Unit 1 Assignment: Expanding the Canon

The standard way of thinking about diversity has it that ethnicity, gender, and race are the predominant merits companies need to consider at the workplace.  Where they often fall short, however, is in fully realizing the impact language diversity has amongst its employees. From the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, researchers Regina Kim, Loriann Roberson, Marcello Russo, and Paolo Briganti stress why global leaders and managers should embrace multilingual backgrounds more as a way to leverage diversity in our increasingly globalized society. Their article “Language Diversity, Non-native Accents, and Their Consequences at the Workplace” addresses the type of challenges native and nonnative speakers face, how a lack of linguistic diversity can negatively affect intraorganizational dynamics, and why it has been overlooked these past few decades.

Many studies in the past have shown how one speaks, being a leading social force in communication, can stigmatize those especially with nonnative accents and in turn create negative perceptions of the speaker. While Kim et al attest to this past research, they point out that it often only ever examined how nonnative speakers are or were evaluated from the perspective of native speakers. As a result, Kim et al study look at giving more attention to understanding the cognitive and emotional experiences between both native and nonnative speakers in an organizational workplace setting. Their research design and data collection approach involved inquiring 99 respondents’ experiences through in-depth semi-structured interviews and open-ended survey question formats.

The study’s strength lays in its inclusive ability to hear from all ends of the spectrum. It allows the reader to empathize with the point of view from many others and at a greater personable scale because of the various detailed, first-hand accounts given. From both parties, they found that language diversity resulted in two challenges at work which included the real difficulty of communicating amongst varying levels of a speaker’s fluency, and the perceived difficulty in communicating that cues one to assess a speaker’s competency, regardless of their actual competence.

Since language and communication ultimately pervade every facet of organization life, having different linguistic backgrounds will inevitably present challenges between employees. Cognitive scientist and professor at UCSD, Lera Boroditsky, expands this horizon of thinking in a TED Talk she delivered explaining how linguistic diversity reveals just how ingenious and flexible the human mind is. Giving cultural, mathematical, and everyday case by case scenarios, she highlights how language can influence and have big effects on how we perceive even the most basic perceptual decisions such as color. She connects these ideas to bigger implications within our daily lives giving examples of how speakers from varying backgrounds can process ideas and remember eyewitness events differently. Applying this to our topic of diversity and inclusion, the greatest takeaway we can note is how different language abled people can think or conceptualize events not seen by another individual, group, or organization in a workplace setting. Failure in recognizing the value this brings can create obstacles in creating an inclusive environment that performs at its best. Worse yet, Kim et al argue that it can create subtle forms of discrimination, the undervaluation of foreign employees, and fewer opportunities in careers for nonnative speakers.

Towards the end of the article the authors openly discuss the importance this sort of diversity has in the workplace. Here it becomes evident that the data this publication presents is consistent with many of the readings we’ve had including Gundemir et al take on the impact of minority employees’ self-perception at the workplace and Kaplan and Donovan’s call for a better level of systems framework. Similarly, they address how language diversity can serve as source of competitive advantage like Austin and Pisano go on to describe with neurodiverse populations. By accommodating a space both native and nonnative speakers feel safe to express fears, concerns, and emotions, encouraging openness and inclusion will become the set norm. The bigger picture of their argument, I find here, aims to expand who/ what we consider when discussing diversity at a deeper level.

While documented research has shown organizational culture playing an important role in promoting diversity (Shore et al 2009), Kim et al extend this conversation addressing that language diversity continues being overlooked despite its ability to elicit more forms of discrimination at work compared with other diversity attributes. In publishing their research, they are bridging a gap in diversity and literature that has glossed over the role language plays in our conscious and unconscious actions. They provide concrete reasons as to why these issues are critical to address and the potential it has to improve organizational performance and therefore, benefit everyone in the organization. At its cores these discussions make us pause to reflect on the organizational systems and persistent inequalities we have ongoing today.

Scholarly Article:  

https://journals-sagepub-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/doi/full/10.1177/0021886318800997?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider

Media Artifact: A better understanding of how language shapes the way we think and the impacts it has on the culture, society, and organizations we create.

