LP762-L2 week 8

A Native American Relational Ethic: An Indigenous Perspective on Teaching Human Responsibility

Amy Klemm Verbos • Maria Humphries

Received: 28 November 2012 / Accepted: 14 June 2013 / Published online: 9 July 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Our exemplar of a Native American relational

ethic is depicted through the Seven Grandfather Teachings,

an ancient sacred story of Potawatomi and Ojibwe peoples.

These teachings state that human beings are responsible to

act with wisdom, respect, love, honesty, humility, bravery,

and truth toward each other and all creation. We illustrate

the possible uses of this ethic through exercises wherein

students reflect on the values and learn lessons related to

ethics, leadership, teamwork, and relationships, or create

stories using Native American story form.

Keywords Native American values � Relational ethic � Indigenous perspectives � Team exercise � Leadership

exercise � Values exercise � Creativity exercise

Introduction

The further backward you can look the further for-

ward you can see.

Shawanda (2010, p. 22).

In support of a two-way exchange of ideas and knowl-

edge between Native American1 and Western management

perspectives, we present the relational ethic of the Seven

Grandfather Teachings, the ancient ethical values of the

Potawatomi and Ojibwe peoples.2 As a Native American

citizen of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi and an aca-

demic working with Indigenous peoples, we are both

committed to social justice for Indigenous peoples. We are

cognizant of our positions of privilege in society and the

possible danger of cooptation that may occur through this

effort. We call on these teachings to generate creative

tensions with instrumental values found in contemporary

business examples through a leadership exercise useful in

strategy, management, ethics, and other business classes.

We explain how to incorporate Native American story

form into a contemporary creativity exercise. We illustrate

how Potawatomi values may be beneficial for student

reflections to create team charters useful in any extended

team activity. Finally, we provide additional possibilities

about how relational ethics commonly but not uniquely

A. K. Verbos (&)

College of Business Administration, Department

of Management, Central Michigan University,

Smith Hall 204D, Mount Pleasant, MI 48858, USA

e-mail: verbo1a@cmich.edu

M. Humphries

Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Hamilton,

New Zealand

e-mail: mariah@waikato.ac.nz

1 The term ‘‘Native American’’ is a term that often supplants

‘‘American Indian’’ in American English usage. Neither term is

unproblematic, though a discussion of the origins of the terms and the

many disputes as to the best nomenclature is beyond the scope of this

article. Others prefer ‘‘First Nations.’’ Each tribe of Indigenous

peoples has their own names for themselves in their own original

languages. We note that Potawatomi people are Neshnabek (original

people). We recognize this diversity and use both generic terms

interchangeably. 2 The first author of this paper is of both Potawatomi and European

American descent. Our description is adapted from ones given to the

first author with ‘‘author unknown.’’ That appellation distorts the

sharing of this story through generations. We note that Potawatomi

and Ojibwe were part of the Three Fires Confederacy, and share many

stories, including this one.

123

J Bus Ethics (2014) 123:1–9

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1790-3

associated with indigenous values may enrich classroom

activities and encourage critical thought.

Recognition is growing that the prevailing systems of

capitalist development and their related instrumental values

are exacerbating rather than reducing social inequality and

environmental degradation (Kockel 2012; Maxton 2011;

Stiglitz 2012). The nigh elimination of ethical systems

based on relational values from prevailing commercialism

is coming under increasing review. By relational values we

mean a way of being, knowing, understanding, feeling, and

acting in relationship to other humans, plants, animals, and

the natural world, as interrelated and spirit-filled (cf. Cajete

2000; Nelson 2008). In Native American cultures, this keen

sense of interconnectedness holds Earth to be a living

organism, Mother of all things (Moore et al. 2007). Sha-

wanda (2010) for example tells that ‘‘[r]ocks and trees are

sentient beings, sacred in their own right and entitled to

great respect from human beings.’’ The metaphysical,

spiritual component effectuates mutuality thorough deep

gratitude expressed in traditional ceremonies. These are

values that have sustained communities even in the face of

significant challenge and oppression since contact with

Europeans (cf. Simpson 2004). Ausubel (2008) suggests

that indigenous wisdom is ‘‘precisely what humanity most

needs now to slip through this epochal keyhole of history

where the stakes are the very survival of our species and

countless other beings in the web of life’’ (p. xxi).

Indigenous peoples in many world regions have perse-

vered through periods of colonization and oppression (see,

e.g., Verbos et al. 2011a, Prucha 1986; Stuckey and Mur-

phy 2001; Ward 2007). They continue to practice their rich

cultures despite considerable obstacles (cf. Boggs et al.

