Leadership for global systemic change beyond etichs and social responsibility by anne

Leadership for

Global Systemic Change
Beyond Ethics and Social Responsibility

Christopher Anne
Robinson-Easley


Leadership for Global Systemic Change


Christopher Anne Robinson-Easley

Leadership for Global
Systemic Change
Beyond Ethics and Social Responsibility


Christopher Anne Robinson-Easley
CEO
Enlightening Management Consultants, Inc
South Holland, Illinois, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-38948-6
ISBN 978-3-319-38949-3
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3

(eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016956586

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Cover image © Don Smith / Alamy Stock Photo
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland


PREFACE

This book is written for individuals from all walks of life who want to understand the dynamics of how to drive deep system change in a world that
continues to be fragmented; a change that incorporates the fundamental
constructs of ethics and social responsibility. However, before we begin,
please allow me to formally introduce myself and the structure of this book.

THE INSERTION OF SELF
I have had various roles in my career. In my last position, I was the VicePresident for Academic and Student Affairs at a community college in
Illinois. I also reached the academic rank of Full Professor of Management,
and I served fifteen years at a state university in both administrative and

faculty positions. Prior to that time frame, I served five years at a Catholic
university; also in administrative and faculty positions. In addition to the
years I have spent in higher education and the corporate business sector, I
continue to consult to organizations in the private and public sectors and
internationally teach intercultural management.
During the twenty-one years I have spent in higher education, I have
taught ethics and related topics at undergraduate, graduate and doctoral
levels. Yet, what largely informs my perspectives in addition to my academic training is that I worked in corporate America in various management and leadership positions for over two decades prior to entering
higher education.
My research, consulting, and training have afforded me the opportunity
to travel internationally, although the predominance of my experiences
v


vi

PREFACE

has largely been in Europe and the French West Indies. But what is most
important about my background is the fact that I am a trained organization development professional, with a doctoral degree in organization
development, whose lens is focused on how to design and implement deep
and holistic change.
My personal and professional journey thus far has been rich and moderated by other attributes. As you read, you will see the evidence of my
journey from a very personal perspective. My experiences have framed
my perspectives as to how we can produce change in our global community; a change that is focused on ameliorating issues that have significantly
stretched the social fabric of our world.
Throughout the years, I have personally experienced and professionally
worked to address far too many of the issues I discuss in this book. Equally
important, as a researcher I have also learned that if we are to bring about
change, we have to consider the proposition that our world is not value

neutral. As a result, this book as well as others I have written is in first and
third person. You see, the social fabric of our global environment is being
torn, not just stretched at the seams. We cannot continue to marginalize
people, wreak havoc on our environment, and place far too many children
at risk daily. Our global village has to change.
Therefore, to understand the complexities of the requisite change, I
respectfully posit that our personal lens and experiences when juxtaposed
to, or working in concert with views from peer scholars serve as important
foundations for understanding how to bring about change that will take
us beyond our comfort zones.
So, mentally, spiritually, and metaphorically walk with me as I urge a
collective gathering to begin the change process. Across the globe our
tenets regarding ethical behaviors and sound social responsibilities have
to change, because if they do not, the social fabric of our society will continue to be torn to the point that we will not recognize our world—a fear
many now have.
Christopher Anne Robinson-Easley
South Holland, IL, USA


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I continue to be grateful to my Creator as He continues to guide me in my
writing. And I am grateful to my children for their inspiration and encouragement and to the very special person in my life who has encouraged me
to keep growing and speaking my truth.
I am also thankful for friendship. As I have continued to write over
these past years, my friend, Mrs. Dortha Brown, has continued to be a
beacon of light, offering encouragement as well as tirelessly reading my
work and providing the constructive feedback I need.
I am also grateful for my experiences. The forty years I have worked in
business and higher education have been very enlightening. I have witnessed as well as experienced events and situations that I wished I had