Unit 1 assignment – Isaac Haseltine

Organizational culture diversity has surpassed the idea of being an extra step in forming a business, it is now increasingly clear that it is crucial for an organization to include a diverse workforce for maximum positive growth in the company. The article “Workforce diversity and organizational performance: a study of IT industry in India” written by Subhash Kundu and Archana Mor elaborate on the findings from the study created on the perception of diversity inclusion in the Information Technology industry in India. The study focused on gender, race/ethnicity, caste, and disability minorities and how individuals reacted to companies conscious diversity inclusion tactics. The author’s focus is in the analysis of the diversity and imbalance and researching the underlying issues within the systemic inequality. Their goal was to continue pushing forward for diversity in the workplace by addressing the issues that are taking place with the current status of the conscious inclusion. The two authors aim to inform the reader that the steps being taken for equality are still facing contrasting mindsets against the tactics in place. India was chosen for the study because of its large population that is made of many groups and subgroups of minorities. It is an extremely diverse country with 1.38 billion people who all fall into the social pyramid. Religious and societal classes segregate India, and the complex caste system creates a wide variety of minorities. How each subgroup interprets the forced diversity effects creates the diversity outcome, so it is vital to approach the conscious addition of diversity with a mindset that adheres to the wide variety of individual perceptions. 

The IT industry in India has created huge economic growth for the country, it has placed India in a top position of the global IT industry and has raised the GDP from 1.2 percent to 9.5 percent from 1998 to 2014. Although studies show there is an extreme difference between the countries diversity and the IT industry’s. the data recorded showed that of the 114 employees 90% of them were a part of the general category in the caste system and the remaining 10% was made up of Other Backward castes, and the ST’s and SC’s percentages were null. In a related study of 132 employees from eight IT companies 93% were Hindu while the remaining 7% made up the rest of the major religions in India. These percentages do not align with the proportions of the country, thus proving the homogeneity taking place in the industry.

The article addresses many studies that have been done on Indias IT industry’s diversity, as well as their own study they conducted. What differed was the interpretation of the diversity findings. Many of the studies they referred to were based on the statistical data they collected on the minority groups that made up the study populations, while the author’s study was based on the receptiveness of diversity of each subgroup. Their findings show that the separate minority groups tend to perceive diversity in relatively the same views. The greatest difference was found where men were the least receptive to diversifying, and women were much more supportive. The study also helped create a deeper analysis of diversity in organizations, and they discovered that the hierarchical position of an employee has a significant impact on their receptivity of diversity along with the social class they belong to. Even though most countries don’t have a defined social class system there are still physical and monetary boundaries that separate every country, city, and town. To understand how and why a person’s current position in life affects their perspective on diversity in crucial because with our global population in the billions, there isn’t a standard life that stays consistent for most people across the world anymore; The more complex the world becomes, the farther away we drift from a world that is shared equally. 

 

Article

https://www-emerald-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ER-06-2015-0114/full/html#sec002

 

Photo citation

Reuters Graphics. “Caste Politics.” Reuters, fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/INDIA-ELECTION/010031Y54EE/index.html.

Wrapping up Unit 1

Let’s start pulling some things together. Here are a few lessons from our first unit of the course that I hope you will carry forward in our next projects:

  • We need to understand a text’s rhetorical situation before we can work with it—over the last few weeks, we’ve been looking at some sets of texts that talk around some of the same issues but from different angles. Looking closely, we can trace many of these differences to facets of their writing situation: i.e. different audiences, different purposes, different credentials/experiences of the authors, different contexts. In order to figure out how much stock to put in folks’ ideas, what ideas of our own we might build upon them, or how to use these sources to help explain ideas to other people, we MUST first understand the texts themselves and where they’re coming from.
  • Understanding a text’s rhetorical situation also gives us a window in to whether and how it works, and what we might learn from its example as writers—we can see how writers try to appeal to their readers (using 2nd person, anticipating and responding to their concerns, styling their text to be visually engaging). We can see how writers build their arguments (linking evidence to claims, providing the reader with opportunities to follow their chain of thought back through hyperlinks to sources or citations). We can see writers drawing on their personal experiences to tell us stories about how they came to wonder about something and how they developed their understanding of it. By watching how other people do this work, we prepare ourselves to do it, too.
  • We need a variety of tools—we’ve examined how-to texts (from Harris and TSIS) and content-focused ones; we’ve watched videos; we’ve discussed. We’re coming to appreciate the complexity of our big topic area and to see how we’re only really going to make progress toward our understanding by engaging with a variety of resources and voices. That’s not just an academic exercise for us in this course; that’s a core guideline for research. As researchers and writers, we will also need that multi-faceted set of perspectives if we’re ever going to make progress toward understanding. AND we need to use a multitude of tools in presenting our ideas to our readers—whether that’s templates, graphic representations of data, varying levels of formality, etc. Furthermore, this sort of diversity of perspectives and approaches is a core value for organizations–an essential component of fair and effective collaboration.