2007). LaDuke (1999), Cajete (2000), James (2004), and

Wildcat (2009) explore Native Americans’ long, pre-

colonial history of practicing sustainability by balancing

rather than trying to control or exploit dynamics of inter-

relationships in an ecosystem. Indeed, Cajete (2000) asserts

that Western science needs to explore Native science in

order to challenge the inherent limitations and biases of

Western ideas and to see anew the wisdom evident in the

traditions that have been so under attack. Greater attention

to the potential of relational values expressed in many

indigenous worldviews opens opportunities for the trans-

formation of the exploitative and damaging outcomes of

the prevailing commercial mode of development. The work

of Spiller et al. (2011), Hoskins et al. (2011), Williams

et al. (2012), and Fitzgibbons and Humphries (2011) are

examples of such emerging engagement with indigenous

worldviews now more publically accessible for a wider

consideration beyond their sacred relevance to any specific

people. We join this engagement in this article. Our aims

are to encourage critical thought about the inherent biases

and limitations of the dominant commercial paradigm in

business schools, through exploring a relational ethic

composed of universal values found in at least two Native

American cultures, and how those values might inform

more positive, ethical behaviors.

A Native American Relational Ethic

The Seven Grandfather Teachings come from a tradi-

tional Potawatomi and Ojibwe story that is a part of their

oral educational tradition. The Seven Grandfather

Teachings have an ancient origin and are not attributable

to any particular author or translator from original

Algonquin languages. We gratefully acknowledge the

multitude of elders who passed this story on, and each

person who has given it to someone else. The story

conveys what it means to live a good life; i.e., how

human beings should behave toward one another, the

Earth, and all of nature. The story is a sacred truth

passed down through millennia. It is a moral frame that

sustains people, yet may have proved problematic when

dealing with over 40 treaties made and kept by Potaw-

atomi consistent with their values, but broken by white

governments. Native American storytelling differs from

Western storytelling in form as well as function (Verbos

et al. 2011b). Storytelling in this context enables indi-

vidual and community life and the life and process of the

natural world to become the primary vehicles for the

transmission of culture.

The culture’s vitality is literally dependent on indi-

viduals, in community with the natural world.

Indigenous cultures are an extension of the story of

the natural community of a place and evolve

according to ecological dynamics and natural rela-

tionships (Cajete 2000, p. 94).

The Seven Grandfather Teachings are instructions about

the foundational values that make up our relationships with

each other and the natural world. Each teaching contains a

value that was given as a gift from spiritual beings (the

Seven Grandfathers) to the first elder when he was a boy.

Thus it reaches back to the very beginning of a society that

relies upon elders to pass down wisdom. It is an original

instruction about our responsibilities as humans.

The seven values presented in the story are translated

from Potawatomi as wisdom, love, respect, bravery, hon-

esty, humility, and truth. These values are universally

recognized as virtues or character strengths (see Peterson

and Seligman 2004). Their interpretation in Potawatomi

culture is that: (1) the values in Potawatomi culture are

human responsibilities that apply to all situations; (2) all of

the teachings are construed together as interdependent; and

(3) the teachings do not privilege human beings over other

2 A. K. Verbos, M. Humphries

123

aspects of creation. The values are transcendent as defined

by Peterson and Seligman (2004) because they connect an

individual to something higher in meaning or purpose.

Wisdom is to be used for the people; it is borne of

experience and living the teachings. Love is to care for

other human beings, including future generations, and to be

generous with them. Generosity is an important value that

is an outgrowth of love. Respect attaches to all things

created, including nature, creatures, and people. In Native

American perspectives, nature is animate (Cajete 2000;

Cordova 2007). The dimensions of Earth’s vitality are not

to be treated as mere resources to be exploited nor har-

nessed to the interests of human beings at the expense of

other life forms. Bravery is to face adversity, act, and

persevere through difficulty. Honesty means to act in a

genuine way without fraud or deception and with good

intentions in one’s heart. Humility is to understand that one

is equal to, not greater nor lesser than, everyone else. Truth

is to have integrity in all things, especially as it relates to

oneself and the people (meaning Potawatomi/Ojibwe), and

to speak the truth. These teachings are considered inter-

dependent and challenging to embody in day to day living.

Each exists in only relationship. Relationships may be with

another person, an animal, a body of water, or a forest. For

example, it is through respect, humility, and wisdom that

we take from nature only what we need for our sustenance.

It is said by those who live these teachings that if you do

not practice a teaching, you are enacting its opposite. For

example, if wisdom is not used for the benefit of the people,

you not only practice selfishness, but violate also the gift of

love (i.e., the principle of generosity). If you believe

yourself to be greater than others, you are not practicing

humility or respect. Telling lies not only violates truth, but

also respect, love, honesty, and wisdom. Consistent with

these interdependent values, we urge care by any adopters

of this value system to avoid thoughtless or self-serving

cooptation of increasingly accessible indigenous wisdom in

ways that exclude the very Indigenous people in whose

lives these values are manifest (cf. Simpson 2004; Stuckey

and Murphy 2001; Whitt 1999). Rather, we offer the

teachings in humility with respect for how they may inform

and inspire management educators.

We suggest that although still marginalized, Indigenous

peoples have much knowledge useful for management

education and practice (Fitzgibbons and Humphries 2011;

Verbos and Humphries 2012). Shiva (1988), LaDuke

(1999), and Spiller et al. (2011a, b) are among those who

demonstrate radical organizational alternatives aligned with

Indigenous peoples’ traditions that are driven from an ethic

of mutual responsibility for each other and for Planet Earth.

