Content uploaded by Rajneesh Chowdhury
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rajneesh Chowdhury on Jun 09, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION
2022, VOL 19, NO. 2, 154-185
https://doi.org/10.51327/NHIY7714
© 2022 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion
Holistic Flexibility for Critical Systems Thinking
Inspired by the Nataraja
Rajneesh Chowdhury
Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Kingston-Upon-Hull, United Kingdom
Contact: Rajneesh Chowdhury: Rajneesh.Chowdhury@hull.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
The Nataraja is perhaps the most well-recognized
anthropomorphic form of the Hindu god, Shiva. This paper
articulates a set of principles for a recently developed
conceptual lens in systems thinking called Holistic
Flexibility for flexible and responsible management
practice. The five most important function of the Nataraja,
or the panchakritya, have been drawn on to articulate these
principles; these principles are – “system as becoming”,
drawing from srishti or creation, “transformative flexibility”,
drawing from samhara
or transformation, “responsible
practice” drawing from tirobhava or (freedom from)
ignorance, “spiral of learning” drawing from samhara or
liberation, and “pragmatic artistry” drawing from sthithi or
assurance. An argument is presented to establish the
importance of management consciousness drawing from
the Shiva philosophy. Behav
iors associated with the
principles are enlisted along with the challenges for
managers to display these behaviors. The discussions
presented argue that Holistic Flexibility and its principles
can lend a new character to systems thinking as a state of
mind to supersede a rational-analytical approach.
Received: 30 January 2021
Accepted: 2 December 2021
Keywords
Systems thinking; Holistic
Flexibility; religion; Nataraja;
principles; management
consciousness
Introduction
This paper draws inspiration from the cosmic dance of the Shiva, epitomized in the popular
manifestation of the Nataraja, to articulate key principles for flexible and responsible
management practice. The stream in management considered for this discussion is Critical
Systems Thinking (CST). Significant deliberations in the literature that attempt to build
epistemological bridges between the philosophy of the Nataraja and the human sciences
already exist. However, there is a lack of scholarly inquiry into how this philosophy can shed
light on management science, a gap this paper bridges. A conceptual argument is presented
on how management science can benefit from the integration of religious philosophy and
symbolism in the theories it propounds and the actions it provokes.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 155
The paper will begin with an introduction to the Nataraja and highlight the relevance of
religious and spiritual symbolism for modern-day management. This will be followed by a
discussion on how systems thinking and CST, in particular, can benefit by embracing the
Nataraja philosophy. Holistic Flexibility, a recently developed conceptual lens in CST, will
be introduced that shall form the central theme of this paper. The place of Holistic Flexibility
in CST will be examined, followed by a discussion that highlights gaps in extant literature on
the subject. The philosophy of the Nataraja will then be drawn from to articulate five
principles of Holistic Flexibility. Further, a discussion will be presented on how this
philosophy can enable management consciousness. Finally, the paper will present what this
means for the advancement of CST as a discipline.
In this paper, “manager” is used as an umbrella term to denote anyone who is involved in
conceptualizing, leading, executing or measuring social/organizational change. All Sanskrit
words have been italicized.
The Nataraja
Shiva is one of the most important gods in Hinduism. References to Shiva go back to the
Vedic literature that dates to the mid first-millennium BCE and even earlier in some cases
(Flood, 1996). Shiva encompasses the good and bad, sublime and evil, day and night, male
and female, creation and destruction, matter and energy, and time itself.
The Nataraja (see Figure 1) is perhaps the most well-recognized anthropomorphic form
of the Shiva. Pullanoor (2019) traces the evolution of the Nataraja to the confluence of Vedic
Hinduism of 1500-to-500 BCE and the Indus Valley civilization from 2500-1500 BCE in
various forms through the ages till the appearance of the dancing Shiva during the third-to-
fifth century CE.
Figure 1. The Nataraja.
The description and interpretation of the Nataraja presented in this paper draw from
selected literature of Choudhury (2016), Coomaraswamy (1918), and Pullanoor (2019).
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
156 R. CHOWDHURY
Although Shiva is referred to as male and hence the pronoun “he” is used, it is to be noted
that the Nataraja transcends gender-divide and portrays Shiva as the Ardhanarishvara, or
hermaphrodite. Shiva wears a male earring on the right ear and a female earring on the left
ear representing the two sexes. Several other ornaments are seen such as necklaces, armlets,
anklets, bracelets, rings, and a jeweled belt. Shiva adorns a tiger skin that is representative of
his supreme power. He is depicted as having four arms and engaged in a blissful dance with
his locks of hair whirling towards the eternal cosmic circle.
