5 Discussion: Buddhism and Workplace Ethics

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242022443

Making Buddhism work @ work: The transformation of a religion into a

seasoned ethical system

Article  in  Journal of Management Development · June 2012

DOI: 10.1108/02621711211230849

CITATIONS

8

READS

145

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Routledge Companion to Management and Workplace Spirituality View project

The Changed Paradigm of Business Progress View project

Joan Marques

Woodbury University, Burbank, CA. USA

188 PUBLICATIONS   725 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joan Marques on 06 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Making Buddhism work @ work: the transformation of a religion into a seasoned ethical system

Joan Marques Woodbury University, Burbank, California, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review Buddhism as a potential reform instrument in the workplace and discuss some obstacles in making that happen. Design/methodology/approach – By the use of literature review and interviews, Buddhism’s establishment in the USA is reviewed, a brief overview of Buddhism in general is provided, Buddhism is considered within the light of the spirit at work discourse, and the current discourse on implementing Buddhist practices in the workplace is reviewed. Findings – It is found that Buddhist practices are becoming more widely accepted but the fact that they are called “Buddhist” practices may be a barrier in massive acceptance. Research limitations/implications – The information was gathered from literature and disputed by pro-Buddhist individuals (monks and lay persons), which may leave room for some bias in view sharing. Practical implications – Buddhist practices, when perceived as ethical values, make perfect sense, and could help instigate a positive turnaround in general feelings about work and experiences at work. Originality/value – Buddhism has not been discussed broadly within the scope of management practices. While Buddhism is generally endorsed in this paper, the discourses here discussed present a realistic view on points of caution when considering promoting Buddhist values in work environments.

Keywords United States of America, Workplace, Ethics, Religion, Buddhism, Organizational culture, Americanization, Spirituality

Paper type General review

Introduction In the past two decades a sense of dissatisfaction has been growing in US workplaces, fostered by enhanced awareness among workforce members. This enhanced awareness has been triggered by a multitude of factors such as, more women in the workplace, greater diversity through increased human migration, increased exposure to other cultures and religions, amplified insecurity through massive lay-offs and job outsourcing, blatant corporate greed and mismanagement from highly overpaid CEOs, a disappearing middle class, and more. Among the most influencing trends in the search for an answer to the above-mentioned growing rates of job dissatisfaction in the USA (Stewart, 2007; Mohamed et al., 2006), and the consequential mounting call for more meaning (Morgan, 2004; Cash et al., 2000), is the awareness around eastern traditions. Gockel (2004) attributes the popularization of eastern philosophies and spiritual practices specifically to globalization and the ensuing expansion of diversity of the workforce. Through this expanding diversity, US workers have become even more exposed to alternative ways of thinking and reasoning, and have acquired greater insight into the flaws of their traditional system, based on capitalism and Christian-based customs. Of all the eastern traditions, Buddhism could be considered the most influential in recent years. Concurring with Gockel on the diversity issue, Netland (2008) claims that the rising importance of Buddhism within

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

Received August 2009 Revised March 2010

May 2010 Accepted November 2010

Journal of Management Development Vol. 31 No. 6, 2012

pp. 537-549 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0262-1711 DOI 10.1108/02621711211230849

537

Making Buddhism

work @ work

the American religious and cultural landscape “is indicative of increasing diversity in American society” (p. 124).

Nonetheless, Buddhism was introduced in the USA long before the recent globalization and diversity trends. In their historical snapshot, Dugan and Bogert (2006) speak of entrance of Japanese and Chinese immigrants in the USA in 1850, the Gold Rush era. Dugan and Bogert register as many as 400 Chinese Buddhist temples in the western USA, and a significant growth of Japanese Buddhism in Hawaii at that time. Masatsugu (2008) also reports a Japanese Buddhist presence in America since the nineteenth century. He reveals the pressure the organized Japanese Buddhist group in San Francisco suffered from the Christian Caucasian dominance in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. This pressure included modification of the architecture of Buddhist temples to the protestant church style; rearrangement of the temple interiors to the typical protestant model, including temple pews for seating and an altar in the front; meetings on Sundays and the instatement of Sunday schools, and even the modeling of Buddhist gathas after Christian hymns!

Nevertheless, the presence and influence of Buddhism has greatly augmented in recent years, due to a more fertile climate toward change, and the growing interest of certain groups of Americans in this ethical system. Netland (2008) explains, “Though introduced in the nineteenth century by Asian immigrants, Buddhism has since attracted converts including prominent academics and entertainers. While numbers remain small (perhaps four million), Buddhism’s cultural significance is disproportionate to its size” (p. 124). Prebish (1999) even uses such strong terms as “aggressive expansion” (p. 7) and “explosive” (p. 7) to describe the development of Buddhism in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. Prebish (1999) uncovers a combination of factors that consolidated this growth in the decades after the 1960s. Among these factors he lists increased tolerance and pluralism in the American society, increased ecumenicism, immigration reforms, and augmented optimism and activism in American Buddhist communities.