Ferraro et al. (2005) argue that business schools incul-

cate and perpetuate organizational systems based in eco-

nomic theories that create self-fulfilling prophecies of

individualistic self-interest and self-interested maximizing

business. This is no straw man. It is Jensen and Meckling’s

(1994) ‘‘economic man.’’ He is not even considered to be a

problem by adherents to this theory of the nature of man.

There are degrees to which the underlying assumptions of

cost–benefit calculations and instrumental ethics are

adopted and followed in business practice. These calcula-

tions provide elegant mathematical models for analyzing

and accounting for business decisions. But they provide a

far less complete view of the world than do Indigenous

perspectives which acknowledge interdependence and the

relationship of all things considered externalities in eco-

nomic theory. We acknowledge that not all businesspeople

adhere to this theory and that many adopt and enact values

that resemble the Seven Grandfather Teachings. For

example, Subaru produces its automobiles in zero landfill

plants. Its Lafayette, Indiana plant has a nature preserve on

site.

The values underlying ‘‘economic man’’ (Jensen and

Meckling 1994) are the opposite of the Seven Grandfather

teachings of love, humility, respect, and wisdom. Stead and

Stead (2010) note that a ‘‘closed-circular-flow view’’ of

typical of western business processes operate under the

assumption that ‘‘the economy is not subject to the physical

laws of the universe, the natural processes and cycles of the

ecosystem, or values and expectations of society’’ (p. 491).

Despite its origins in Western ideals of human emancipa-

tion and equality, global economic activity is increasingly

associated with social deprivation and environmental deg-

radation (Stiglitz 2012). The limited view of economic

theory has come to dominate perceived reality as the

necessary model of business or as a natural expression of

the (competitive) condition of humanity. As an example of

the difference between these world views, we turn to

Banerjee’s (2011) description of protests by tribal groups in

India over land acquisitions by the government for corpo-

rate projects that displace Indigenous people without ade-

quate consideration of the losses they suffer. In this case

economic development which led to the plight of these

people ignores the interdependence of these stakeholders,

while a relational ethic makes the acting party responsible

to the other to exercise love (caring for all life), respect for

the position of these specific people as stakeholders,

humility and wisdom to understand that they matter, and

bravery to do the right thing for these stakeholders.

Marcus et al. (2010) argue that the dominant neo-clas-

sical economic view considers society and nature to be

external to the business realm. They note, however, that

businesses and other human activities rely upon nature for

sustenance, but nature does not need humans (or business)

to survive. Thus, they argue for adopting an embedded

view of business, society, and nature that recognizes nature

as a circle encompassing society which in turn

A Native American Relational Ethic 3

123

encompasses business (Marcus et al. 2010). It is a view

implicit in the Teachings of humility and respect for the

Earth and all of creation. Moreover, it exemplifies truth as

having integrity toward our part in creation.

In contrast to an embedded view of multiple and far-

reaching relationships, instrumental values often demand

managerial preoccupation with short-term accountability

and unsustainable processes directed toward profit maxi-

mization. Swanson (1999) aptly calls the separation of

moral values from business decisions ‘‘normative myopia.’’

We consider this myopic focus inherently dangerous

because it is a corporation-centric view that deflects

attention from the interrelatedness of all life. Theories such

as Freeman’s (1984) classic stakeholder theory draw out

relationships with stakeholders but do so with the corpo-

ration and its interests at the center. Stiglitz (2010, 2012), a

Nobel prize-winning economist, critical management

scholars (Adler et al. 2007), and Maxton (2011) are among

those who have implicated individualistic self-interest in

business with the seemingly intractable poverty, decline in

the middle classes, structural fragmentation in communi-

ties, excluding minorities from a sustainable livelihood, the

growing gap between rich and poor, environmental deg-

radation, financial bubbles, and economic downturns.

Richard Branson (2011), the iconic Western entrepreneur,

acknowledges that the system that has made him wealthy is

putting too much at risk and that managers in particular

need to incorporate a deeper understanding of these risks

and to promote an ethic of responsibility.

Paradoxically, perhaps, we reach to the margins, to

Native American peoples devastated by colonialism and

racism, for insight into better management education and

by extension to business practice. Viola Cordova, a Native

American with a Ph.D. in philosophy, observed two

assumptions underlying Native American ethics (Moore

et al. 2007). First, humans are social, not solitary; there-

fore, they need to cooperate to survive. Second, humans

occupy a specific place and must maintain conditions in

that place to enable survival (Moore et al. 2007). These

assumptions counter the myth of the rational self-maxi-

mizing human being and a resource-based view of the

natural world. We build our argument for greater consid-

eration and inclusion of Native Americans specifically, and

relational ethics more generally, through exercises aimed at

teams, values-based management and leadership, and cre-

ativity. Regardless of the disproportionate effect of glob-

alizing industries on Indigenous communities and the

exacerbating pressure on the realms of Earth they feel

responsible to protect, Indigenous people and their issues

have been woefully invisible in management education

(Fitzgibbons and Humphries 2011).

