The ethics of conscious capitalism: Wicked problems in leading change and changing leaders

Structuring and releasing

This finding explores an inherent tension involved in leaders’ need to follow a disciplined, regimented practice, necessary for true leadership development, according to Devenir, and its unintended consequences. The key image in this part of the story is the tensional struggle between reining in and pushing out. These tensions center on keeping leaders committed to learning and practices (reigning in), while also enabling their strengths in creativity and independence to flourish (pushing out). Laura, a coach, explains:

We’re experimenting with how do we incorporate the practice-based approach and the supporting structures and get the client to agree to it, because we know that that works, but if they haven’t experienced it and our clients for the most part are wild and crazy entrepreneurs that don’t have a lot of discipline, entrepreneurs typically don’t. What makes entrepreneurs successful is also what typically holds them back from a sustainable company . . . the founder might have been some wild and crazy entrepreneur, but as the family grows up in that company, they’re developing different skills, or whatever, because a lot of entrepreneurs get really bored with that sustainability part of the business.

In Laura’s interview, the notion that entrepreneurs ‘get really bored with that sustainability part of the business’ is interesting from a leadership perspective. As an organization works toward becoming more ethical and just (i.e. a ‘conscious’ organization), sustaining leader development is critical if there is ever hope that ethical behavior and fairness might trickle down to the entire organization, as can be the case for unethical behavior (Cropanzano and Stein, 2009). In the end, the result is the competing orders of discourse (Fairclough, 1993) among entrepreneurialism (i.e. the entrepreneurial spirit of creativity and independence), structure, and sustainability that Devenir must constantly negotiate in order to develop leaders.

Expanding and contracting

This subtheme explicates how Devenir preaches an expansive and multilayered discourse of being able to transform leaders and organizations and do good in the world through CC, within a limited scope and target audience. The key image here is preaching expansion but practicing reality. Here we explore what it means to talk about changing the world, within the material realities of time, space, and other scarce resources in today’s complex business environment. Roger, a co-founding member of Devenir, explained to the first author that his view of what Devenir’s purpose is in the world is ‘crystal clear’:

This business. ‘The Work.’ . . . We have a point of view that evolves, but our current point of view is crystal clear. If we believe that, this business is here to participate in the transformation of society, . . . [then] there’s all sorts of ways to do The Work. Since the conditions that are most ideal for The Work are long term.

Roger notes that Devenir is a small part of societal transformation. In another example, a coach, Parr, in an interview, illustrates the idea of working within a larger space or movement for transformation, where Devenir is ‘hopefully well positioned to catch a wave’:

And we can tell compelling stories about the difference it makes if you have a view of what leadership is and what organizations are and what’s involved in performance and change. You know, we have an opportunity to be a part of changing the way that people think about business and organizations and communicate that . . .

In positioning Devenir participants as engaging in local change, proponents create a disconnect between micro and global transformation but position participants’ personal consciousness-raising as the means for large-scale change. Later in his interview, Roger explained that the way Devenir ‘can make the most meaningful impact to the system is to be a part of the revolution outside the palace walls, the mid-market.’ In Matt’s (coach) interview, he stated his belief that Devenir is an ‘agent of evolution’ through CC. Yet, the transformational discourse for leaders, business, society, and the world is in tension with the reality of limited size and scope (i.e. individual leader consciousness in mid-market companies).

For Devenir, their commitment is to social change via ethical leaders, businesses, and CC. Devenir has an expansive discourse of boundaryless care and concern for the world; however, they also have niche marketing and strict criteria (e.g. mid-market, privately-held, close headquarters). Their discourses of transformation are limited by their practices and scope. What is revealed through this expanding-contracting tension, as different orders of discourse compete (Fairclough, 1993) (i.e. working for global social change through leadership practices within a very small niche and through personal consciousness) is a pragmatic-idealism, or a sustainability-ideology tension inherent in any organization that is both a business and an advocate for social change (D’Enbeau and Buzzanell, 2011). A key challenge for such organizations is to ‘manage the tensions or engage in business efforts that do not damage ideology credibility’ (D’Enbeau and Buzzanell, 2011: 47).

