ever consideration, I especially value three themes in my theological thinking. First is the arc of the golden rule - which should ideally lead me towards empathy towards the neighbor. The next is the arc of liberation - which should ideally lead me towards a consideration of how a certain decision might inadvertently have effects that silence, dismiss, or marginalize. And the third is the arc of servanthood - the idea that effective leaders are servants first: self-emptying persons capable of sacrificing for the good of the team.
When faced with an important crossroads, I ideally stop to consider how each of these arcs inform my decision making. Are my judgments consistent with golden rule christianity? Do my decisions set free, or do they bind and limit? And are my processes consistent with a self-emptying servant, concerned with the betterment of the community? (Full disclosure: I don't do this nearly enough, and I have as much to learn here as anybody!)
Second in this twofold process is a consideration of the brokenness of a system - and the possibility of redemption. Any Christian thinker needs to be attuned to the reality that sin and brokenness exists, and is often operative at a systems-level. I can apply Golden Rule Christianity all day - but am I doing anything to address the brokenness intrinsic to the system? I can talk to you at length about servant leadership - but am I doing anything to sustainably meet the needs of a community? To think theologically in the business world is to consider what should be happening in light of one's faith convictions - then to ensure that a course of action sustainably and meaningfully addresses the reality of brokenness.
Rightly so, conversations around diversity and inclusion are becoming increasingly common in the American workplace - though perhaps not quite common enough. A surface-level solution to increasing diversity and inclusivity in the workplace might be to adjust an employee recruiting strategy so that a technology company sets a goal to hire more women and people of color into leadership positions.
Such a solution would make the company more diverse in the short-term, but may not increase the company's inclusivity in the longterm. If we think theologically about what "ought" to be happening, perhaps we realize the need for our business to participate in God's ongoing liberating work from racism and sexism. Called to change not just our recruiting strategy but to accompany those striving for more inclusive workplaces, we might recognize patterns of brokenness in our workplace. Maybe the patterns of brokenness are micro-aggressions, such as ill-conceived ice-breaker questions in new employee onboarding. Maybe the brokenness is more systemic, such as relying on a recruiting algorithm that tends to value Ivy League schools more than HBCUs.
Whatever the case, thinking theologically through the "ought" question sets us free from the tyranny of quick fixes - and sets our thinking on the path towards sustainable, redemptive action.
Ryan Panzer is a theology blogger and learning and development professional in Madison, WI.
If the first two steps in theological thinking in the business world are asking "what is happening" in concrete, observable terms - and then discerning "why it is happening," our third step is where the spiritual rubber hits the busy roads of the workplace. The third question is the "ought" question - a critical reflection of what should be happening, of what would truly be ideal.
The "ought" question is the question of creativity and imagination - grounded in practicality. When we think about what should be happening (instead of the directly observable reality in which we presently find ourselves), we are always constrained by feasibility. The "ought" question is not some fantasy factory of impossible pipe dreams, but a sober assessment of performance improvement aimed at root causes. When we think theologically in the business world, this assessment lifts up the voices of theological conviction. What we believe, or aspire to believe, about God propels our understanding of what is to be done.
There is no single blueprint for applying theological conviction to business questions. Some might seek to ask "what would Jesus do?," though I find that question rather reductive and frankly a bit unfair to an understanding of Christ that functions at a universal/cosmic level.
My method for connecting theology with the "ought" question will inevitably be different than your method - and thank God for that! What matters is not so much the shape of our particular method, but that we are willing to bring scripture and faith tradition into the big questions of our day to day experiences. We don't need a monolithic pattern for bringing perspectives of faith, spirituality, and religion into our decision making. We need diversity, plurality of experience, and a willingness to change our approach over time.
I might distill my current method for connecting theology with the "ought" as a twofold process.
First, what do scripture and my Christian tradition have to say about this inquiry? If I'm making a decision that merits theological thinking (and keep in mind that many decisions do not necessitate this deeper mode of thought), I hope that I am capable of taking some of the primary arcs of scripture into consideration. While I likely cannot bring each of these arcs to bear in ever consideration, I especially value three themes in my theological thinking. First is the arc of the golden rule - which should ideally lead me towards empathy towards the neighbor. The next is the arc of liberation - which should ideally lead me towards a consideration of how a certain decision might inadvertently have effects that silence, dismiss, or marginalize. And the third is the arc of servanthood - the idea that effective leaders are servants first: self-emptying persons capable of sacrificing for the good of the team.
When faced with an important crossroads, I ideally stop to consider how each of these arcs inform my decision making. Are my judgments consistent with golden rule christianity? Do my decisions set free, or do they bind and limit? And are my processes consistent with a self-emptying servant, concerned with the betterment of the community? (Full disclosure: I don't do this nearly enough, and I have as much to learn here as anybody!)
Second in this twofold process is a consideration of the brokenness of a system - and the possibility of redemption. Any Christian thinker needs to be attuned to the reality that sin and brokenness exists, and is often operative at a systems-level. I can apply Golden Rule Christianity all day - but am I doing anything to address the brokenness intrinsic to the system? I can talk to you at length about servant leadership - but am I doing anything to sustainably meet the needs of a community? To think theologically in the business world is to consider what should be happening in light of one's faith convictions - then to ensure that a course of action sustainably and meaningfully addresses the reality of brokenness.
Rightly so, conversations around diversity and inclusion are becoming increasingly common in the American workplace - though perhaps not quite common enough. A surface-level solution to increasing diversity and inclusivity in the workplace might be to adjust an employee recruiting strategy so that a technology company sets a goal to hire more women and people of color into leadership positions.
Such a solution would make the company more diverse in the short-term, but may not increase the company's inclusivity in the longterm. If we think theologically about what "ought" to be happening, perhaps we realize the need for our business to participate in God's ongoing liberating work from racism and sexism. Called to change not just our recruiting strategy but to accompany those striving for more inclusive workplaces, we might recognize patterns of brokenness in our workplace. Maybe the patterns of brokenness are micro-aggressions, such as ill-conceived ice-breaker questions in new employee onboarding. Maybe the brokenness is more systemic, such as relying on a recruiting algorithm that tends to value Ivy League schools more than HBCUs.
Whatever the case, thinking theologically through the "ought" question sets us free from the tyranny of quick fixes - and sets our thinking on the path towards sustainable, redemptive action.
In part four of this series, we'll look at the "What now" question - the fourth and final step 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