Buddhism in a nutshell The founder of Buddhism, the man who was later referred to as the Buddha or “the Awakened One,” was born as Gautama Siddharta in a wealthy family around 563 BC. His father was a tribal leader, who shielded his son from external influences, because he wanted his promising son to become his successor rather than a holy man. Yet, traveling as a young man, Gautama got confronted with the sights of suffering, old age, and death, and realized the shallowness of his prior luxurious life. He promptly renounced this lifestyle, and left home to become an ascetic. After seven years of severe physical deprivation, he realized that this, too, was not a fulfilling way of living. Thus, in his mid-1930s, Gautama Siddharta set himself down, cleared his mind from renunciation thoughts, and began to practice insight meditation. Based on the insights he attained during his meditative state, he finally realized the illusion behind ego, or “I,” and the fact that without an “I” everything becomes one (Snelling, 1991). It was after this experience that Gautama Siddharta changed his name to Buddha, which means “The Awakened One.”

Buddhism: some basic concepts Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha, lived up till his 80s. Bercholz and Kohn (1993) confirm that, at the time of Siddharta’s death, Buddhism was well established as a

538

JMD 31,6

religion in central India. However, with the spread of the Dharma (Buddhist teachings), differences started emerging. Through the centuries, several schools of Buddhism emerged and dissolved. Currently, the two main Buddhist streams are Theravada, also known as the teaching of the elders, and Mahayana, or great vehicle. One of the most important differences between these two schools is, that Theravada teaches that only a precious few will ever attain enlightenment, while Mahayana teaches that enlightenment can be obtained by everyone, and that there are Buddhas all around us. These everyday Buddhas are called Bodhisattvas (enlightened beings). They focus on giving, morality, patience, vigor, meditation, and wisdom, and are compassionate. Another important difference is the perspective about Buddha: Mahayana believes that Buddha is a phenomenon that keeps recurring, while Theravada sees Buddha as one single human teacher that once lived. Nevertheless, both streams adhere to Buddha as their primary teacher, and take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma (the teachings), and the Sangha (community), also known as the three jewels. Both schools also agree that all conditioned things are impermanent, that all conditioned and unconditioned things are without self, and adhere to the Four Noble Truths. Vajranana (2004) explains conditioned as being consequent, dependent, subject to the law of causality by which the existence of one thing is dependent on that of others, and unconditioned as natural, not made up of parts, unchanging.

Because the truth is considered a foundational aspect in Buddhism, The Four Noble Truths are considered of high importance. The Four Noble Truths are the nature of suffering (Dukkha); the origin of suffering (Samudya); the cessation of suffering (Nirodha); and the way leading to the cessation of suffering (Magga). As for the first Noble Truth, Buddhists see the entire cycle of life as a manifestation of suffering. The second Noble Truth explains that the suffering we experience in life arises from our desires, greed, or craving. The third Noble Truth is explained as the liberation from suffering, which can be attained by giving up craving. The fourth Noble Truth entails the way leading to the cessation of suffering. This way is also known as The Noble Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path consists of right understanding (also referred to as right view); right thought; right speech; right action; right livelihood; right effort; right mindfulness; and right concentration. Nhat Hanh (1998) does a great job of explaining the eight elements on the Path. He perceives right view as a deep understanding of the Four Noble Truths; right thought as a means to improve right view; right speech is a manifestation of right thought; and right action as a consequence of right view, right thought, and right speech, as well as the path toward right livelihood. Nhat Hanh (1998) further evaluates right effort to be the energy that helps us walk on the Noble Eightfold Path. He states, “Our practice should be intelligent, based on Right Understanding of the teaching. It is not because we practice hard that we can say we are practicing Right Diligence” (p. 99). Nhat Hanh (1998) considers right mindfulness to be the heart of the Buddha’s teachings. He clarifies, “When we are mindful, our thinking is Right Thinking, our speech is Right Speech, and so on. Right Mindfulness is the energy that brings us back to the present moment” (p. 64). Finally explaining step eight on the Eightfold Path, right concentration, Nhat Hanh (1998) affirms, “The practice of Right Concentration is to cultivate a mind that is one-pointed” (p. 105).