Indigenous ideas are atypical in business schools. People

in the United States, including those in the Academy, often

overlook, marginalize, silence, and fail to respect or

understand Native Americans, likely due to a lack of

humility and love. A socially constructed dominant culture

systematically denies Native Americans their human,

labor, environmental, and cultural rights (Champagne

2008; Marshall III 2006; Moore et al. 2007; Ward 2007). It

is only in 2007 that the United Nations issued the Decla-

ration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which is a

landmark human rights declaration (voted against by

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States). In

December 2012 the United Nations Global Compact issued

an exposure draft to bring to corporate agendas support for

these rights. We encourage the exploration of these

important developments to the interested academics.

Similarly, on the whole, academic or professional journal

articles do not focus on Native American or other Indige-

nous perspectives. An exception is Banerjee’s (2011) crit-

ical response to Haugh and Talwar (2010), which deals with

(Asian) Indian Indigenous populations affected by large

corporations. A notable mention is Parham and Muller’s

(2008) statement that American Indians do not exist in most

organizational behavior textbooks which generally ignore

cross-cultural differences within the United States. One

attempt to change this marginalization was the stated pur-

pose of a Special Edition of the Journal of Management

Education (Fitzgibbons and Humphries 2011).

The marginalization of Native American values in the

United States comes from a socially constructed idea of the

United States as a melting pot where American Indians

have disappeared into myth, stereotype, and history. In the

United States, Indigenous people are viewed as either liv-

ing in other faraway lands or as refugee immigrants to the

United States who now may live in freedom. Yet, 566

tribes are recognized by the United States Bureau of Indian

Affairs (http://www.bia.gov/). Their treatment has been a

travesty of the values of justice expressed by Americans.

Native Americans have been deprived of their sovereignty

as distinct peoples, a deprivation Americans would not

tolerate for themselves. Through relatively recent changes

in law to permit self-determination, Native nations are

building businesses to support tribal economies in ways

that endeavor to support Native values (Jorgenson 2007;

The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic

Development 2008).

We propose to shed the blinders of normative myopia

and recognize a totality of relationships not only among

humans but also relative to the Earth—a relational ethic—

through which we are morally formed as expressed in the

following excerpt from a speech by Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr.:

… somehow we’re caught in an inescapable network

of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny.

4 A. K. Verbos, M. Humphries

123

Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.

For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought

to be until you are what you ought to be. You can

never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought

to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.

(King Jr. 2005/1963)

Stiglitz (2010) sees many of today’s problems as a toxic

combination of rugged individualism, market fundamen-

talism, and out of control materialism. Under these

influences, people forget, deny, or diminish the relevance

that we are interrelated and exist in communities with each

other and with Mother Earth. We need to behave in

trustworthy and honest ways with each other. It may take

humility to accept that management education can experi-

ence positive change through Native American wisdom.

Native Americans pass wisdom from generation to gen-

eration through stories that become new with each re-telling

(Verbos et al. 2011b). One source of a relational ethic

expressed in Native American world views is the timeless

story of the Seven Grandfather Teachings. These teachings

consist of seven interrelated values that promote behaviors as

essential human responsibilities. This philosophy is quali-

tatively different from an instrumental economically ori-

ented logic. Yet each value, wisdom, love, respect, bravery,

honesty, humility, and truth, will be familiar to people in any

culture. They are encompassed within one or more of the

universal virtues positive psychologists call on when writing

about human character strengths (Peterson and Seligman

2004). We ask that management educators respectfully

consider how practicing these values as human responsibil-

ities may change or reorient business practices. As an inte-

grated value system, the Seven Grandfather Teachings

support sustainability, universal inclusiveness, and a pro-

found shift in thought and action.

We next turn to potential teaching exercises that may be

used to bring the Seven Grandfather values into manage-

ment classrooms.

Exercises

Leadership Values Exercise

Assign Finkelstein’s (2004) The habits of spectacularly

unsuccessful executives. This article distills research about

CEO failures into seven cautionary lessons. Provide stu-

dents with a handout listing the Seven Grandfather values

each with a line and a blank where you ask them to fill in the

opposite of this value (see Tables 1 for past responses).

Then, first individually and then as a class, we analyze each

habit and the underlying behaviors described by Finkel-

stein. Students identify where on a continuum between the

opposite terms each habit falls with regard to each of the

seven pairs (see Table 2). This lesson is helpful in con-

necting values with actual leader behaviors that result in

failure as well as to connect what those leaders could have

done to enact the opposite; i.e., the positive, ethical value.

The first author has used it in an undergraduate strategy

class, and it would fit well into a business ethics, leadership

development, organizational behavior, or other class in

conjunction with discussions about leadership.