never encountered. Yet, they have been significant opportunities for learning. Through it all, the most important lessons I learned were my responsibilities for righting the wrongs I saw. Each of us has a purpose in life and
a role to play.
We live in challenging times and as each day passes, the challenges
become more intense. When I began writing this book in 2014, the global
circumstances I addressed were intense. However, in between my beginning this book and the final submission of the manuscript to the publisher,
our world continues to spiral into even more chaos—a situation that is
very similar to what was occurring when I wrote Beyond Diversity and
Intercultural Management. In between my beginning that manuscript
and submitting it to the publisher, our world experienced very chaotic
events that centered on issues of a failure to value humanity. In the USA
we were spiraled into an ugliness that centered on the killing of a young
vii


viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

seventeen-year-old man, Travyon Martin. In countries such as Egypt,
Turkey and Brazil people were demonstrating about issues that concerned
their basic human rights.
And now, as this book goes to press, in the USA we are in the midst of
a Flint Michigan scenario that brings new meaning to the concept of social
responsibility, a presidential race that has gone beyond the boundaries of
ugly (to the point where other countries are questioning the rhetoric that
is emerging out of the USA), along with continuing issues that are said
to challenge the basic human rights of people in Turkey, Syria, and other
Middle Eastern countries. Added into the equation is an organization,
known among other names as ‘ISIS’, that is taking international terrorism
to a new level.

Unfortunately, these are just highlights of some of the concerns we face
that challenge leaders, our ethics, morality and our tolerance of injustice.
In many respects, it is overwhelming. Yet, if we step back, breathe, and
assess each individual’s role and responsibility, we can produce significant
global change.
Everyone has a purpose and a role to play. For me, I am a teacher as
well as an organization development change agent and for many years I
have been a writer. I use to write according to the parameters set forth by
the Academy. That is what we needed to do to get tenure. Tenured and
promoted to the rank of Full Professor, I now write to teach and hopefully
inspire a level of cognitive dissonance that will move people to new levels
of action.
For many years, I have been privileged to teach ethics and social responsibility from many vantage points and through many lenses. However, the
most important vantage point I have taken throughout those years is one
that has allowed me to teach my students how to understand the systemic
issues we see from a systems perspective and as an outcome … learn how
to change the system!
I am grateful for the graduate and undergraduate students I taught
throughout the years. I have been blessed to have students in the classroom
who represent our global society. Through the questions they asked and
the discontent they expressed throughout the years, we critically examined past, current and emerging issues. For many, they represented the
discontent they felt but may not have found a venue in which they could
articulate their feelings. Equally important, the way in which I forced their
view of the issues concomitantly forced the concept of systems thinking,
which resulted in their understanding and learning how to posit change


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ix

from a more sophisticated perspective—lessons which I have incorporated
into this book.
The ongoing ethical violations and challenges to people’s basic rights
that we continue to see today call for a higher level of thinking. Changing
a system is not hard. What is hard is helping people come face to face with
their own insecurities that can and often do make it difficult for them to
untie that which holds them back in order to make the change.
As I wrote this book, I focused on engaging all audiences. I want to
be clear: changing how we treat people socially and responsibly across the
globe is everyone’s responsibility. Even those who are victimized should be
prepared to challenge themselves and deconstruct why they have accepted
their current state. Until we learn to stand up for ourselves, people across
the globe will continue to be victimized. As Frederick Douglas said (a
quote I will repeat again in this book):
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out
the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them,
and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or
with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those
whom they oppress.1

I pray that the words I write will stir souls across the globe. I pray that
I will continue to have the strength and wherewithal to be provocative.
Most important, I am grateful to all who have always encouraged me to
speak my truth.
Friends and family are truly gifts from our Creator!

NOTE
1. Frederick
Douglass, Civil Disobedience Manual.

