Selfless and strategic, interpersonal and institutional: a continuum of paradoxical organizational compassion dimensions

Abstract

We asked 32 professionals what organizational compassion is to them. Analysis of the responses revealed four conflicting, if not paradoxical, dimensions. With insight from Habermas' theory of 'communicative action', we paired these dimensions as two lifeworld/system couples: (1) selfless compassion (lifeworld) and strategic compassion (system), as well as (2) interpersonal compassion (lifeworld) and institutional compassion (system). While the colonisation of the lifeworld by system dimensions is a legitimate Habermasian concern, our analysis highlights the potential for system to magnify the power of compassion beyond lifeworld contexts, leveraging and transcending lifeworld/system tensions, aided by dialogue as 'communicative action'. Keywords Compassion, organization, organizational behaviour, Habermas harmonised. We accordingly turn to Habermas's theory of 'communicative action' as an analytical lens. Scholars such as Cooper and Burrell (1988) and Burrell (1994) describe Habermas' (1987) project of synthesising philosophy and empirical social science as invaluable to organizational theorists needing to defend and transcend the dual competing objectives of modern performativity with post-modern emancipation, the latter described managerially as "freeing employees from unnecessarily alienating forms of work organization" (Alvesson & Willmot, 1992, p. 433). Scherer and Palazzo (2007, p. 1097) similarly describe Habermas' project as an approach "in which both forms of coordination-ethical discourse and economic bargaining-are taken into account". We analyse our findings with insight from an adaptation of Habermas' (1987) theory of 'communicative action', which sees dialogue as the ultimate expression of human potential and as a means of transcending competing tensions (Habermas, 1996). We structure the paper as follows. We initially review the literature, considering current and past theorising, revealing organizational compassion as a highly contested topic involving competing views: as both an individual virtue as well as a strategic institutional practice, as both irrational and rational, as feminine and masculine, and as having both internal and external targets. We also justify our adaptation and use of Habermas' theory of coordinated communication as our analytical lens and follow up by describing our methodology and analytical frame. In our discussion, we consider possibilities for navigating apparent contradictions in various conceptualisations of organizational compassion through an ongoing Habermasian process of dialogue and coordinated action, where apparent contradictions are reframed as potentially complementary, synergistic and energising. Our paper contributes to the organizational compassion literature by providing broader theorising of organizational compassion, problematizing assumed oppositions and suggesting means for integrating and transcending them.

Cultivating organizational compassion in healthcare

“…Habermasian coordinated communicative action between different parties (Araújo et al, 2019), as well as the cultivation of compassion in conjunction with additional positive virtues of wisdom and courage (Simpson & Berti, 2019). The model we assert in this paper which presents compassion as not just empathy (which is emotional and could be viewed as sentimental) but also as assessing (cognitive and rational) as well as responding (which can draw upon courage) is compatible with these recommendations.…”

“…Issues of concern include sentimentality as well as the well-documented issue of compassion fatigue among care-givers (Figley, 1995, 2002; Sabo, 2006). While these arguments are beyond the scope of this paper, we hold that such concerns can be addressed, for example, by recognizing that compassion is paradoxical, laden with tensions between sentimentality and rationality, weakness and strength, or individual feeling and institutional policy (Araújo, Simpson, Marujo, & Miguel, 2019; Simpson & Berti, 2019). Organizational scholars hold that paradoxical tensions made salient can be synergistically integrated and transcended to achieve even greater power than that achieved by emphasizing any one of the paradoxical poles (Cunha, Simpson, Clegg, and Rego, 2018; Smith and Lewis, 2012).…”

“…Organizational scholars hold that paradoxical tensions made salient can be synergistically integrated and transcended to achieve even greater power than that achieved by emphasizing any one of the paradoxical poles (Cunha, Simpson, Clegg, and Rego, 2018; Smith and Lewis, 2012). Recommendations for transcendence within the context of organizational compassion include Habermasian coordinated communicative action between different parties (Araújo et al, 2019), as well as the cultivation of compassion in conjunction with additional positive virtues of wisdom and courage (Simpson & Berti, 2019). The model we assert in this paper which presents compassion as not just empathy (which is emotional and could be viewed as sentimental) but also as assessing (cognitive and rational) as well as responding (which can draw upon courage) is compatible with these recommendations.…”

Theorizing compassionate leadership from the case of Jacinda Ardern: Legitimacy, paradox and resource conservation

“…Conserving and replenishing followers’ resources to compassionately address suffering during crises is a process pervaded with paradoxical challenges (Araújo et al, 2019; Simpson and Berti, 2020). Organizational scholars describe paradoxes as persistent mutually interdependent but contradictory tensions (Smith and Lewis, 2011).…”

Educating for Public Happiness and Global Peace: Contributions from a Portuguese UNESCO Chair towards the Sustainable Development Goals

“…Using arts, sports, humanities, and other means of expression allowed for better outcomes. Furthermore, seminars and publications (manuals and chapters) on forms of collaboration and organizational compassion were implemented or are underway [67,68].…”