Part Two: Wise and Not-So-Wise Organizations

Jesus tells a shocking story about a wasteful manager who has been found out for his dishonesty and is about to get the axe. The manager quickly settles the debts of his boss, decreasing them significantly to forge friendships with the indebted. By doing this, when he’s out on the street with no way to make a living, those debtors will reciprocate and offer shelter and provision (Luke 16:1-9).  

The shocking part comes in the climax of the story, “And the Lord commended the unjust steward, because he had acted wisely” (Luke 16:8). Wait, what? Wasn’t this guy being unethical? Jesus interprets, “Wherefore the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings” (Luke 16:9).

Perhaps the dishonest manager was making the best of his time as the employee of a not-so-wise organization which exploited people through usury.

Jesus seems to assess the broken state of the socioeconomic structures and instructs his followers to work within them to do good for others, making an eternal impact. Elsewhere Jesus says, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Jesus is fully aware of the dangerous nature of a fragmented world dominated by not-so-wise organizations but instructs his disciples to embody a distinct kind of wisdom. Was he teaching his church to be a wise organization?

Wisdom is a virtue that has historically been viewed as one of the most beneficial traits in human existence. So, what then is wisdom after all? Defining wisdom is complicated. Stretching back to Plato and Aristotle in the West and Siddhārtha Gautama in the East, different cultures have sought to define wisdom in overlapping but distinct ways.

A group of leading wisdom researchers suggest an overarching definition of wisdom as: morally grounded excellence in social-cognitive processing, which includes the pursuit of truth with an awareness of the limitations of knowledge, a contextual balance of self- and other-oriented interests through reflection and perspective-taking, and an orientation toward the common good (Grossmann et al., 2020).

Monika Ardelt synthesizes both Western and Eastern approaches to offer a definition and conceptualization of wisdom as an integration of cognitive, reflective, and affective/compassionate dimensions. This definition is similar to morally grounded excellence in social-cognitive processing and compatible with Aristotle’s concept of practical wisdom, but places greater emphasis on compassionate attitudes and behavior (Ardelt, 2003; 2004).

Wisdom is often conceived in individualistic terms. Thus, wise individuals think and behave in certain distinguishable ways that can be measured. Ardelt (1997, 2003, 2004) has developed a culturally inclusive Three-Dimensional Wisdom Model that contains cognitive, reflective, and compassionate (affective) dimensions and is assessed by the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS, Ardelt, 2003).

But can wisdom be embodied communally? Can a collection of people be wise? Are there wise organizations?

Ardelt and Sharma¹ explain that past definitions of organizational wisdom have been primarily focused on comprehensive knowledge and intelligence (Limas and Hansson, 2004; Hays, 2008; Pinheiro et al., 2012; Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2019) but have often neglected the compassionate, pro-social aspects of wisdom (Ardelt & Sharma, 2021).

They suggest that perspective taking leads to the affective/compassionate dimension of wisdom, which is the insight that the ultimate goal and purpose of a wise organization is the promotion of the common good for all stakeholders over the short-term and also the long-term by balancing wisdom with intelligence and creativity (Sternberg, 2003; Sternberg, 2007; Ekmekçi et al., 2014; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2019; Sternberg, 2019; Sternberg, 2020).

The affective/compassionate dimension in personal wisdom finds expression organizationally through a culture that promotes the common good (Frost et al., 2000). Or in Jesus’s teaching, using warped socioeconomic systems to create eternal friendships and holistic goodness.

It’s easier to note the prevalence of not-so-wise organizations. Their primary goal is to invent new products and services that generate profit, with little to no regard for the consequences on consumers or the environment (Ardelt & Sharma, 2021). Think of the prevalence of vapes, carcinogen-laden highly processed foods, and the proliferation of automatic assault rifles.

Consider the overdose epidemic, which claims 100,000 lives per year. Pharmaceutical companies have been exposed for the overproduction and overprescription of highly addictive opioids that precipitated the crisis. Legal drug lords murder more people than any kingpin and have never seen the inside of a prison cell. These organizations are obviously driven by profit with little regard for human life.