CONTENTS

1

Introduction

Part I

The Issues and Parameters of Plausible Change

1

15

2

Our World, Our Lens, Our Choices

17

3

Through the Lens of Business Ethics

41

4

The Current Landscape

53

5

The Friedman Versus Korten Argument: Are These
Dichotomies Still Valid in the Twenty-First Century?

87

Part II Through the Lens of Ethics and Social
Responsibility: Imagine a World of Change
6

Reclaiming Our World: The United Nations Global
Compact in the Midst of a Vision of Change

105

107

xi


xii

CONTENTS

7

Leaders as the Linchpins of Change

127

8

Living the Ideal: A Proposed Model for Change

143

9

Living and Sustaining the Ideal

177

10 Concluding Comments

181

Index

185


LIST

OF

FIGURE

Fig. 8.1 Evoking phenomenal global change

157

xiii


CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Since I began this book, countries all over the globe are facing crises that
are unprecedented. In my own country, the United States of America, we
are engaged in racial warfare that makes the 1960s and other pertinent
civil rights periods look mild. People are losing their lives as people are
walking the streets with guns and shooting arbitrarily—even shooting citizens in their places of worship.
Yet, I cannot believe that we have not seen these events, attitudes and
resulting atrocious actions coming. I believe many have chosen to close
their eyes. When I wrote my book, Beyond Diversity and Intercultural
Management, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), and as I researched and wrote
this book, I became alarmed at a level I had not experienced before. So
many people are having their humanity desecrated while the rest of us can
be seen as idly standing by and watching.
The social circumstances of our global society have to push people to
rethink how we live; a question that is fundamental to a perspective of
normative ethics (Hartman et al. 2014). The framing of this question is
vital to understanding our values, which are defined by our moral systems.
Our morality, personal integrity and resulting attitudes which frame our

personal and business ethics have to come under scrutiny if we are going
to change our world (2014).
How we should live in community is a question posited for many diverse
organizations and institutions, such as our global corporations. Embedded
in this question are more questions regarding justice, public policy, laws,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017
C.A. Robinson-Easley, Leadership for Global Systemic Change,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38949-3_1

1


2

C.A. ROBINSON-EASLEY

civic virtues, organizational structure and political philosophies—areas in
which corporations have substantive influence (2014). These questions and
their underlying constructs also challenge the many projects that are already
underway. As this book has reached its final stages of production, we are
witnessing presidential candidates in the 2016 presidential race debate many
issues which are foundational to this country. Yet, dismally what we also are
witnessing is that many consider the rhetoric of the Republican candidate
to be antithetical to the basic foundations upon which the United States
was built; a rhetoric that is so offensive to national and international leaders and citizens that one outcome has been the international community in
concert with many in the USA voicing concerns over proposed policies and
resulting actions (Hosenball et al. 2016).
In Turkey, which is situated very critically in a geopolitical sense, and
is in candidacy for entrance into the European Union, people are protesting verbally and in person (often with support from outside the country)

to challenge the government’s apparent shutting down of press freedom
and the right to articulate disagreement. These are just a couple of current
issue examples. These global travesties, some of which are described in this
book, suggest a strong need for people to challenge how we have allowed
our society to deteriorate to a level where far too many cope by numbing
themselves to the daily affronts. Yet, just as difficult to understand is the
number of people that support the continuation of the status quo; an issue
we will visit in this book.
There are many efforts to bring about change already in place; efforts
which people have placed a tremendous amount of time and energy in
structuring and implementing. Yet the problem with these efforts is that
they do not entail enough organizational entities and members of society
at large to make the substantive difference required on a worldwide basis.
There are more than sufficient numbers of organizational entities to make
a difference… they simply are not all engaged. As a global society, too
many people are content to stand by and simply watch. And, from individualized perspectives, many are afraid.
I recently received a civic award for contacting the police when I observed
a home invasion in progress. When the Chief of Police and I had a conversation regarding my accepting the award, I communicated my concern about
being recognized for something I believe is a fundamental responsibility
of citizens. Unfortunately, he confirmed that people for the most part will
not ‘get involved’. Interestingly, this is one of the first questions my undergraduate ethics students addressed two years ago: why do people turn their
heads when others are in trouble? Why, as a society have we ceased to care?