Creativity Exercise

Native American story education produces inductive

learning through stories that do not have a beginning,

middle, and end in the manner of Western stories (Cajete

2000; Verbos et al. 2011b). In order to teach students to

create a story that will impart inductive lessons, the first

author developed characters with colleagues and then she

Table 1 Seven Grandfather Teachings and their opposites

Seven Grandfather’s Teaching Opposite

Wisdom Foolishness, stupidity

Bravery Timidity, cowardice

Respect Disrespect

Honesty Dishonesty

Humility Arrogance, hubris

Love/care Hate, indifference

Truth/integrity Falseness, incongruence

Table 2 Values missing in the seven habits of spectacularly unsuc-

cessful executives

Finkelstein’s (2004) seven habits Missing values

They see themselves and their companies as

dominating their environment

Respect, wisdom,

humility

They identify so completely with the

company that there is no clear boundary

between their personal interests and their

corporation’s interests

Honesty, wisdom,

humility

They think they have all the answers Humility, wisdom,

bravery

They ruthlessly eliminate anyone who isn’t

completely behind them

Love/care, bravery,

respect, wisdom

They are consummate spokespersons,

obsessed with the company image

Truth, humility,

wisdom

They underestimate obstacles Truth, respect,

humility, wisdom

They stubbornly rely on what worked for

them in the past

Humility, wisdom

A Native American Relational Ethic 5

123

wrote a story mostly consistent with Native American story

form (See Appendix A for the characters and story).

To use this exercise in a class, students are briefed on

the differences between Native American stories and

western stories in form, purpose, and how they are inter-

preted. Specifically, Native American stories do not occur

in a linear fashion and focus on interactions between and

among characters (Wiget 1990). The listener then raises

questions which are answered by the listener, resulting in

inductive learning. Thus, students raise their own questions

about the story, and we discuss how they are to answer the

questions for themselves.

Then, students are asked in groups of 3 to write a story

using the characters in 20–30 min. It can be helpful to

direct them to a common theme such as sustainability or

leadership. If you have internet available, ask students to

bring their laptops or tablets and have them write the story

using Google Docs as it permits more than one student to

type at the same time. It also works well if you are using

virtual teams. When a group is having trouble getting

started, you may offer a ‘‘story starter.’’ It can be almost

anything that will draw people, animals, or other aspects of

nature into relationship with Max and Minnie. Some pos-

sible starters are:

Minnie is asked to give a speech about Max’s

leadership… Max is contemplating his strategy for negotiating

with the union at his manufacturing plant… Minnie convinces Max to go on an eco-tour to Cosa

Rica… Max is trying to decide whether to buy widgets from

Mortimer or to make widgets in China… After clear cutting 100 acres of forest, Max comes

face to face with the animals he has displaced…

Once students have completed their story, ask each

group to read their story aloud. Then ask the other students

to indicate what questions it raises for them. Often, student

stories take the more familiar Western form in which stu-

dents linearly proceed from the end of the original story

and wrap it up with an ending and a moral. Nevertheless,

some students embrace the task of creating a story that may

occur at any time (before or after the original story) in the

midst of the path of the characters, and create interesting

stories that raise a variety of questions. Students genuinely

enjoy the story process. The first author has used this

exercise in conjunction with a chapter on creativity in a

leadership development class.

Team Values Exercise

In many undergraduate and graduate business classes,

students form teams for a semester-long project. This

exercise has as its objective to start students off considering

positive, ethical team behaviors. Begin the exercise by first

presenting students with Brutus and Donia’s (2010)

framework for team performance dimensions, then show a

simple powerpoint slide with the seven values within a

circle (or write them on the board): wisdom, bravery, love

(care), honesty, respect, humility, and truth (integrity). Ask

students, within their student teams, to develop a list of

seven ways that they will enact these values in their deal-

ings with each other in the team project. Student feedback

suggests that if behavioral problems arise in a team, this

document can serve to remind students of their responsi-

bilities to each other. ‘‘The team values exercise was

helpful because it was important to discuss these concepts

with our teammates. If we had not taken time to do so, we

probably would not even have taken time to think about

important values to our team’’ (Student feedback). This

exercise may be conducted in any class where there is a

team assignment.

The Seven Grandfather Teachings also lend themselves

to reflective discussion of contemporary issues.

Discussion Starters

The relational values found in the Seven Grandfather

Teachings could be applied to classroom discussions of

issues such as financial crises, fair remuneration (including

minimum wage and CEO compensation discussions), uni-

versal access to a sustainable livelihood, and responsibility

for restoring social and environmental damage. They pro-

vide a different ontological perspective on ethical action

and bring a relational ethic that extends the breadth and

depth of responsibilities people owe each other and Mother

Earth. By reflecting on positive values emanating from an

unconventional source, we indirectly question what ‘‘pre-

vails’’ as normal and suggest new ways that teachers and

students may evaluate possible courses of action and engage

in sense-making about whether a given action is wise.