Consequently, Devenir runs head-on into a tension between the purity and idealism of CC and the pragmatics of their business reach. To further illustrate the tension, consider the following example from Matt, a coach, in an interview:

So this environment, Devenir, is one where pushing the limits is done with the most skill, with the most intention. I can’t tell you how cool it is to know when you come here, that people’s primary intention is doing good in the world. And then they have all these secondary intentions that they enact in spirit, for the client, you know, for themselves even to benefit themselves or benefit the client. But again, up against a larger backdrop of doing good in the world. You know, we call it Conscious Capitalism, or whatever you want to call it. But still underlying that it’s everybody waking up in the morning and saying to themselves, either consciously or unconsciously, how can I get up this morning and do some good in the world?

And then at the same time, not feel like you’re with a bunch of namby-pamby, you know, green folks who are just kind of believing in this ideological world that doesn’t, you know, that can’t possibly exist. It’s grounded in reality. It’s a good old Stockdale paradox which is optimistic, absolutely pushing the edge, pushing that progressive edge, really wanting society to evolve, but understanding and fully accepting the systems and processes and mentalities that it’s grounded in, but always pushing evolution. We all feel as if we’re agents of evolution.

Represented in Matt’s interview excerpt are notions of pushing out into the unknown, pushing the edge, forging ahead, being ‘agents of evolution,’ and so on. Matt’s comments clearly represent a fundamental tension between idealism and pragmatism: ‘. . . not feel like you’re with a bunch of namby-pamby, you know, green folks who are just kind of believing in this ideological world that doesn’t, you know, that can’t possibly exist. It’s grounded in reality.’

Additionally, Matt’s references are consistent with the frontier myth, where a (typically male) heroic character pushes out into the unknown or uncharted territory, while maintaining a commitment to a common good (see Harter, 2004). The frontier myth privileges masculinity insofar as it is characterizes by isolation and independence (Harter, 2004). Further, this type of Renaissance-like heroism is indicative of a ‘manstory,’ which is focused on a quest, a linear progress to achieve work success (Gergen, 1990, as cited in Buzzanell and Lucas, 2006). By contrast, a ‘womanstory’ is concerned with responsibility to wider needs in a larger context and a connection to others (Buzzanell and Lucas, 2006).

As a result, Devenir leadership calls upon different discourses to make sense of the tension. On the one hand, there is the push for mindfulness and a space for reflection on the purpose of the business (i.e. conscious business); on the other, the pragmatics of running a business and being financially sustainable. These examples provide a glimpse of the ongoing and interactional, communicative constitution of meaning within the larger industry of leader development. Stated differently, the examples are illustrative of the ways in which d/Discourses compete in various ways for organization members (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Fairclough, 1993; Fairhurst, 2007). Furthermore, the ideology-practicality tension operates as a ‘wicked’ dynamic insofar as the presence of deeply entrenched, incommensurable, intractable conflicts over assumptions and practices that lack clear problem specification and resolution.

Opening up and closing

This theme explores how Devenir might become a closed system once the core group is fostered and folks commit to ‘staying there forever.’ Furthermore, we uncover potential implications of this closure for their efforts toward CC. The key image in this subtheme is inviting in and keeping out – that which is open, but at the same time closed.

The extent to which Devenir cultivates a core group of employees, clients, and philosophy and becomes a (closed) system that feeds upon itself, stands in stark contrast to the aims of CC. Ironically, part of cultivating an ethical awareness (or consciousness) is being open to and, indeed, aware of, outside influences and sensitive to the complex set of relationships that characterize modern business life. Despite what is found in most (normative) approaches to leadership (see Mihelič et al., 2010; Thompson et al., 2010), ethics require a complex awareness and consciousness, rather than simply behavioral modeling or following ethical codes.

Below is an excerpt from field notes recorded while the first author attended a leadership meeting. The topic of discussion is cultivating the core Devenir team:

Justin [a coach] brings up the issue of developing and cultivating Nelson [a new employee] on the team. He is the lowest on the spectrum and he might be at risk for leaving. Justin wonders if his non-financial rewards are enough to keep him on board. Walter [a coach] notes that Devenir is one of the closest you can get to a being able to freelance your work while still being a part of a company.