INTRODUCTION

3

Where are our morals for ‘doing the right thing’? Needless to say, that lecture and resulting student dialogue was very interesting.
These questions do not just reside on an individualized level, but

prevail on a global basis. The 2014–2016 goal of the United Nations
Global Compact Strategy is to increase corporate participation from 8000
corporations to 13,000 corporations and other participants by 2016.1
In the United States alone, there are an estimated 22 million corporations. 2 Equally challenging, many of the ‘engaged’ corporations do not
appear to engage at a level that evokes the requisite change—change at an
interpersonal and intrapersonal level. Yet these are critical change strategies for promoting and sustaining any dynamic change processes.
Years ago, when I first began researching and writing on organizational
change, I kept in the forefront of my mind the proposition of one of our
pre-eminent organization development colleagues, Dr. Peter Reason, who
for years was on the faculty at the University of Bath in England. Dr.
Reason posited that orthodox scientific methods, typically found in the
psychological and sociological realm of inquiry, may systematically and
to a large degree intentionally exclude subjects from all choice about the
subject matter of the research or, in the case of change strategies, interventions (Reason 1988). As a result, a dangerous outcome is that traditional inquiry methods become not only epistemologically unsound, but
contribute to the continued decline of our world, continuing to foster a
mechanistic world view (Reason 1988).
The impact of these missing change components are evident in the critiques and criticisms of the Global Compact Strategy, which is by far one
of the largest and most aggressive change projects underway today, and
that has the intent to ameliorate many societal atrocities; an issue I address
later on in this book. While I sincerely applaud the efforts of the United
Nations and similarly focused organizations moving towards the end result
of global change, I also wonder if it is time to push the limits of engagement with a different type of change model. In other words, is it time to
move beyond incremental change that is focused on addressing primarily
structural areas of concern and move towards a radically designed change
effort that includes people from multiple walks of life?
More importantly, is it time to move beyond structurally focused
changed initiatives and incorporate ways to engage the hearts and souls of
the people involved? There is truth in the statement that:
Liberation is thus a child birth, and a painful one. The man or woman
who emerges is a new person, viable only as the oppressor-oppressed

4

C.A. ROBINSON-EASLEY

contradiction is superseded by the humanization of all people. Or
to put it another way, the solution of this contradiction is born in the
labor which brings into the world this new being: no longer oppressor
no longer oppressed, but human in the process of achieving freedom.
(Freire 2006, p. 49)

As an organization development strategist, I quickly learned that to
understand the hearts and souls of people from a very deep discursive
level, you have to go beyond even the most sophisticated change strategies
and engage the people at their core—insights which drove me to return
to school after obtaining my doctoral degree in organization development
and enter seminary.
The concept and constructs associated with ethics automatically raise
the questions as to how we live as a moral society and whether or not the
morality we (and ‘we’ is very inclusive) have embraced is contributing to
the tearing apart of our social fabric. We also have to question whether
or not organizations who supposedly engage in ‘business ethics’ have a
responsibility to the greater society (corporate social responsibility) that
goes beyond the limits to which they currently prescribe—and, concomitantly, ask when organizations are perceived as duplicitous in their behaviors, why do consumers support those organizations?
It has been suggested that one way to engage corporate responsibilities
in change strategies is to insist that where there is severe deprivation and
suffering that can be alleviated, it is morally intolerable to maintain that
no one has the responsibility to help (Miler 2001 as cited in Kuper 2004).
Perhaps corporations do have extensive remedial responsibilities not just

because they are the cause of issues or are morally responsible for so much
global poverty, or because they have very close ties with local communities, but because from a local to a global level, they are the most capable
agents when it comes to seriously addressing the torn fabric of our global
society (Kuper 2004).