Buddhism and the spirit at work discourse The large number of writings on Buddhist practices as a strategy toward greater meaning in the workplace can be easily substantiated when visiting major online

539

Making Buddhism

work @ work

booksellers, such as Amazon.com. A search for books with keywords “Buddhism” and “work” delivered 3,192 sources at the time this paper was written. An important reason why Buddhism may have grown so much in popularity, when it comes to workplace studies in the USA, may very well be because it satisfies opposing perspectives on what “spirituality at work” entails. Spirituality at work, sometimes simply referred to as “spirit at work,” has been on the rise as a trend since the early 1990s, but a discrepancy in perspectives still exists. The discrepancy pertains to the relationship between spirituality and religion. Some scholars feel that spirituality is not necessarily related to religion (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003; Paloutzian and Park, 2005; Zinnebauer and Paragament, 2005; Marques, 2005). Fernando and Jackson (2006) summarize the perspective of these scholars as follows: “They argue that spirituality is something that is not confined to religion. It can also be about a sense of purpose, meaning and connectedness to one another” (p. 24). Other sources assert that religion is the foundation of all spiritual practices. Korac-Kakabadse et al. (2002) for instance, consider that spirituality includes terms such as energy, meaning, and knowing, and that it relates to the various spiritualities of Tao, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen, and Native American spirituality. Nevertheless, Kakabadse et al. (2007) also concur that a differentiation needs to be made between spirituality and religion. For both of the above perspectives, the pro-religious as well as the anti-religious view, Buddhism provides an acceptable passage, as it is oftentimes referred to as more of a psychology or ethical system, while some may prefer to see it as a religion. While this author does not approach the topic of Buddhism as a religion in her studies, but rather as a psychology or ethical system, she understands that it is perceived and practiced as a religion by many. That, then, is exactly the crucial point made in this paper: when Buddhist practices are not approached as a religion, but rather as a psychology or ethical system, they become widely acceptable because they make very much sense in a secular perspective.

It is particularly the fact that Buddhism focusses on mindfulness or greater awareness, oftentimes also referred to as consciousness, which makes this psychology, ethical system, or religion (depending on how one wants to perceive it) so appealing in contemporary US workplaces. In his book The New Buddhism, Brazier (2002) confirms that Buddhism is concerned with going beyond “subjective concerns” (p. 23) or even “altered states of consciousness” (p. 23), in order to reach the real world. There are few philosophies, or religions, that have focussed so deeply and longitudinally on consciousness as Buddhism. Brazier (2002) holds the opinion that the Buddha, through his teachings, was calling for “a revolution in human consciousness” (pp. 29-30). This emphasis on human consciousness is still abundantly embedded in contemporary Buddhist teachings, as can be concluded from the following example: “Our consciousness can be transformed at its base through the practice of mindful consuming, mindfully guarding our senses, and looking deeply. The practice should aim at transforming both the individual and the collective aspects of our consciousness” (Nhat Hanh, 1998, p. 181).

Buddhism’s focus on consciousness aims to peel off the layer of ignorance and mindless acceptance of the status quo, in which we have been conditioned through our society; elevate us from the ignorance of going through our daily motions as if we were sleepwalking; and rise to expanded and purified awareness. “When our ignorance has been transformed, what we have been calling consciousness becomes wisdom” (Nhat Hanh, 1998, pp. 238-9).

540

JMD 31,6

A review of some existing critical discourses on Buddhism and work One main question often asked is, “Should there be any place at all for religion in the workplace?” One could object that it might not be appropriate as a group activity. Religion should not be shoved down anyone’s throat, and people should be left the freedom to choose which religion they want to adhere to without forcing it onto others. In workplaces, particularly, the exhibition of one religion especially by leading individuals can quickly create inhibitions among workers who maintain other beliefs, or serve as a subliminal message to them to openly start enforcing theirs as well. Consequently, it could lead to alienation and the well known and highly despised in- and out-group situation, whereby adherents to the leader’s religion would become part of the in-group, and all others would remain in the out-group. Because of this awareness, the author of this paper has been a very vocal opponent of bringing religion in the workplace as a group manifestation. It is therefore, too, that Buddhism is not approached as a religion in this paper, but rather as a practical method that can be practiced by members of all religions as well as those who prefer not to adhere to any religion at all. First and foremost, it should be emphasized that there is no reverence of any God or upper being within the philosophical approach of Buddhism. And yet, while this paper reviews Buddhism as a practical method or a set of ethical guidelines, there is no escaping to the fact that it is still very much considered a religion by many. Within the context of Buddhism as a religion, there are a variety of important critical discourses to be observed. In the following section, some of these discourses will be reviewed briefly.

1. The highly religious US society. When engaging in a review of perspectives toward religion in human interaction, the picture becomes rather interesting, revealing a contradiction in perspectives, particularly in a country driven as highly by religious convictions as North America. It should be noted that “more than 90 percent of US citizens believe in God or a higher power” (Morgan, 2005a, p. 71), making this nation one of the most religious ones in the world (Morgan, 2004). While, of course, religion entails much more than merely believing in God, it should be underscored, in concurrence with Morgan, that the predominant way of religious practices in the USA is linked to Christian-based denominations, and therefore, belief in God.

The ambivalence peaks even more abundantly when we bring the workplace into scope. Morgan (2005a, b) admits that there is resurgence of religion’s place in the USA due to the fact that the traditional wall against this trend is crumbling. Morgan attributes this resurgence to various factors, among which the increasing role of work in daily life, and the growing belief among US workers that greed is the most important driver of US business leaders. As a contributing factor to this trend serves the fact that there is a blurred definition of what exactly religion is these days, causing the existing legal framework (in the USA), which should be responding to this growing and diversified tendency, to become increasingly “vague, complicated, and ineffective” (p. 247).