Roger says he wants to cultivate the core group of people who want to stay there forever. Walter says that they have to not be embarrassed about what they’re about. When he goes to integral theory conferences and people are already on tier 2, he says no. He wants to have tier 1 to tier 2 missionaries, ‘preaching the gospel.’ (June 25, 2010)

The Work necessitates a core group (community), but ideological proponents want freedom to do ‘freelance work’ (autonomy). Tensions center on questions such as: how to stick to ‘The Work’ while having flexibility to challenge knowledge? how to cultivate the core when their work lends itself to freelance opportunities? These findings point to implications regarding creativity and difference in maintaining a carefully vetted group (Kärreman and Alvesson, 2009).

During a leadership meeting, the discussion ensues about selecting new members for the Devenir team. As seen in this field note excerpt, Devenir members discuss very specific criteria:

Walter talks about the importance in having the same vision for what each party wants. He wants someone who worked for a big company, but hasn’t been in the business so long that they’re at a senior level. He says he doesn’t want someone who has to unlearn a bunch of stuff. He also says he would love to hire a woman for several reasons, one of which is to add some diversity to the office. Laura (a coach) mentions a group of women, who might be good, some of whom are Latina. Walter also talks about the fact that they have to recruit the right kind of person who isn’t looking to work for 250k per year, because they simply can’t keep up with that. He says ideally they would love to have someone who is C or B (moderate to higher level of talent, like earning a C or B on an exam). Bryce (a principal and coach) then adds that they become A players with Devenir. (June 25, 2010)

This is a prime example of Devenir members laying out specific criteria to ensure that a new member fits within the core group. They want someone who is appropriate for Devenir. But how can the expansive CC movement be fostered, and considered ethical, by such a homogeneous group and exclusionary language? Walter says that he ‘doesn’t want someone who has to unlearn a bunch of stuff.’ Being highly selective in this manner can be problematic, to the extent that what ‘the C or B-level talent’ knows is valuable to furthering the mission of Devenir, which is to develop conscious, ethical leaders and conscious businesses.

We argue that there are dangers in cultivating such a tight-knit core group that is steeped in specialized language of transformation, such that they are likened to ‘missionaries,’ ‘preaching the gospel,’ or ‘The Work.’ The danger lies in the creation of a closed system, such that there is difficulty in trying to fit the language and practices with the culture of a given organization, creating pushback and tension. Jack, a Devenir client, explains what it looks like when some of the training material fails to hit the mark: ‘there was a certain level that a mid-level manager can accept. It got beyond their [capacity], and they’re “okay, uh no, we can’t do that.” Because I was Devenirized. It was like a religious cult. I was in the cult.’ Jack becoming ‘Devenirized’ illustrates the results of discursive hegemony (Laclau and Mouffe, 2001), aptly described by Nabers (2009: 197): ‘[Hegemony] reproduces our daily life; it starts to be hegemonic when our everyday understanding of social relations and the world as a whole starts to alter according to the framework that is set by the hegemonic discourse.’

Furthermore, the notion of the leader being in the ‘cult’ and ‘Devenirized’ has implications for the larger organizational culture, and for the leader–member relationships. In Jack’s case, his being so well-versed in the language of the ‘cult’ hampered his ability to lead. Furthermore, in an interview, Jack presents the ironic implications of the (closed) Devenir discourse and mindset when used outside Devenir:

The downside of Devenir is now, you know, the language, you may go back to your existing relationships. On a business level for me, I would go back to other relationships that I had that I respected them as peers and try now to talk to them and, you know, it wasn’t the same. I was like, ‘really you’re going to tell me what to do without even listening to me?’ I was operating like this for so long why would, you don’t even know what my problem is and you just got the answer right away. That’s not so and I, you know, Roger does ruin you in a certain way.

Jack expects others to listen to him as his Devenir colleagues do. But now he finds that he cannot talk to old friends or respect them as peers. He is ‘ruined’ and expresses his fit only in Devenir. In the interview, Jack’s discomfort with this lack of fit was evident in his tone and the forcefulness with which he described it.