THE INTERMINGLING OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS ETHICS
Throughout this book, I will often simultaneously address business ethics
and personal ethics—and both of their relationships to social responsibility. Academically, I understand the difference with respect to their definitions and how they are treated differently in the literature.


INTRODUCTION

5

However, my personal experiences, particularly through the lens of
leadership, have suggested that if an organizational leader is lacking in
his or her personal ethical behaviors, and the moral foundations from
which this leader operates lack substance, it becomes very difficult for
the organization to ethically behave. As a result, we will subsequently
have issues with the ‘business ethics’. Leadership behaviors and ethics,
organizational culture and its resulting ethical behavior are intimately
intertwined.
Let me take a moment to expound upon what I mean. In my book,
“Our Children Our Responsibilities: Saving the youth we are losing to
gangs” (Robinson-Easley, 2012), I suggested that there were direct relationships on a vertical level between personal vision, personal power and
personal change. I also suggested direct vertical relationships between
organizational vision, organizational power and organizational change.
But, equally importantly, I posited the direct horizontal relationships
between personal vision and organizational vision; personal power and
organizational power; and personal change with the capacity for organizational change.

Fundamentally, I suggested that effective leaders have to possess personal vision, live in their personal power, and as a result, not be afraid to
bring about personal change. Or more, specifically:
The ability to see and inspire a vision will require a leader to reach in
the recesses of his or her soul in order to take people places they may
fear going. Even though the leadership trek may be wrought with trial
and error, when people feel the spirit and soul of a leader—in other
words their true essence—they will follow without fear or trepidation.
(Robinson-Easley 2012, p. 147)

Only then can a leader evoke an organizational vision, lead the organization to realize, actualize and effect its personal power to make that
vision a reality, which can result in sustaining phenomenal organizational
change.
Similar relationships can exist between ethical behavior, social responsibility and leadership. For example, a leader’s personal ethics will impact
the organiation’s ethical foundations and moral principals. How the leader
internalizes his or her personal power can impact the organiation’s resulting business ethics.  Equally important, if the leader does not engage in


6

C.A. ROBINSON-EASLEY

personal change, typically, the organization’s willingness to create change
in order to alter it’s ethical behavior and social responsibility strategies is
unlikely.
It is very difficult for people to be effective leaders unless they engage
in self-exploration and confront the issues that block them from living
their lives with purpose while demonstrating competencies germane to
effectively leading organizations and engaging in sound ethical behavior
(Robinson-Easley 2012). Internally driven leaders challenge their moral
and ethical beliefs and are not afraid to confront their own personal decay.

It is not until they have dealt with their own issues that they can successfully lead their organizational members and others through actions that
will respect the humanity of all people (Quinn 1996; Robinson-Easley
2014). The same holds true for how a leader works through their ethical behavior and is not afraid to challenge their foundational beliefs and
morality.
In 2014, I suggested the following propositions:
As our lives grow more complicated, we often find ourselves engaging in
behaviors that begin to tear apart at our ability to live authentically. It is
not until we recognize those behaviors we have internalized for what they
are, will we become willing to question them and change. (Robinson-Easley
2014, p. 142)