In the first right-arm, Shiva holds the damru, a form of hand-held mini-drum, in its
beating mode; its vibration representing srishti or the creation of the universe and time. The
first left-arm is raised holding a flame of fire that “atrophies matter to a formless state”
(Pullanoor, 2019). The fire represents samhara or transformation. Srishti and samhara
represent the constant cycle of creation and transformation that defines the cosmic cycle.
The second right-arm with an open palm offers reassurance of stability and ‘becoming’ while
humanity is braced with this force of continual transformation. This is representative of
sthithi. The second left-arm with the palm pointing downwards depicts tirobhava, which can
be interpreted to mean ignorance in which humans fall. This serves to understand
concealment of knowledge and preoccupation with the creative illusion of our lived-in
experience, known as maya. The raised left-leg represents anugraha or liberation and is
indicative of humankind’s possibilities to attain liberation from ignorance and from being a
mere witness of maya caught in the intense cyclical metamorphosis of birth, life, and death.
Srishti, samhara, sthiti, tirobhava, and anugraha are recognized as the five most important
functions of the Nataraja and are referred to as the panchakritya. The right-leg is shown to
trample upon a dwarf called apasmara that is symbolic of avidya, or ignorance, and
ahamkara, or ego. Only by trampling these vices, can one tread the path of self-actualization,
or moksha. The Nataraja is seen encircled by an eternal burning flame representative of the
cosmos as the cyclical force of dynamic existence. Shiva’s long hair-locks are seen expanding
into this unending cosmos in a representative union of the lord and the cosmos itself – the
microcosm and the macrocosm, respectively.
Further, certain characteristics of Shiva are retained in the Nataraja. The powerful
presence of vasuki, the serpent representing the preservation of secret knowledge. The locks
of Shiva’s hair can be interpreted as channeling the course of the holy Ganges as it descends
from the symbolic Milky-Way galaxy to the Earth. Several depictions of the Nataraja also
come with the thrishul or the trident. The three prongs of the trident represent the three
worlds in Hindu mythology - bhur (material world), bhuvaha (mental world), and svaha
(spiritual world).
The dance of the Shiva is a profoundly powerful symbol representing the cosmic loop of
energies. Kashmir Shaivism, attributed majorly to the works of Utpaladeva (c. 925-975 C.E.)
and Abhinavagupta (c. 975-1025 C.E.), provides extensive commentaries on the philosophy
of the Shiva as the principle of cosmic pulsation, or spanda, resulting in the manifestation of
the worldly experience that is represented by the symbolism of the Nataraja. Parallels to
Kashmir Shaivism can be drawn to the Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy, that
also talks about the cosmic fusion of energies. Tracing its roots back to the Vedic or the
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 157
immediate post-Vedic period (Dasgupta, 1975; Larson, 2011), the Samkhya advocates for the
“liberation of man’s [sic] self from bondage to the body and the material world” (Chatterjee,
1996, p. 208). It talks about purusha, the male energy, and prakriti, the female energy, as the
only fundamental realities; the former representing the individual consciousness and the
latter, the creative force of nature bearing the basic argument of satkaryavada or the effect
pre-existing in the cause. Purusha and prakriti must fuse as one for reality to unfold. The
supreme consciousness of purusha would remain unmanifested without the creative energy
of prakriti. Whereas purusha needs prakriti to manifest itself, prakriti needs purusha to
activate its energies that otherwise lay in a dormant state (Bravo & Aduan, 2015). Purusha
and prakriti can be related to the Nataraja’s male Shiva (right side) and female Shakti (left
side) respectively. It is to be noted that male and female are archetypes rather than sexes per-
se. Similarly, Kashmir Shaivism argues that the manifestation process for humans is a
transcendental play of prakasha, or light, and vimarsha, or activity – read as Shiva and Shakti,
respectively.
Fritjof Capra (1975) draws inspiration from the Nataraja to talk about the dance of
energies as an essential aspect in physics through which both particles and virtual particles
determine mass and form. He says (Capra, 1975, pp. 244-245):
“For the modern physicists… Shiva’s dance is the dance of subatomic matter.
As in Hindu mythology, it is a continual dance of creation and destruction
involving the whole cosmos; the basis of all existence and of all natural
phenomena… [modern physics experiments] bear testimony to the continual
rhythm of creation and destruction in the universe, are visual images of the
dance of Shiva equaling those of the Indian artists in beauty and profound
significance. The metaphor of the cosmic dance thus unifies ancient
mythology, religious art, and modern physics. It is indeed, as Coomaraswamy
has said, ‘poetry, but none the less science’.”