So let’s continue. We’re growing our body of knowledge this week through accretion—each of you is adding something to it with the article you’re going to explain to the rest of us, and reviewing your classmates’ posts will be an important part of this week’s work. As we move forward, we’ll continue to learn from each other even as we head down individual research paths.

One final point, summary isn’t just a hoop for you to jump through. It’s how you test yourself to ensure that you’re conversant enough with the text to work with it in your own writing. If you can’t effectively summarize it, you probably shouldn’t be working with it in a project, because you can’t be sure you’ll fairly characterize its perspective and utilize its full value. A careful definition and description of a source (as part of a summary that also details its main take-away points) is a necessary precondition to be able to work further with that material.

Ready to move on? The unit 2 assignment sheet is available here and on Blackboard. Take a look, and let’s get ready to go.

Expanding the Canon, Unit 1, Week of 6/8, Toni Salisbury

Challenging the dialogic promise: how Ben & Jerry’s support for Black Lives Matter fosters dissensus on social media

Erica Ciszek & Nneka Logan

Full article here

In summary:

This article’s purpose is to advance dialogic theory by presenting an agonistic orientation toward dialogue, concluding that public relations research is enriched by a postmodern approach, recognizing dissensus as an important concept and consequence when organizations advocate on behalf of contested political and social issues. Erica Ciszek (PhD Communication & Society, University of Oregon School of Journalism & Communication and Assistant Professor, Stan School of Advertising and Public Relations) & Nneka Logan (PhD Georgia State University and Associate Professor, Department of Communication, Virginia Polytech University) ascertain how Ben & Jerry’s social media support for Black Lives Matter functions as an ideological reservoir for a variety of competing perspectives about race in the United States and the role of a corporation in these conversations. Though they are challenging consensus-driven orientations of dialogue within digital landscapes by analyzing Ben & Jerry’s support of the Black Lives Matter movement and the subsequent public response, the findings of this study elucidate the utility and implications in a public relations context in a company’s communication in corporate political advocacy. Situating value-drive over profit imperative in organizational life. I agree that by maintaining that public relations needs to continue to theorize how dialogue contextualizes these issues, it’s worth considering an instance in which an organization takes relational risks by engaging in corporate political advocacy.

Note: This article was Received 01 Dec 2017, Accepted 18 Jun 2018, Published online: 08 Aug 2018. I include these dates, as it seems important and powerful to note on Ben & Jerry’s behalf, that this was not in response to the protests going on today in 2020, but rather separate, yet all too similar, issues four years ago!

On October 6, 2016 Ben & Jerry’s posted on their website not just that Black Lives Matter, but WHY black lives matter to them.  They spoke out about how “Systemic and institutionalized racism are the defining civil rights and social justice issues of our time.”

They ask their customer base to join them in not being complicit. Illuminating a simple objective “to ensure justice-loving people act toward justice, with all evidence, and that we stand together and act from a place of power and love, rather than out of fear and anger.”

Ben & Jerry’s goes even further, educating their public on how systemic racism is real, within their own company website.

https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/systemic-racism-is-real

Today, in response to the murder of George Floyd, brands and companies are taking Ben & Jerry’s lead and speaking out against Racism, such as Nike and more effectively Viacom.  However, Ben & Jerry’s seems to always go a step further with their alliship, advocacy and calls to action, with statements on Twitter such as:

Maybe it’s because they sell Ice cream that Ben & Jerry’s can speak out so openly regardless of possible stakeholder and public alienation, and without seemingly risking the life of their organization?  Does what you sell, what business you are in, what kind of company you are, make a difference in the role you can have in corporate political advocacy? And that according to Ciszek & Logan, even while continuing to address that scholars have continually used dialogic principles to examine whether social media is dialogic, and the significance of three of the key areas to public relations theory and practice; how within digital landscapes, can there still be a mode of inquiry in line with critical theory, that is also concerned with the flow and play of power through public discourse?

Why this? While I couldn’t find information on how any minority employees at Ben & Jerry’s might feel going to work each day (as originally intended), and as a white person I can not even begin to assume anything about this; what I can say is that, Ben & Jerry’s has proven that it is possible for organizations to take relational risks by engaging in corporate political advocacy, regardless of dialogical theory, and I appreciate that they don’t let anything like that deter them.