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


INTRODUCTION

7

take these concepts to the organizational level, it becomes much easier to understand how a leader can influence the ethical behavior of an
organization.
If we critically examine the relationship of the leader to the organization, he or she will often drive the culture, which encapsulates many
norms and behaviors. This same relationship can reside within multiple
forms of ‘organizations’—countries, communities, and the varying systems embedded with those entities. Consequently, if we deconstruct the
values that currently reside within these organizations, we should also
question if the people really believe that the moral values they have internalized are appropriate or is their acceptance framed by conditions (and/
or individuals) perceived to be beyond their control? In other words, has
the morality of the leader overshadowed the morality of the organizational members?
Perhaps a moral point of view should be impartial. But is it possible
given the plausibility of conditions described in the preceding paragraph?
A moral point of view is also typically defined as meeting publicly acknowledged rational standards that satisfy conditions of universality, and are
examined from a self-critical lens versus ideological perspectives (2004).
Equally important, a moral point of view promotes generalized empathy
and respect among all people (Cooper 2004).
However, when we examine the conditions that exist in multiple global
environments, one has to question this definition. How can we explain,
from a deep discursive level, a moral point of view that will support poverty, power, domination, racism, and violence? When examining the cultural proclivity to accept what may be imposed moral values that people
buy into by default, are their theoretical sensitivities and perspectives,
which will generally emerge from a multidimensional interpretive schema,
critically questioned and examined? For example, within the USA, there
is considerable dialogue across multiple venues regarding the decline of
the middle class and the continued exacerbation of poverty. These dialogues and resulting realities come across as out of the control of people
who are impacted the hardest. Unfortunately, this acceptance becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Only a minority of the masses refuse to accept this
outcome as inevitable.
Yet, if we critically examine the issues through the lens of social construction theory, we cannot help but question how the acceptance of
poverty and domination is inculcated into a community’s consciousness.

8

C.A. ROBINSON-EASLEY

Researchers and theorists for quite a few years now have suggested that
our knowledge and relationship to self, others, activity, and our world are
constituted and mediated by our engagements in our world, our resulting
discourse, and our social practices (Cobb 1994; Packer and Goicoechea
2000; Piaget 1972; Ricoeur 1992; Steffe and Gale 1995; Tobin 1993;
Von Glaserfeld 1993).
Perhaps to understand the acceptance of these issues, we have to understand how communities are influenced by the prevailing discourses that
are “spoken’ by the same institutions (or leaders) that impose dominance
and control. For example, when wanting to understand the impact that
corporations have upon impoverished communities, one only has to
understand the millions of dollars a year that are spent on advertising,
promotions, and in other forums that have the ability to construct a reality
socially. These media representations set forth a discourse that concomitantly informs our moral values.
At this point, you might ask, why is understanding these issues germane
to questioning and/or changing global communities and why is there a
suggested relationship to ethics, social responsibility and global change?
The various ways in which language mediates perceptions of our worldview are primary loci of analysis. Postmodern theorists cautioned against
the modernist assumption that rational processing lies behind or guides
one’s outward behavior. As a result, we should never assume that our
language is culture free (Gergen 1994). Our language has determining
capacities. As a result, when it is tied to social relations, identities, power,
culture, and social struggle, the language that permeates a society produces a particular version of social reality (Alvesson and Karreman 2000;
Chia 2000)—a social reality that then interrelates to how we view our
world morally.
Discourses from a community’s past can shape present and future
behavior in the form of established societal beliefs, theories, and stories

(Marshak and Grant 2008), and even acceptance as to what is morally
right or wrong. Equally important to understand, if a leader has the sphere
of influence, he or she can set forth a prevailing discourse that in may
have been completely antithetical to what the organization (however we
describe ‘organization’) believed in the past. The unfortunate aspect of
this socially constructed dynamic is that all leaders are not acting in the
best interest of their people, which is why a critical examination of the
‘self’ is important. If you, as a leader are in a position of power, you have