Within the view of greater receptiveness toward religion at work, Buddhism plays an interesting role. While, on one hand, there may be greater acceptance of Buddhist- defined behaviors in general, the fact that this “religion” does not adhere to a God may, on the other hand, exclude this tradition as a viable religious stream in the USA. The growing tendency of spirituality in the workplace, along with its broadly diverging perspectives from entirely religious based, to religious induced, to non-religious, has incited increased confusion in perspectives on religion and its place in the US workplace. Much is to be said about the two perspectives posted by Morgan (2005a, b)

541

Making Buddhism

work @ work

about first, religion becoming more important at work and second, greed lying at the foundation of many US business practices, as one of the main instigators toward point 1. Workers are trying to find a counter-balancing factor against these realities. Because religion is so important to the majority of Americans, they take it with them into their workplaces. Now that there are more women and minorities in the US workforce, the diversity of religions has increased, and so has the confusion. Many business leaders oppose the entire spirituality movement, especially when religion comes into view, asserting that it distracts attention from the real purpose of business, which to them is still the bottom-line. Lately, some smart business leaders have started to buy into the concept of workplace spirituality and some other leniencies toward religion at work based on the mindset that happy workers will perform better. In popular terms: “If you give them what they want, they will give you want you want.”

2. The rise of tensions and conflict. As a consequence of the combination of increasing diversity in religions in the USA, increased acceptance of religious practices in the workplace, and the vagueness in formulating a stance toward this phenomenon, tensions and conflicts are on the rise. Employees, exposed to religious practices at work that are not in line with their beliefs, may feel harassed, yet discover that it is not simple to express a religious objection due to the fact that such an objection may lead to alienation, and possibly forced exit, even if not obviously linked to the religious issue. Montgomery (2002) suggests for today’s workplace supervisors to educate themselves on religious do’s and don’ts of their employees, remain aware of the rights of workers toward religious expressions, stay abreast of court decisions on the religious issue and include them in handbooks and policy documents, and keep meticulous notes on occurring religious issues among workers (p. 421).

While Montgomery has a point with his above posted set of generic recommendations, it should be noted that there is still plenty of room to fail, as organizational environments, workers, and cultures differ widely. It may be wisest for supervisors in contemporary US workplaces to maintain a high level of accessibility toward workers, limit expression of their own religious convictions by means of example, explain willingness to respect and accept religious practices within reasonable bounds, and consistently nurture an open communication flow with subordinates.

3. Western manipulation of Buddhism. In a critical review of the religious aspects of Buddhism, Crabtree (2004) lists a number of apparent weaknesses to this doctrine, especially in its manifestation in western societies. Crabtree alleges that westerners have stripped Buddhism from its real purpose as a social religion, and modified it to their convenience into a solitary practice, away from traditional Sangha settings and more leaning toward new-age mysticism. This observation is shared by various other authors such as Nattier (1997), Fields (1998), and Numrich (2003). It is Crabtree’s opinion that in highly industrialized countries such as Japan and the USA, Buddhism has become a handy training tool to repress workers’ dissatisfaction and distract attention from corporate malpractice. Crabtree further asserts that Buddhism, just like Christianity, has taught its followers to accept suffering when they should not. Particularly in Buddhism, claims Crabtree, do members perceive their suffering as a price they pay for wrongdoings from previous lives. To that regard, affirms Crabtree, Buddhism beliefs lead to lethargic acceptance of suffering without proactive action toward improvement. Crabtree also feels that Buddhist psychology is too idealistic in that it only caters to a certain type of individual: the one with a higher level of intellectual development. He comments that the masses, with their limited levels

542

JMD 31,6

of comprehension and resources, do not really benefit from this religion, while those who have already reached a higher intellectual level utilize it to enhance their sense of social sensitivity.

Crabtree, as well as the other authors, may be right that Buddhism is interpreted differently in various western forums. However, one could dispute that the beauty of Buddhism lies in its ability to reinvent itself without losing its essential principles. The Dalai Lama has affirmed at more than one occasion that he understands the importance of transformations, and that it is this flexibility in Buddhism that has allowed this ethical system to maintain its presence and influence worldwide.

Crabtree asserts that westerners have stripped Buddhism from its social structure. However, Theravada Buddhism is very much based on solitary practices. The readings to which the author of this paper has been exposed thus far have not emphasized the requirement of a communal setting in order to properly practice Buddhism. It can therefore safely be presumed that a person can adhere to this social-based ethical system, even if he or she decides to deviate from a group setting such as a traditional Sangha. Furthermore, there are numerous Buddhist organizations all over the USA that gather on a regular basis with Buddhists who prefer the communal setting.