 

Discussion Prompts on TED Talks

  1. Raneta Salecl started her TED talk off by introducing 3 quotes. I took interest to the first one by Samuel Johnson which was, “When making your choice in life, do not forget to live.” I believe this was a great tactic to immediately pull the audience in, because right from the start I found myself engaged with the speaker. Raneta then proceeded to link these 3 quotes which she shared to the “sweet anxiety of choice,” so this transition was very well done in my opinion. In terms of rhetoric, Raneta also used real life examples including her friend Manya and the woman she encountered at the wedding reception so by explaining these stories to the audience, we are provided with the knowledge that she actually lived through seeing others making choices and has great knowledge on this topic. In order to explain her ideas, Raneta additionally mentions other sources such as philosophers and professors from several universities to build off of her points. Several statements that Raneta made throughout her talk such as how self critique may often lead to self destruction, how many people have a passion for ignorance rather than knowledge, and that choice leads to individual and social changes are extremely raw and natural subject topics that I’ve never been confronted with. So for this reason, I believe Raneta presented her arguments in such a passionate way that really appealed to me.
  2. Building off of Raneta’s TED Talk, I believe she used evidence in various ways. Raneta uses outside sources to her advantage as a way of providing the reader with credibility that she’s well educated on what she speaks about. For example, the evidence of her personal encounters (such as Manya) gave Raneta leeway right into discussing how humans rarely make rational choices. Another specific example of this is when she told the story of the young woman at the wedding reception. This story wasn’t told for any specific reason; it was to emphasize her point that choice is linked to risks and unpredictability.  An argumentation tactic that I found very effective was Raneta asking the audience questions. Rather than just providing the listeners with facts on top of facts, this way of presenting her subject matter forced the audience to take short moments of silence and actually think deeply about the questions. For example, a time when this happened to me was when Raneta asked, “We’re often choosing by guessing, what would other people think about our choice?” I thought that the strategy behind this question and connecting it to always having our decisions needing to be socially acceptable was very clever.

Discussion Post

1. Focusing on Renata Salecl’s TED Talk, I thought her initial introduction into her presentation about “Our Unhealthy Obsession with Choice” was captivating. By engaging the audience into her struggle with choosing a quote to introduce her presentation, already introduced her topic of conversation in such a relatable and understanding way. Elaborating on her own struggle with making a choice, she was then able to flow straight into her perspective on how choices bring about feelings of anxiety, guilt, and inadequacy if the “wrong choice” is made. I think it was interesting for Renata to lead with her own struggle with choice, as she exemplifies the negatives of human’s ideology of choice throughout her TED Talk. Providing scenarios, such as Manya and her car business, provide a real life scenario that any business owner or customer could place themselves into. The way she spoke about choice is linked to risk, and how taking a chance can be anxiety-provoking, had me, an audience member, consider some of the risks and choices or chances I have taken and I further asked myself why I took them. But I eventually went even further to then ask myself how I really felt when making those decisions and hr descriptions of fear and anxiety resonated with me, because I could clearly remember bearing those feelings. 
2. Focusing on Margaret Heffernan’s TED Talk about “The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World”, I found that the evidence she used to be rather interesting. Her argument, about the world dealing with the unpredictable, was a conversation that I was initially drawn to, as this was something I had never really thought about when considering the efficiency of businesses and what they aim to predict. In her argument, I think that the evidence she used was rather compelling. Using CEPI, she exclaims how there is a prediction for future epidemics, but how does one prepare for the right one? Looking at reality as seeing the pandemic we are currently still trying to manage, I don’t think any human could have accurately predicted how detrimental this would be, as coronavirus has effected the entire globe. Turning her topic towards climate change, she then examines how certainly there are countries who are trying to combat this change within their territories but how can one predict that their change will in turn be enough to aid in the halting of climate change. Using other examples of country’s initiatives such as the Netherlands and England show that there is some means to actually experiment and test a hypothesis instead of computer analyzing what could possibly occur. This growing use of technology may have his benefits, but Margaret questions the ability for technology to always have the answer. 