INTRODUCTION

9

an obligation to introspectively assess what drives your belief systems and
resulting moral behaviors.
When we fail to examine our discourse and the discourse of those that
lead us, we also fail to understand how we have allowed negative discourses to inform our moral principles (one only has to re-review global
history to find validity in these propositions—e.g. Hitler, Mussolini, and
even current global leaders). However, it is very important that when
we look to understand the etiology of the conditions that represent our
global environment, we do not assume a reductionist role and assume that
the cause and effect are simple issues.
When we desire to understand how we develop and enact our moral
values, we should seek to understand how inequalities in power determine
the resulting language. This perceived disequilibrium most definitely will
impact one’s ability to control the production, distribution and consumption of particular texts (Oswick et al. 2000), which can be viewed as reflective of our moral beliefs that underpin our behaviors.
The ongoing negative dialogues on issues of race and ethnicity within
the United States suggest that this country is in a serious moral battle. In
various forums, there are multiple discourses as to what should or should

not be considered socially acceptable when it comes to police brutality
and the multiple deaths of Black men and women. At the same time,
Muslims are being verbally attacked at unprecedented levels. Dialogues as
to which ethnicities should be allowed to immigrate into the country are
being articulated in multiple forums. Yet, in the midst of the discourse,
the important question is which ‘voice’ will prevail, and will that voice
be contingent upon how much power and domination those articulating
a particular view point possess. Equally important, will the domination
of that voice result in moral acceptance of the behaviors that have come
under close national scrutiny?
The USA, unfortunately, is not alone in having these issues. The same
scenario holds true for other countries undergoing varying levels of strife.
When world leaders chose to label a particular sector of people as bad or
terrorist and develop a prevailing discourse to support those proposition,
it is amazing to witness the buy-in. And, while I have discussed examples
on a larger level, I have also witnessed these same behaviors in smaller
organizational contexts.
But how often are leaders challenged or questioned regarding their personal agendas, issues, values, or ethics associated with their promulgated


10

C.A. ROBINSON-EASLEY

discourse? In other words, do people recognize privatized agendas and
how often are those agendas challenged?
We have no choice but to engage in this higher level of integrated
thought and action. Dysfunctional moral values and the resulting failure
to act are issues that permeate institutions and society at large—issues I
will more closely examine in the following chapters. And, I respectfully

suggest that when these analyses are done, people will question what they
have accepted. They will emerge open to investigating their desires for
alternative realities with respect to their present social contexts. And they
may just say: enough is enough—and go on to insist upon change.
Leaders across the world should seriously question how we, as a global
society, make decisions regarding and accept the outcomes of conditions
that continue to stress our existence. You see, I do believe that there is
significant truth in the proposition that the unexamined life is not worth
living.3

THE INTENDED OUTCOMES OF THIS BOOK
My intention in writing this book is to drive a different conversation and
resulting understanding as to how we can invoke change. I intentionally raise issues that challenge prevailing praxes and, most important, I
strongly suggest that true change will result from our inculcating into the
change processes not just a select few, but people from all over the world
united around a common agenda of reform. It is critical that we hear the
voices of people who are impacted by ethical issues and believe in the need
for focused and intensified social reform—a reform that would examine
our lives, issues and underlying assumptions and moral values through
multiple lenses. If authentically done, this examination will cause productive cognitive dissonance that has the ability to unite people from varying
walks of life.
I propose to organizational leaders across the globe that if there is going
to be change in our world, it has to begin with them. Equally important,
the change that is necessary for our torn social fabric needs to go beyond
their current efforts. And I pray that people begin speaking to the issues
from a different perspective when addressing possibilities for change and,
more importantly, their roles and responsibilities for driving change.
Last but not least, the model that is suggested is a beginning strategy
that I also hope people will take, re-modulate, but more importantly begin
implementing in a continuous improvement context.