An example from an all-day leader training workshop further illustrates how Devenir’s practices resemble a closed system, leading to discursive closure (Deetz, 1992). At the beginning of the workshop, the co-facilitator, Roger, asked participants to share their take-aways from a dinner they had had the night before. One of the participants shared his take-away, saying, ‘there is a real desire right now to find a deeper purpose. The challenge is, as a leader, how do you craft a message that everyone buys in to?’ Roger responded to these comments from participants: ‘Roger says that what they are sharing is insightful because they are discussing problems and the struggles. He says that they are not here today to solve problems; they are here to experience things – struggle through the struggles together’ (field notes, July 15, 2010). At the end of the workshop, while participants discussed their key take-aways from the day, one of the participants stood up and said he has been out of his comfort zone all day. Roger responded, saying that ‘it is a learning experience and that it is good that they are in the community together, struggling through these issues’ (field notes, July 15, 2010). The result is that any challenges are discursively closed off and co-opted into the learning, as leaders learn to see things the ‘Devenir way.’ This example demonstrates the final step in discursive hegemony: ‘the discourse produces specific practices and institutions. It acquires material objectivity by becoming institutionally fixed’ (Nabers, 2009: 197). Furthermore, this provides an example of how ethics are embedded within language practices and power (see Gordon et al., 2009).

Collaborating and competing

Some of Devenir’s practices can undermine CC. The key image here is working together and differentiating – talking collaboration, fostering competition.

As an expansive discourse, CC is about ‘integrity, transparency, enlightened governance’ (Aburdene, 2005: 5), and free markets, entrepreneurship, competition, freedom to trade, property rights, and the rule of law. Advocates recognize that these are essential elements of a healthy, functioning economy, as are trust, compassion, collaboration, and value-creation (‘Conscious Capitalism’, 2012). Here is where the d/Discourses become problematic. Might the ethics of care and reflection in CC be undercut by an ‘unapologetic’ advocacy for free market competition?

Devenir uses competition-based, masculine references to frame their material. Consider the appropriation of sports and martial arts metaphors. Transformation was likened to ‘getting on the mat,’ ‘training the holes in one’s game,’ and ‘doing the reps’ until ‘dense bones and calluses form’ from ‘striking up against a hard surface,’ as in martial arts. Similarly, development, growth, and transformation were compared to familiar literary references, all with competitive, masculine-based overtones. In an interview, Roger connected sports and literary references to discuss the transformation Tiger Woods went through in changing his swing several years ago:

So imagine being the best in the world at something and then telling the world, ‘I’m going to reinvent my winning formula.’ The world attacked him and said, ‘why would you do that? You’re the best in the world.’ And he said, paradox, ‘it’s the very swing that got me here that’s now holding me back, so I have to reinvent.’

. . . His performance was down . . . His body was getting reinvented from small to big. Then he took steps forward and gets even better. This is unheard of in our culture. This is the hero’s journey. This is the journey of Luke Skywalker. This is Joseph Campbell’s myth, ok? This is Beowulf.

Here, we question whether these references undermine principles of CC (e.g. care, concern, collaboration, ethics). Specifically, what does it do to the mindset of leaders to think using Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey, Beowulf, and Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader as their frames of reference? John Mackey (2011), a principal proponent of CC, says that thinking in terms of winning and losing, in zero-sum terms is problematic for any effort toward social justice. It would seem that sports metaphors represent and foster zero-sum thinking par excellence. This is also further evidence of a ‘manstory’ (Gergen, 1990, as cited in Buzzanell and Lucas, 2006).

For Devenir, they seem to be moderately aware of the implications of the tension between their aims and the masculine discourse. For example, participation by females is extremely low, an issue of which they are recently aware. At an event where the first author observed, one of the female participants who was a potential client asked what percentage of females had completed the ILP. Unsure of the answer at the time, the first author subsequently received the numbers via email. As of August of 2010, 21 of 147 ILP graduates (14%) have been female. ³ The percentage of women in the ILP is low compared with the percentage of women found in privately-owned businesses, Devenir’s target market.

Here, as in the last section, we believe this signals discursive hegemony (Laclau and Mouffe, 2001), whereby the discourse of competition wins out over that of care, collaboration, and concern. The danger of such hegemony is that, over time, the microdiscursive practices designed to develop leaders to be more ethical could undermine the efforts toward social change, in the same way that gain (and greed) trumped Enron’s and others’ (e.g. Lehman Brothers) efforts toward social responsibility. Furthermore, this finding illustrates the ‘wicked’ problems inherent in combining ethical leadership development with a CC agenda. Specifically, the consultants and leaders simultaneously appropriate the language of capitalism (i.e. competition, free markets) while trying to subvert it in some ways through a focus on mindfulness, care, and concern. However, we argue that this subversion is necessary but insufficient for dealing with the ideological constructions that promote dominant power interests.