Wise organizations on the other hand, generate profit not only to sustain the health of the organization and foster the wellbeing of their customers and employees, but also to finance improvements that resource the common good. They often focus on long-term success without neglecting short term goals based on timeless ethical principles, such as benevolence, fairness, justice, trust, integrity, and honesty (Ardelt & Sharma, 2021).

Not-so-wise organizations strive for certainty, regularity, and predictability through the establishment of rigid rules. They employ a causal logic process, setting a vision then creating benchmarks that move the company towards its fulfillment. This creates a competitive scenario in which employee performance is measured by these preset metrics. Collaboration is often superficial with task teams aligning to complete goals that are incentivized with monetary/status rewards.

However, while rigid and established rules and algorithms might help companies to deal with the expected, when significant change occurs, they fail (Nonaka and Toyama, 2007; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2019). Consider what is happening with mainline denominations for example, while the societal structures have been through a massive transformation, we are still thinking and programing for a world that no longer exists.

Ardelt and Sharma note that wise organizations accept uncertainty, irregularity, unpredictability, and impermanence and, therefore, often abandon rigid rules when the need arises to deal with the unexpected and the unknown (Intezari and Pauleen, 2014; Zacher and Kunzmann, 2019). Thus, adaptation, and ongoing improvements focused on the common good, as well as being nimble in highly dynamic and complex environments are critical attributes of wise organizations (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2011; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2019).

As noted above, one characteristic of a wise organization is a culture of moral and ethical values that encourages moral and ethical behavior (French, 1979; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2011; Intezari and Pauleen, 2014; Kristjánsson, 2021). Conversely, not-so-wise organizations follow a strictly scientific/technological approach. Leaders and supervisors of wise organizations emphasize and model authentic moral and ethical values (Sinclair, 1993; Boal and Hooijberg, 2000; Rooney and McKenna, 2005; McKenna et al., 2009; Toor and Ofori, 2009; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2019; Rooney et al., 2021).

Conversely, not-so-wise organizations build pyramidal workplaces with strict layers of hierarchy to closely control employees and their work outputs through rules, regulations, policies, job descriptions, and procedures (Lund, 2003). The overemphasis on planning and predictability is an attempt to control their stakeholders, including employees and customers. Furthermore, not-so-wise organizations can also suffer from a culture of nepotism that provides preferential treatment to a homogeneous group of employees, both in terms of information and rewards (Ridgeway, 1997; Nelson, 2017).

Ardelt and Sharma note that employees of wise organizations appreciated a democratic workplace, where they were provided some autonomy over how and when they worked. They were encouraged to practice self-care and prioritize home life. They were provided opportunities for advancement and development, satisfactory work benefits, job security, and enough time to provide the best services or products. Employees of wise organizations felt their job provided a variety of opportunities and was personally significant and meaningful in the broader scheme of things (Ardelt & Sharma, 2021).

Thus, in Ardelt’s 3D Wisdom Model, the affective/compassionate wisdom dimension is exemplified by an organizational culture that serves all stakeholders and offers satisfactory work benefits, secure employment, and opportunities for close friendships at work to develop a spirit of community. While the cognitive, reflective, perspective-taking elements are minimal in not-so-wise organizations, the affective or compassionate dimension is particularly absent.

Mainline denominations in the United States might be experiencing a crisis of organizational wisdom. It is possible that the compassionate dimension of wisdom has been minimized or neglected leading to a failure to cultivate the common good. Thus, there is a misalignment between the stated purpose of religious institutions and their actual contribution to making the world a better place.

In the next post, I will seek to apply the learnings from wise organizations to denominations and suggest that what seems like a crisis of erosion and decline is perhaps a hopeful transformation. Those of us inhabiting these systems have an opportunity to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, using the flawed structures to forge eternal friendships.

1. Ardelt Monika and Sharma, Bhavna “Linking Wise Organizations to Wise Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Well-Being” (2021). Front. Commun. 6:685850.