Extensions and Limitations

We invite an extension toward Indigenous worldviews more

generally because respect for diverse ontological perspec-

tives from the most marginalized people can enrich main-

stream management thought (Fitzgibbons and Humphries

2011). Indigenous people are frequently exploited, alienated,

and harmed by corporations (see, e.g., Banerjee 2011; United

Nations 2009). Greater respect for Indigenous people,

entailing their greater representation in the Academy as

equally deserving of respect, will add a different perspective

to management education. This is consistent with the Prin-

ciples of Responsible Management Education (‘‘PRME’’),

an extension of the United Nations Global Compact. The

6 A. K. Verbos, M. Humphries

123

exposure draft referenced above makes clear that the rights

of Indigenous people are to be considered and respected by

corporations agreeing to the Global Compact. The exposure

draft is incorporated by reference into the PRME. Thus, our

exercises are one way that management educators could

bring new stakeholder perspectives into the classroom.

Perhaps the greatest limitation of our contribution is that

we invite educators to elevate those who have been

silenced and deemed completely irrelevant, a difficult

psychological barrier for some individuals to overcome.

Another is that a relational ethic privileges relationships

over instrumental economic calculations. Positive organi-

zational scholars are beginning work on this approach (see

e.g., Cameron 2008; Cameron et al. 2003; Caza and Caza

2008; Dutton 2003; Verbos et al. 2007; Roberts et al.

2005), while others hold skeptical views (cf. Fineman

2006; Hackman 2009; Learmonth and Humphreys 2011).

We anticipate resistance from our many colleagues in the

Academy who frame every issue through an economic

theoretical lens, a practice decried by the late Sumantra

Ghoshal (Ghoshal 2005; Ghoshal et al. 1999; Ghoshal and

Moran 1996). We anticipate a tendency to dismiss a rela-

tional ethic as either too simplistic, romantic, or, para-

doxically, too complex for the speed of business today.

Wildcat (2009) provides us with the following response:

Advanced societies, with their powerful rationality

and technologies, evidence an adherence to a body of

myths and romanticism that eclipses anything imag-

ined in tribal worldviews and lifeways…If romanti-

cism denotes impracticality and unrealistic fantasy,

can there be a more romantic myth than the idea that

humankind can always rise above the forces of nature

through our rationalities and application of technol-

ogy? (p. 136).

Conclusion

Native American knowledge (we argue it is also wisdom)

is the source to which we turn for an ethical framework that

could provide a transformational opportunity for those

willing to engage with it. In particular, Native American

philosophy and relational ethics have the potential to

counterbalance the hegemonic grip of economic thought in

management education and lead to greater ontological

variety and support environmental sustainability. While we

advocate for the greater inclusion of Indigenous voices, we

do so with a deeply ethical concern and caution—that their

inclusion does not signal a system requiring assimilation

but co-existence with respect, humility, and truth.

We urge that any pedagogical step toward including

Indigenous knowledge is done with careful thought. It is

preferable that Indigenous teachers or in strong collabora-

tion with Indigenous scholars or local Indigenous leaders

initiate and develop an understanding of Indigenous

knowledge in part to prevent its assimilation into a largely

unchanged curriculum. We caution against instrumental

uptake of Native American wisdom through cooptation, as

this has been a common practice in the past encounters and

exacerbates mistrust (cf. Simpson 2004; Stuckey and

Murphy 2001; Whitt 1999), instead we encourage prac-

ticing inclusion through inviting Native Americans and

other Indigenous peoples into stakeholder dialogues.

Appendix 13

Max’s Profile

Max is a businessman. He considers his company’s inter-

ests over the interests of others. This is central to every

decision he makes, and making as much profit to increase

his own wealth as well as shareholder value is his goal.

Max is willing to ‘‘bend the rules’’ if it is more profitable.

He wants his businesses lean and fiercely competitive. He

has a generally pleasant demeanor and can be charming

when he wants something. In other words, he is good at

impression management and can change his behavior to

suit his best advantage in a situation. Max believes that

emotion and compassion are not a part of business; it is a

rational cost–benefit calculation. He thinks of himself as an

individual who has succeeded based solely on his own

merit. He might be called arrogant because he does not

consider other perspectives or really hear other

perspectives.

Max is married to Minnie. Max generally ignores

Minnie’s advice, because he does not comprehend what it

is she does or why. They do not see eye to eye; in fact, he is

oblivious to her views. They go against his instincts as a

rational individualist.

Minnie’s Profile

Minnie is also a businessperson. She listens to Max’s plans

and gives him advice from her perspective. She believes in

the interrelatedness of all things. Minnie looks at all things

created as living and animate, just that they express it in

different ways: rocks, trees, bodies of water, grass, flowers,

etc. To her, it is wise to take into account the social,

environmental, and societal implications and possible

consequences of decisions in addition to financial

3 We acknowledge Joseph Gladstone, Ph.D. (Blackfeet/Nez Perce),

Deanna Kennedy, Ph.D. (Cherokee), and Daniel Stewart, Ph.D.

(Spokane) for their contributions to the Max and Minnie profiles.

A Native American Relational Ethic 7

123

ramifications. Minnie advises Max about actions that

would be respectful, caring, brave, and honest. She sug-

gests ways that he could act with humility and integrity.

Minnie possesses the power to bring Max back to life, but

not to undo any harm he causes.