 

Unit 1 Assignment – Dominique

Although we have read about diversity in abilities, we have not read an article specifically targeted at schools. This topic is important to me because my major is inclusive elementary and special education teaching, so it is important for me to understand diversity in the classroom. I believe that this topic is essential for everyone to understand because differences should be accepted and valued in society. In order to expand the canon, I decided to include an article about neurodiversity in the classroom called “Valuing Differences: Neurodiversity in the Classroom” which was published by Phi Delta Kappa International, an organization for educators. This article was written by Barb Rentenbach, Lois Prislovsky and Rachael Gabriel who wrote about their experiences as students and educators. This article is different from the others that we have read because the authors have disabilities, so they are writing using their experiences as people in the neurodiverse community. In this article, the authors list different ways that teachers can help students who have disabilities to succeed. The purpose of this article is to inform educators, and other people who work with those who have disabilities, and also to show them that there are things you can do to help your student or coworker succeed. In the beginning of the article, the authors explain neurodiversity. The rest of the article is broken down into three sections (Autism, ADHD, and Dyslexia). In each section, the authors list practical implications and explain what these implications mean, and how to use them. The reason that someone may need to apply these things is because they want their students or coworkers who have disabilities to feel valued. Some people may believe that the best way to help people who have disabilities is to “fix” or “cure” them. However, people who are neurodiverse need to know that they are valued, accepted. They also may need accommodations that will allow them to succeed. All students should feel welcome and respected in the classroom, and this article explains exactly how to do that. In order to support what I have said, and learn more about neurodiversity, I have decided to include a YouTube video in my post. This video is by a woman named Amythest Schaber who has autism, and her thoughts on neurodiversity. Schaber says, “To put it simply, neurodiversity states that everybody on the planet has a different brain and that’s ok”. I like this video because Schaber has autism, so she has experienced some of the hardships that people with disabilities go through when others do not accept them. The purpose of this video is for Schaber to raise awareness, and offer advice based on her experiences. This video relates to the article that I chose because it gives a little background by explaining neurodiversity, and the movement that goes along with it.

Link to article: https://www-jstor-org.libezproxy2.syr.edu/stable/pdf/26388229.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A6ff9e5192877af6900911459ca04e5c9

Citations

Rentenbach, B., Prislovsky, L., & Gabriel, R. (2017). Valuing Diversity: Neurodiversity in the Classroom. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26388229

Week of 6/8 – Discussion

1. The most engaging approach I found this week came from Jason Freid. Throughout his presentation he gave a very logistical and linear narration on why work doesn’t (always) happen at work. He begins with a line of credibility addressing an ongoing and relatable question he’s been asking everyday people for ten years. Prompting those in the audience to speculate where they go to ‘get work done,’ Fried draws out that they seldom say the office. He gives support to why this is never the case listing reasons whilst drawing comparisons and adding a bit of comical charm to his argument. The examples he gives, such as comparing sleep with work, helps explain how the two processes are interrelated and that in order to achieve its fullest potential, they require uninterrupted. Managers and meetings, or “M&M’s” as he jokingly calls it, are directly apart of the issue. These anecdotal scenarios go further serving as statistical tradeoffs when he makes the point that a manager’s meeting with ten employers doesn’t consume an hour of time, but rather ten hours of productivity. What I found interesting was his ability to reason or look at things in an alternative way. Explicit about being manager himself, Fried furthers his connection with the audience making them feel as if he is on ‘their’ side. He offers a point of reason appealing to listeners who may not have looked at it that way in the past. Finally, he rounds out his argument debunking beliefs of those opposed to alternatives at the office by adding recommendations from whats worked based on his own and many other company experiences

3. For this discussion I wanted to continue elaborating on Jason Fried’s argument. For starters its necessary to understand Fried’s perspective which is based around developing and reframing the nature of work with practical tools and collaborative platforms. As an entrepreneur he continuously looks for growth thus requiring him to be relatable across broad audiences. He has co-authored publications and found companies that focused on productivity. Knowing this we’re able to relate his background with the larger body of knowledge around organizational culture. From our class readings we’ve begun to understand how diversity and inclusion policies can influence the perception of its employees especially with minority groups. Similar discussions included embracing those less well known such as neurodiverse and disabled populations. Rethinking the levels of systems Kaplan and Donovan describe coincides with the theme Fried is trying to address in his TedTalk. Where I see Fried’s message fit is in between the category of an organizational and individual level. His approach to reworking the systematic organizations we have today, such as those in greater leadership positions (i.e. managers),  is key to fostering an environment that has better lines of communication and productivity amongst its employees. By reducing distractions taken from trivial matters (i.e. meetings), Fried is empowering individuals to have more time to focus on themselves which in turn can have positive effects on the overall pool of sustaining diversity. The point I want to make is that his talk reinforces the idea that ones actions have running impacts and feedback loops to many issues at large.