Crabtree posits an important assertion that shrewd Japanese and US business leaders are exploiting Buddhism to repress workers’ dissatisfaction and enhance their sense of accepting without questioning. This is a point well taken. Every ideology or strategy can be exploited to one’s advantage and the other’s disadvantage, and unfortunately, that is exactly what happens in some work environments. However, there is something to be said about this tendency in every area. To remain with the concept of religion: there are many churches that deviate from their original purpose of gathering, and focus on rigid faith-based practices to keep their followers under control. This reality, while unfortunate, can only be minimized when people, corporate workers in this case, decide to think for themselves and stop accepting mindlessly what is imposed upon them. The very fact that there is increasing awareness among US workers about the greed that lies at the foundation of many US business leaders may serve as an indication that matters are actually moving into that direction.

Crabtree further asserts that Buddhism teaches its followers to accept suffering as a karmic act – as a price they have to pay for wrongdoings from previous lives. In an interview conducted by this author with the venerable Geshe Lhakdor, an Indian-based Tibetan Buddhist monk, it became very clear that this misnomer indeed exists, but that it should not. Lhakdor clarified that Buddhism does not encourage lethargy, but rather enforces the realization that one can improve his or her karma by actually engaging in proper actions toward improvement. Lhakdor emphasized that it is actually every person’s duty to better his or her circumstances and, at the same time, those of others.

It is the conviction of the author of this paper that the main message to be extracted from Buddhism is not lethargic acceptance of suffering, as some people do, but rather understanding that suffering exists; that it may be due to previous wrongdoings; but that it does not have to be kept that way. This interpretation of Buddhist practices in regard to suffering is more in line with James William Coleman (2002) who writes, “The Buddha was not [y] the life-denying pessimist that he is sometimes pictured to be, for he also saw the end of suffering through the cultivation of ethical behavior, meditation, and transcendent wisdom” (p. 5). In another section of his book, Coleman (2002) accentuates the common quest of all forms of Buddhism: “liberation from greed, hatred

543

Making Buddhism

work @ work

and delusion, and the suffering they cause” (p. 12). This statement is important because it clarifies the real reasons why many people suffer, and how adhering to Buddhist practices can help overcome this self-imposed suffering. When perceiving Buddhist practices in that light, Crabtree’s comments should be considered within the realm of specific cases, but not as a part of the general Buddhist scheme.

Crabtree’s final criticism that Buddhist psychology is too idealistic in that it only caters to individuals with a higher level of intellectual development and not to the masses may have some merit in that efforts to encourage the masses toward improvement of their fate remain largely insufficient. As an encouraging point it should nevertheless be stated that targeting those with higher intellectual levels and greater affluence might be a fruitful strategy, as they are in the position to educate and help less fortunate ones toward betterment.

4. Killing Buddhism as a religion. In his paper, Killing the Buddha, Harris (2006) makes a strong point for killing Buddhism as a religion and establishing it as a contemplative science. Harris claims that religions, due to transfer over time and cultures, inevitably deviate from their initial purpose and often lead to violence. Arellano (2006) concurs with Harris on this point, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian and other conflicts, which are religious in nature. Yet, while defending the concept of Buddhism in general Arellano (2006) cannot get around the conclusion that, “Just like any other religion, Buddhism requires faith” (p. xviii). Arellano tries to justify his perspective by explaining that the faith approach is necessary to prevent wavering in the course of practice, and that one should only adopt something as a faith after thorough investigation. Arellano confirms his perspective of Buddhism as a deliberate, conscious religion, by asserting, “Buddhism does not subscribe to theistic religion’s reasoning that faith begins where logic ends – if you cannot explain it just believe in it. Blind faith has no place in Buddhism” (p. xviii).

Continuing his aversion toward labeling Buddhism as a religion, Harris (2006) affirms, “Religion is the one endeavor in which us–them thinking achieves a transcendent significance” (par. 9). In his earlier mentioned plea to convert Buddhism from a religion to a contemplative science, Harris explains that the methodology of Buddhism, which entails a set of ethical principles and meditation, reveals valuable truths about the mind and the phenomenal world. Some of these truths are emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence. Harris concludes that these truths are not limited to “Buddhist” thinking. In short, Harris feels that the “religion” of Buddhism stands in the way of the potential success of the progress that its philosophical underpinnings could prompt for humanity. Yet, there is no denying that there are large masses of people who practice Buddhism in the religious way.

Harris’ (2006) perspectives are seconded by Richard Dawkins (2006) in his book The God Delusion, in which he states, “I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life” (pp. 37-8).