A Sustainability Story: Max’s Economics and Minnie’s

Eco-Nomics

Max owns a large piece of property that has a mountain and

streams. He and Minnie live on his property below the

mountain, next to a piece of property owned by the Nature

Conservancy. An organic farm sits adjacent to their prop-

erty on the other side. The mountain is full of coal. Max

sees this as an economic opportunity to extract coal in the

least expensive way possible and make a huge profit. He

gets permits from government agencies to blow off the top

of the mountain. He is bursting with excitement as he tells

Minnie all about it. Minnie counsels him against this

course of action. Max is incredulous.

He walks along a path up the mountain, and the mountain

tells him: ‘‘The coal extraction will blow me apart, and

people will no longer be awed by the gifts the Creator has

shown through me. My snowcap provides clean water and

feeds our sister, the stream. Mining will cause noise, and

toxic runoff.’’ As he passes close, the stream says: ‘‘I am a

laughing, life-giving, happy presence, and your plan will

turn me into a foul, toxic, smelly, and life-depleting pres-

ence. Our brothers and sisters, fish, the trees, flowers, and

meadows in the conservancy, organic crops being grown for

food, all will be poisoned, become sick, and die.’’

Max shakes his head and goes about extracting the coal.

The blasts cause such shaking in their home that the walls

crack and many of their possessions are knocked from their

perches and broken. The mountain is fractured and the blast

site appears as an open wound. Machines cut across their

garden and break the peace and quiet of the past. Minnie turns

on the water and finds it is brown and has a funny smell. Crops

on the farm lose organic designation. The farmer cannot sell

his crops, and has no money for his mortgage. The bank

forecloses. Wildlife has moved on. But Max hardly notices

this; he is busy checking his payments for the coal. Following

his normal routine, Max eats fish from the streams and drinks

water from the tap. He gets ill and dies. Minnie tells him that

he has much to answer for and brings him back to life.

References

Adler, P. S., Forbes, L. C., & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management

studies. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 119–179.

Ausubel, K. (2008). Preface: Remembering Original Instructions. In

M. K. Nelson (Ed.), Original instructions: Indigenous teachings

for a sustainable future. Rochester, VT: Bear & Company.

Banerjee, S. B. (2011). Embedding sustainability across the organi-

zation: A critical perspective. Academy of Management Learning

& Education, 10(4), 719–731.

Boggs, J. G., Mickel, A. E., & Holtom, B. C. (2007). Experiential

learning through interactive drama: An alternative to student role

plays. Journal of Management Education, 31, 832–858.

Branson, R. (2011). Screw business as usual. New York: Penguin Group.

Brutus, S., & Donia, M. B. L. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of

students in groups with a centralized peer evaluation system.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 652–662.

Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence.

Sante Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.

Cameron, K. S. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 7–24.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of

positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J.

E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational

scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 3–27). San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Caza, B. B., & Caza, A. (2008). Positive organizational scholarship.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(1), 21–33.

Champagne, D. (2008). From first nations to self-government—A

political legacy of indigenous nations in the United States.

American Behavioral Scientist, 51(12), 1672–1693.

Cordova, V. F. (2007). Against the singularity of the human species.

In K. D. Moore, K. Peters, T. Jojola, & A. Lacy (Eds.), How it is:

The Native American philosophy of V. F. Cordova (pp.

159–165). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Dutton, J. E. (2003). Breathing life into organizational studies.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(1), 5–19.

Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language

and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling.

Academy of Management Review, 30, 8–24.

Fineman, S. (2006). Accentuating the positive? Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 31(2), 306–308.

Finkelstein, S. (2004). The seven habits of spectacularly unsuccessful

executives. Ivey Business Journal, 68(3), 1–6.

Fitzgibbons, D. E., & Humphries, M. (2011). Enhancing the circle of

life: Management education and Indigenous knowledge. Journal

of Management Education, 35(1), 3–7.

Freeman, E. R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder

approach. Boston: Pitman.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good

management practices. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 4, 75–91.

Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C. A., & Moran, P. (1999). A new manifesto for

management. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 9–20.

Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the

transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21,

13–47.

Hackman, J. R. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organi-

zational Behavior, 30(2), 309–319.

Haugh, H. M., & Talwar, A. (2010). How do corporations embed

sustainability across the organization? Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 9(3), 384–396.

Hoskins, T. K., Martin, B., & Humphries, M. T. (2011). PRME as an

ethic of relationality. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and

Organization Studies, 16(2), 22–27.

James, K. (2004). Science and native communities. In A. Eisen & G.

Laderman (Eds.), Science, religion, and society: An encyclopedia

of history, culture, and controversy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1994). The nature of man (pp.

4–19). Summer: Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.

Jorgenson, M. (Ed.). (2007). Rebuilding native nations: Strategies for

governance and development. Tucson, AZ: University of

Arizona Press.

8 A. K. Verbos, M. Humphries

123

King, Jr., M. L. (2005/1963). Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 WMU

speech found. Archives & Regional History Collections.