DRAFT – Expanding the Canon, Unit 1, Toni

To begin my research on the how the social mission of Ben & Jerry’s has survived and lives in their workforce, I have had trouble finding scholarly articles that delineate this aspect of the business.  There are a lot of scholarly articles that speak about some of the challenges Ben & Jerry’s have had, but no conclusive scholarly articles, currently, about their successes, despite their earlier difficulties.

For the sake of finally getting something posted I went with this article, which  has good introductory information but I am aware the source is not strong enough. Alas…

Matthew Lam, a writer and intern at Cornell SC Johnson College of business, who writes for the Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise News, presents Ben & Jerry’s as a company that is committed to it’s cause: valuing social justice and remaining unabashedly progressive in their politics. Ben & Jerry’s has a three-part mission, which aims to create linked prosperity for everyone that’s connected to their business and as Lam discovers, their three prongs of their  mission are lined up next to one another in the company graphic; with the belief that displaying them in another way would lead employees to subconsciously rank them in importance. Through speaking with Rob Michalak, Global Director of Social Mission @benandjerrys, Lam learns that Ben & Jerry’s makes deliberate and tangible choices, incentivizing suppliers to make more environmentally sustainable and animal-friendly choices, and was one of the first companies to pay a living wage, now boasting one of the lowest wage compression ratios its workforce in the country. Even though Ben & Jerry’s was acquired by a multinational consumer goods giant in 2000, this atypical acquisition provided for an independent board of directors composed of Ben & Jerry’s original leadership, and experts in the fields of environmental sustainability, human rights, and other social issues. Ben & Jerry’s employees remain just as enthusiastic about their ice cream as they are about progressive political and social causes, and as a so-called “activist company,” Ben & Jerry’s leadership and culture, the holistic choices it has made, and the socially responsible reputation it has built, is not just PR it’s Philanthropy.

Ben & Jerry’s: Committed to the cause

unit 1 blog DRAFT

The author of my article is named Aaron Hicks, and he, with the help of four individuals who he acknowledged from the University of Richmond, published “Religion and the Workplace : Pluralism, Spirituality, Leadership.” Aaron is a professor with an undergraduate degree and graduate coursework in economics, a Master of Divinity degree, and a Ph.D. in religious studies. The author’s religious tradition is Presbyterian (Protestant, Christian). Before he began writing Chapter 1 of this book, Aaron clarified his opinion to the reader by stating how faithful Christians should have no interest in imposing their beliefs or practices upon others and they should want to receive no advantage in public life or the workplace because of their religion. “Religion and the Workplace: Pluralism, Spirituality, Leadership” is structured into 3 parts, where I will be writing about Part 2 (Chapters 5-7). The author’s objective in this section of the text is to offer distinctions, concepts, and comparative examples that demonstrate how religion is present in contemporary workplaces. The audience of this text includes scholars in favor of secular workplaces and supporters of spiritual leadership and Christian preferences because they will be actively challenged in their beliefs, but the audience also includes individual employees of any religion, or those who do not identify as religious or spiritual. 

Aaron’s purpose is to analyze current realities in the workplace in relation to religion and spirituality, and he does so by first pointing out how individual and institutional expressions of religion differ. That is, most approaches to religion and spirituality in the workplace often underemphasize religious diversity. Religion in the workplace is often seen as religion of the workplace, and the author makes an important point that the corporate leader cannot play the role of a spiritual guide or guru to his or her workforce. If a single company sponsors or promotes one specific kind of religion, this is questionable. One quote by the author which supports his reasoning and argument on why companies can’t openly express one religion over any other is “It may be easy for Christians to downplay the significance, for example, of subtle messages in the workplace that convey the privileged status enjoyed by Christian symbols, ideas, or holidays, but for Jewish, Muslim, and atheistic co-workers these messages are overtly present and reinforce their experience of marginalization.” (Hicks, 2003, p. 133) Additionally, public life impacts the workplace as the article explains. Religion plays many roles in American society, and many employees who are Christians have admitted that they receive or have received preferential treatment at work and in society. These current discussions of spirituality tend to marginalize those who are atheists or adherents of many religious backgrounds, causing those who feel pressured by society to divorce their religious / spiritual commitments from all aspects of their public lives.

I decided to include this photo for statistical reference. It is from library.cqpress.com from an article titled “Should employers allow more religious expression?”

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHhuYV9fMTIwNTM2X19BTg2?sid=69c92641-5cec-4578-a000-a5aa855c2117@sessionmgr4008&vid=3&format=EB&rid=2