Harris, Arellano and Dawkins present an important perspective above. The most successfully accepted theories and philosophies are those that are not confined to a certain group. When perceiving Buddhism as a set of ethical rules toward improved leadership of the self and better interactions with others, it makes infinitely more sense and has a much better chance of being accepted at a larger scale than when it is restrained by the boundaries of religious dogma, thereby alienating those that are already devoted to one particular religion, or those who are averse to any kind of religion. In his book, The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient

544

JMD 31,6

Tradition, Coleman (2002) points out clearly the problem with religion. He starts out by explaining that Buddha himself was not a Buddhist, but just a man who woke up, saw things as they were, and wanted to help others see the truth also. He then emphasizes that it were “the institutional structures and traditions that emerged around Siddharta Gautama’s (the Buddha) teachings that made Buddhism into what we traditionally call a religion” (p. 5). Coleman then underscores the German sociologist Max Weber’s perspective that a religion gets “routinized” once the charismatic teacher dies. It is this “routinization” that authors such as Harris, Arellano and Dawkins consider such a burden to not only Buddhism, but to all religions. David Hawkins (1995, 2001, 2003) made a similar point in his books, Power vs Force, The Eye of the I, and I, Reality and Subjectivity. Hawkins pointed out that religions, and all other ideologies for that matter, start with good intentions from a charismatic and highly intelligent individual. Unfortunately, they get dispersed by less insightful individuals who do not have a full grasp of the essence of the initial ideology. With their limited insights, these individuals then structure and “routinize” the theory, thus establishing rules and regulations that were never intended by the original teacher. The biggest problem to all of this is that the structures become an end onto themselves, so that ultimately the letter is preserved and not the spirit of the teaching.

5. Americanization of Buddhism. It seems that the question whether Buddhism has a proper place in the capitalistic American world of work has been contemplated by several prominent Buddhists. In Dharma and Greed: Popular Buddhism Meets the American Dream, Templeton (2000) posts the question as to whether one can be truly Buddhist while being truly American. He does so after observing the obvious contradictions between the Buddhist ideals of social behavior, moderation, and transcending greed and envy, and the American way of living, which is exactly based on the opposite: individualism, affluence, greed, and envy. Templeton reviews a meeting held in June 2000, in which 220 prominent Buddhist leaders in America participated, and in which the Dalai Lama partook as well. Templeton reports that the Dalai Lama was informed about the fact that, in the USA, Buddhism mainly appealed to more intellectual and affluent Americans who could afford expensive retreats and pricey Buddhist paraphernalia: the “spiritual” materialists. As a consequence, the Dalai Lama stressed that Buddhist practitioners in the USA should still focus on compassion and freedom of anger and greed, even in a money-mad nation as America. Subsequently reviewing an American Buddhist business person, Peter Bermudes, who is the director of a Boston-based Buddhist book publishing company – a non-profit entity that makes a healthy living because Buddhist literature sells great in America – Templeton (2000) draws the conclusion that most American Buddhists are independent practitioners. They read books and do not feel compelled to be part of a congregation of any sort. Templeton further analyses other American Buddhist ventures, such as Greyston Bakery in New York, and finds that the combination of being commercial while still adhering to spiritual values is possible, even though it requires thorough and regular self-examination. Templeton leaves the question whether being truly Buddhist while being truly American is possible, unanswered. Templeton’s comments are also included in Holender’s (2008) book Zentrepreneurism, in which Holender introduces a number of new terms such as zentrepreneurism, zenployees, and zenvesting, in an attempt to combine Buddhist virtues to American commercialism.

The above raised and unanswered query by Templeton (2000) about a potential incompatibility between being Buddhist and being American is a specifically

545

Making Buddhism

work @ work

interesting one when we consider it in light of the two main streams of Buddhism, Theravada and Mahayana. As stated in the first section of this paper, Theravada Buddhism, the school of the elders, teaches that only a precious few will ever attain enlightenment. Within this view, there has only been one Buddha, which entails that there should be no expectations of enlightened behavior among mainstream Buddhist practitioners. The self-focussed, independent mentality of American Buddhist practitioners, who are predominantly affluent intellectuals, might therefore not be considered as particularly disturbing within the Theravada concept. However, it is within the Mahayana concept, which also known as “great vehicle,” that perceptual discrepancies may arise. As stated earlier, Mahayana teaches that enlightenment can be obtained by everyone, and that there are enlightened beings or Bodhisattvas all around us, who strongly focus on being compassionate toward others, thus decreasing selfish behavior and increasing their awareness of interconnectedness with all living beings. As the Dalai Lama is considered a Mahayana Buddhist (Tibetans are often referred to as Vajrayana or Tantrayana Buddhists, which are derivatives of the Mahayana stream), this development should be considered a rather interesting one. In his review presented above, Templeton (2000) stressed that the Dalai Lama has been informed about the self-centered practices of contemporary American Buddhists, and that he has urged for more compassion and less greed. However, time will be the only discloser about the ultimate direction of American Buddhism. A compelling tentative conclusion to be drawn from this development is that, while most of the affluent, intellectual Americans, were initially attracted to Buddhism through Tibetan (Mahayana-based) teachers, they ultimately seem to fit more within the Theravada concept, which does not require actions such as generosity and compassion as prevalent elements of daily practices. The multiple visits of the Dalai Lama to the USA, along with his numerous books and presentations, could very well be seen as a concerted effort to instill a behavioral transformation among American Buddhist toward increased compassion and generosity. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the Dalai Lama has often declared that Buddhism has survived over the course of so many centuries due to its flexibility to adapt to local cultures. Within that perspective, it may be assumed that the Dalai Lama, while continuously encouraging the Bodhisattva ideal, will refrain from deliberately manipulating the development of American Buddhism in one way or another.