Retrieved September 3, 2010, from http://www.wmich.edu/

library/archives/mlk/transcription.html.

Kockel, U. (2012). Being from and coming to: Outline of an ethno-

ecological framework. In L. Williams, R. Roberts, & A.

McIntosh (Eds.), Radical human ecology: Intercultural and

Indigenous approaches. Surrey: Ashgate.

LaDuke, W. (1999). All our relations: Native struggles for land and

life. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Learmonth, M., & Humphreys, M. (2011). Blind spots in Dutton,

Roberts, and Bednar’s ‘‘Pathways for positive identity construc-

tion at work’’: ‘‘You’ve got to accentuate the positive, eliminate

the negative’’. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 424–427.

Marcus, J., Kurucz, E. C., & Colbert, B. A. (2010). Conceptions of the

business–society–nature interface: Implications for management

scholarship. Business & Society, 49(3), 402–438.

Marshall, J. M., I. I. I. (2006). Keep going: The art of perseverance.

New York: Sterling Publishing Co.

Maxton, G. (2011). The end of progress: How modern economics has

failed us. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Moore, K. D., Peters, K., Jojola, T., & Lacy, A. (Eds.). (2007). How it

is: The Native American philosophy of V. F. Cordova. Tucson,

AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Nelson, M. K. (Ed.). (2008). Original instructions: Indigenous

teachings for a sustainable future. Rochester, VT: Bear &

Company.

Parham, P. A., & Muller, H. J. (2008). Review of workforce diversity

content in organizational behavior texts. Academy of Manage-

ment Learning & Education, 7(3), 424–428.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (Eds.). (2004). Character

strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washing-

ton, DC/New York: American Psychological Association/Oxford

University Press.

Prucha, F. P. (1986). The great father in the United States government

and the American Indians. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska

Press.

Roberts, L. M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E., &

Barker, B. (2005). How to play to your strengths. Harvard

Business Review, 83(1), 74–80.

Shawanda, G. (2010). Voice of an Elder: Zhaawonde - dawn of a new

day. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 5(1), 22–39.

Shiva, V. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in

India. London: Zed Books, Inc.

Simpson, L. R. (2004). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and

maintenance of indigenous knowledge. American Indian Quar-

terly, 28(3/4), 373–384.

Spiller, C., Erakovic, L., Henare, M., & Pio, E. (2011a). Relational

well-being and wealth: Māori businesses and an ethic of care.

Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 153–169.

Spiller, C., Pio, E., Erakovic, L., & Henare, M. (2011b). Wise up:

Creating organizational wisdom through an Ethic of Kaitiaki-

tanga. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 223–235.

Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2010). Sustainability comes to

management education and research: A story of coevolution.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 488–498.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Freefall: America, free markets, and the sinking

of the world economy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. New York: W.

W. Norton & Company.

Stuckey, M. E., & Murphy, J. M. (2001). By any other name: Rhetorical colonialism in North America. American Indian

Culture and Research Journal, 25(4), 73–98.

Swanson, D. L. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and

society: A research strategy for corporate social performance.

Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 506–521.

The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.

(2008). The state of Native nations: Conditions under U.S.

policies of self-determination. New York: Oxford University

Press.

United Nations. (2009). State of the world’s indigenous peoples.

Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/

SOWIP_web.pdf.

Verbos, A. K., Gerard, J. A., Forshey, P. R., Harding, C. S., & Miller,

J. S. (2007). The positive ethical organization: Enacting a living

code of ethics and ethical organizational identity. Journal of

Business Ethics, 76(1), 17–33.

Verbos, A. K., Gladstone, J. S., & Kennedy, D. M. (2011a). Native

American values and management education: Envisioning an

inclusive virtuous circle. Journal of Management Education,

35(1), 10–26.

Verbos, A. K., & Humphries, M. T. (2012). Decoupling equality,

diversity, and inclusion from liberal projects: Hailing indigenous

contributions to institutional change. Equality, Diversity, and

Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(5–6), 506–525.

Verbos, A. K., Kennedy, D. M., & Gladstone, J. S. (2011b). ‘‘Coyote

was walking…’’: Management education in Indian time. Journal

of Management Education, 35(1), 51–65.

Ward, K. A. (2007). Before and after the white man: Indian women,

property, progress, and power. Connecticut Public Interest Law

Journal, 6, 245–267.

Whitt, L. A. (1999). Cultural imperialism and the marketing of Native

America. In D. Champagne (Ed.), Contemporary Native Amer-

ican cultural issues (pp. 169–192). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira

Press.

Wiget, A. (1990). His life in his tail: The Native American trickster

and the literature of possibility. In A. L. B. Ruoff & J. W. Ward

(Eds.), Redefining American Literary History. New York: The

Modern Language Association of America.

Wildcat, D. R. (2009). Red alert: Saving the planet with indigenous

knowledge. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishers.

Williams, L., Roberts, R., & McIntosh, A. (2012). Radical human ecology:

Intercultural and indigenous approaches. Surrey: Ashgate.

A Native American Relational Ethic 9

123