INTRODUCTION

11

I have never written a book that just addressed or rehashed the issues.
And, while the change models I have suggested emerge from my vantage
point, they are starting points. I tend to become frustrated when I read
a book that only reiterates what I already know. I do not need people to
continue telling me how bad a situation is through their writing. What I
will resonate with is when they can cognitively map a process for making
a difference. The map may not be perfect, but hopefully it will provide a
context for, and juxtaposition to, the issues that help me to understand
better how the road map can look.
This is what I have strived to do in this book. I have respectfully examined the work done by the United Nations on global reform, and I have a
tremendous respect for what they have done and what they have proposed
as next steps. I have hopefully provided a context for taking their work to
another level—one that employs strategies that emerge from the praxes of
organizational behavior and organizational development in concert with
tenets of spirituality and mindfulness.
Just as the leaders of today’s organizations are critical actors in this particular play of life, so are the ‘everyday’ people. As a global society, we have
to question our morals and how we have allowed ourselves to become
so disconnected from one another. We do not ‘see’ one another from a
perspective of understanding individualized situations; and as a result a
disconnect emerges. Or, to bring this concept back to an earlier example,
if the crime is not being committed on or towards me, why should I call
the police? This is not an acceptable answer in any societal environment.
I know a different dialogue is possible. I teach this dialogue in my classrooms and I also know that no matter how small, everyone has a role and
responsibility for producing  change. The responsibility does not just lie

on the shoulders of CEOs, but I do believe it does begin with them and
similarly situated organizations.
I also know that the leaders of our worldwide organizations have the
position, power and financial resources to envision a different world. More
importantly, I believe when we begin a different conversation, the dialogue begins a change towards our tolerance for poverty, injustice, discrimination, decimation of our environment, and the many other issues
that are plaguing our globe.
Research continues to demonstrate the power of dialogue. The generative energy associated with waking up and understanding that our lives
can be better and that we can move beyond just an artistic expression of
discontent to a well-developed strategy that engages multiple forums of


12

C.A. ROBINSON-EASLEY

stakeholders is what creates a new vision of freedom in our world … a
freedom that is:
… The creative passion for the possible. Freedom is not just turned towards
things as they are, as it is in domination. Nor is it directed only to the community of people as they are, as it is in solidarity. It reaches out to the future,
for the future is the unknown realm of possibilities, whereas present and past
represent the familiar sphere of realities. (Moltmann 1999, p. 159)

Therefore, I employ you to walk with me as we vision a different world
through a lens of business ethics and social responsibility that is moved to
a higher level than any we have previously encountered. Strategize with
me as I suggest ways to take our present efforts and build upon them, and,
most importantly, believe as I do that our world deserves better. You see,
I truly believe, as William Shakespeare suggested many centuries ago, that
‘it is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in our selves.’4

NOTES
1. />Strategy2014-2016.pdf.
2. />3. />4. />
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of
organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125–1149.
Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organization, 7(3),
513–518.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives
on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
Cooper, D. (2004). Ethics for professionals in a multicultural world. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New  York:
Continuum Publishing.
Gergen, K. (1994). Realities and relationships, soundings in social construction.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


INTRODUCTION

13

Hartman, L., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2014). Business ethics: Decision
making for personal integrity and social responsibility. New  York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hosenball, M., Mohammed, M., & Spetalnick, M. (2016). Foreign diplomates
voicing alarm to US officials about Trump. />2016/03/07/foreign-diplomats-voicing-alarm-to-us-officials-about-trump/
21323789/.
Kuper, A. (2004). Harnessing corporate power: Lessons from the UN global compact. Development, 47(3), 9–19.
Marshak, R., & Grant, D. (2008). Transforming talk: The interplay of discourse,

power and change. Organization Development Journal, 26, 33–41.
Moltmann, J. (1999). God for a secular society. The public relevance of theology.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2000). Discourse, organizations and organizing: Concepts, objects and subjects. Human Relations, 53(9), 1115–1120.
Packer, J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of
learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4),
227–241.
Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology (W. Mays, Trans.). New York:
Basic Books. (Original work published 1970).
Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reason, P. (1988). Human inquiry in action, developments in new paradigm
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago, MA: University of Chicago Press.
Robinson-Easley, C. A. (2012). Our children, our responsibilities: Saving the youth
we are losing to gangs. New York: Peter Lang.
Robinson-Easley, C. A. (2014). Beyond diversity and intercultural management.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism.
In K.  Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education
(pp. 223–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.