Aside from the contemplations presented above, it could be concluded that the increased popularity of Buddhism in America may be attributed to the fact that it fits in well with the contemporary trend of greater awareness, environmental sustainability, and increased social responsibility. Buddhism forms a welcome response to the call for spirituality at work, which is fueled by a number of factors such as increased diversity in US workplaces, greater insight into and aversion toward the greed of many American corporate leaders, and a desire toward greater satisfaction at work. Bookstores, online sources, and management speakers capitalize cunningly onto this trend, and gear their product offerings heavily on this need. In the middle of this all emerges Buddhism, now even more than before, as the Dalai Lama, the most prominent Buddhist personality, travels and speaks throughout the world, writes one book after the other, and gains popularity among American celebrities. It is difficult, at this point in time, to distinguish whether the current flare of Buddhism in America will merely be a fad that will subside as soon as a new one emerges, or whether this trend should be seen within the greater scope of increased human, thus also American, awareness against the developments of the twenty-first century: greater access to

546

JMD 31,6

information, more international human interaction, and enhancement in conscious choice making. The series of occurrences to which the US society has been exposed in the past century and since the start of this new Millennium (see “Introduction” of this paper for a brief enumeration), may also have ignited a serious urge among Americans to rethink the conventional US way of careless spending, adhering to external appearances, and mindlessly following trends. All these occurrences may have contributed toward the creation of a fertile foundation for a change of mentality in the USA, to which Buddhism may be a useful inspiration. So, while the Americanization of Buddhism is a fact, it may also be that Americans are deviating from their traditional ways (de-Americanizing) and redefining themselves (re-Americanizing). This entails, in the author’s opinion, that the ultimate look and practice of “Americanized Buddhism,” or “Buddhism Americana” is still in process of development.

Concluding thoughts While it is clear that Buddhist-defined practices are gaining ground now that awareness is on the rise among workforces globally, and particularly in the USA, the above-mentioned critical discourses may indicate that these practices have a better chance of being adopted if they are not specifically affiliated to Buddhism, but just presented as universal inter-human values. When Buddhist practices are not approached as a religion, but rather as a psychology or ethical system, they become widely acceptable because they make very much sense in a secular perspective. Moreover, when presented as a set of ethical practices, workforce members, particularly those from the USA, may be less inhibited in adopting universal inter- human values than in adopting “Buddhist” practices, especially if they are intensely involved in other religions. In addition, a divorce from labeling the practices of contemporary American Buddhists as “Buddhist” may resolve the incongruence in mindset that currently seems to exist between the affluent, intellectual, modern American “Buddhist,” who was mainly inspired by Mahayana Buddhist teachers, and the Mahayana driven Bodhisattva ideal of selflessness, compassion, and generosity toward all living beings, which stands in stark contrast with the independent, materialistic, self-centered American mentality.

Yet, considering the many centuries that Buddhists have studied human consciousness, and the abundance of insights they have gathered in this tremendously important area for societal well-being, it would be unwise to disregard the value, which this psychology or ethical system can contribute to our awareness, and the role it may play as a helpful resource for workplaces and other settings where human beings interact.

References

Arellano, J.T. (2006), Why Buddhism? The Evil of Religion, Trafford Publishing, Victoria.

Bercholz, S. and Kohn, S.C. (1993), An Introduction to the Buddha and his Teachings, Barnes & Noble Inc, New York, NY.

Brazier, D. (2002), The New Buddhism, Palgrave, New York, NY.

Cash, K.C., Gray, G.R. and Rood, S.A. (2000), “A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the workplace/executive commentary”, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 124-34.

Coleman, J.W. (2002), The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient Tradition, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

547

Making Buddhism

work @ work

Crabtree, V. (2004), “Criticism of Buddhism”, Vexen Crabtree, available at: www.vexen.co.uk/ religion/buddhism_criticism.html (accessed November 15, 2008).

Dawkins, R. (2006), The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, New York, NY.

Dugan, K. and Bogert, H. (2006), “Racial Diversity in Buddhism in the US”, Harvard University, available at: www.fas.harvard.edu/Bpluralism/98wrb/indexa.htm (accessed December 20, 2008).

Fernando, M. and Jackson, B. (2006), “The influence of religion-based workplace spirituality on business leaders’ decision-making: an inter-faith study”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 23-39.

Fields, R. (1998), “Divided dharma: white Buddhists, ethnic Buddhists, and racism”, in Prebish, C.S. and Tanaka, K.K. (Eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America, University of California Press, Berkely and Los Angeles, CA, pp. 196-206.

Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds) (2003), “Toward a science of workplace spirituality”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, M.E. Sharpe, New York, NY, pp. 3-28.

Gockel, A. (2004), “The trend toward spirituality in the workplace: overview and implications for career counseling”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 156-67.

Harris, S. (2006), “Killing the Buddha”, Shambala Sun, available at: www.shambhalasun. com/index.php?option¼com_content&task¼view&id¼2903&Itemid¼0 (accessed November 15, 2008).

Hawkins, D.R. (1995), Power vs Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior, Hayhouse Inc, Carlsbad, CA.

Hawkins, D.R. (2001), The Eye of the I: From Which Nothing is Hidden, Veritas Publishing, West Sedona, AZ.

Hawkins, D.R. (2003), I: Reality and Subjectivity, Veritas Publishing, West Sedona, AZ.

Holender, A. (2008), Zentrepreneurism: A Twenty-First Century Guide to the New World of Business, Book Tree, New York, NY.

Kakabadse, N., Collins, P. and Kakabadse, A. (2007), “The need for spirituality in the public sphere”, in Ramsden, J., Shuhei, A. and Kakabadse, A. (Eds), Spiritual Motivation: New Thinking for Business and Management, Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire, pp. 161-84.

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A. and Kakabadse, A. (2002), “Spirituality and leadership praxis”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 165-82.

Marques, J. (2005), “Yearning for a more spiritual workplace”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 149-53.

Masatsugu, M.K. (2008), “ ‘Beyond this world of transiency and impermanence’: Japanese Americans, dharma bums, and the making of American Buddhism during the early cold war years”, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 425-51.

Mohamed, F., Taylor, G.S. and Hassan, A. (2006), “Affective commitment and intent to quit: the impact of work and non-work related issues”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 512-30.

Montgomery, J.G. (2002), “A most delicate matter: religious issues and conflict in the US library workplace”, Library Management, Vol. 23 Nos 8/9, pp. 422-32.

Morgan, J.F. (2004), “How should business respond to a more religious workplace?”, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 11-19.

Morgan, J.F. (2005a), “In defense of the workplace religious freedom act: protecting the unprotected without sanctifying the workplace”, Labor Law Journal, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 68-71.

Morgan, J.F. (2005b), “Religion at work: a legal quagmire”, Managerial Law, Vol. 47 Nos 3/4, pp. 247-59.

548

JMD 31,6

Nattier, J. (1997), “Buddhism comes to Main Street”, The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 72-80.

Netland, H. (2008), “Into the jaws of Yama, lord of death: Buddhism, bioethics, and death”, Ethics and Medicine, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 124-5.

Nhat Hanh, T. (1998), The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation, Broadway Books, New York, NY.

Numrich, P.D. (2003), “Two Buddhisms further considered”, Contemporary Buddhism, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 55-78.

Paloutzian, R. and Park, C. (Eds) (2005), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Prebish, C.S. (1999), Luminous Passage, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.

Snelling, J. (1991), The Buddhist handbook: The Complete Guide to Buddhist Schools, Teaching, Practice, and History, Inner Traditions International, Rochester, VT.

Stewart, S.M. (2007), “An integrative framework of workplace stress and aggression”, The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 223-33.

Templeton, D. (2000), Dharma & Greed: Popular Buddhism Meets the American Dream, Metro Publishing Inc, Northern California Bohemian, CA, available at: www.metroactive.com/ papers/sonoma/10.12.00/buddhism-0041.html (accessed August 3, 2009).

Vajranana, M. (2004), “Buddhism on the nature of existence”, Than Hsiang Temple, available at: http://thanhsiang.org/en/buddhism-nature-existence (accessed March 16, 2010).

Zinnebauer, B.J. and Paragament, K.L. (2005), “Religiousness and spirituality”, in Paloutzian, R. and Park, C. (Eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 21-42.

About the author

Joan Marques is the author of Joy at Work, Work at Joy: Living and Working Mindfully Every Day (Personhood Press) and co-editor of The Workplace and Spirituality: New Perspectives in Research and Practice (SkyLight Paths), an anthology with contributions from 24 authors from all over the globe. She is also the author of six other books, among which are: The Awakened Leader, Interbeing, Thoughts on Achieving Personal and Professional Excellence, Seasoned Adages for Modern Days Leaders, and Spirituality in the Workplace: What it Means; Why it Matters; How to Make it Work for You. She facilitates courses in business and management at Woodbury University in Burbank, California, presents a weekly radio column in The Netherlands, a weekly newspaper column in Suriname, South-America, and co-organizes and presents workshops for business and non-profit entities in the Los Angeles area through the Business Renaissance Institute and ASPEX, the Academy of Spirituality and Professional Excellence. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Business Economics; a Master’s degree in Business Administration; and a Doctorate in Organizational Leadership. Joan Marques can be contacted at: [email protected] (web site: www.joanmarques.com).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

549

Making Buddhism

work @ work

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

View publication statsView publication stats