The philosophy of Nataraja and quantum physics possess a confluence of similar ideas that
view reality as a constant force of creation, destruction, and preservation. This cosmic reality
manifests itself as our experiential world. This is what is referred to as maya in the Samkhya
and Kashmir Shaivism. Maya is commonly interpreted as illusion, but it is actually the
creative power of the manifested experience from the unmanifested consciousness.
At one level, the symbolism of the Nataraja depicts continual upheaval, while at another
level it represents the cosmos as the ultimate thermodynamic system with great symmetry
and rhythm. Despite the quantum dynamism, the essential character of Shiva is ‘nothingness’
or supreme bliss in the Shiva Puranas, the scripture dedicated to Shiva that is estimated to
have been composed between the fourth- to the second-century BCE (Klostermaier, 2007),
to denote the involution of the entire universe into a state that is formless and unmanifested.
Hence, the call for humility and the suspension of judgement with the attainment of vidya,
or knowledge, in the Samkhya.
In all its glory and powerful imagery, the dancing Shiva is interpreted as the substratum
of reality and revered throughout the length and breadth of India in its multiplicity of creative
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
158 R. CHOWDHURY
manifestations. The cosmic dance of the Nataraja is a highly sophisticated representation of
the coming-together of philosophy, metaphysics, spirituality, art, and science.
Having described the Nataraja and its philosophical significance, this paper will now
provide a note on the relevance of religious symbolism in management research.
Religion and management research
The current socio-economic malaise created by a simplistic and linear approach to
management has put in question fundamental assumptions of modern businesses and the
way social/organizational institutions are run (Chowdhury, 2019; Ison & Straw 2020;
Jackson, 2019; Sur, 2017). Certain religious and spiritual traditions can lend an alternate lens
in understanding complex problems as they create a sense of purpose, meaning and self-
transcendence (Cash & Gray, 2000; Hood et al., 2009; Nash, 1994; Richardson et al., 2014;
Williams, 2010). Religious beliefs and symbolisms do not exist in isolation but are integral to
human life (Hee, 2007). In recent years, there has been a surge in the research of religion and
spirituality in several aspects of management studies (Tracey, 2012). Perspectives from
religious philosophy and symbolism can offer an alternative understanding to the dominant
worldviews that have surfaced in the twentieth century onwards that separate mind-and-
matter, cause-and-effect, and profit-and-responsibility with a dualist standpoint. Certain
religious philosophies can offer a holistic framework for a “purpose-oriented approach” (Sur,
2017, p. 69) in business and management. Sur (2017) particularly talks about the perspective
Hinduism can lend in approaching reality in an integrative manner by breaking silos and
merging paradigms.
The study of religious symbolism in the context of systems thinking presents an exciting
arena, given that systems thinking has evolved to be an integrative discipline that challenges
perceived divisions and dualisms (elaborated in the next section). Ivanov (2011) says that
systems practice needs to be developed at the interface of formal science, political ethics,
analytical psychology, and religious thought. Whereas significant work has been carried out
in systems thinking that draws from natural science, political theory, ecology, complexity,
sociology and psychology (Capra, 1975; Flood & Romm, 2013; Ison & Straw, 2020; Jackson,
2019; Midgley, 2000), exploration of religious thought as an inspiration has been limited and
can be found in select works of Gu and Zhu (2000), Rajagopalan (2020), Shen and Midgley
(2007a,b,c, 2015) and Zhu (2000). This paper is the first attempt to explore the philosophy of
the Nataraja in the context of systems thinking in management.
Having talked about the relevance of religion in management research, the next section
will elaborate on the evolution of systems thinking to its current stage called Critical Systems
Thinking.
Systems thinking and critical systems thinking
Systems thinking is an integrative discipline that considers interrelationships, interactions,
and emergent behaviors. It is the network and interaction between the parts (subsystems)
that give rise to the system as a whole (von Bertalanffy, 1950). There are three distinct periods
in the history of systems thinking in Operations Research/Management Science (OR/MS) or,
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 159
as Midgley (2000, 2003) refers to as waves, building on its predecessors (Cabrera & Cabrera,
2019), that have culminated in what we call Critical Systems Thinking.
The first wave of systems thinking was characterized by the realization of the importance
of interconnectedness in social/organizational systems in order to manage complex
problems in the post-World War-II scenario. This wave came to be known as hard systems
thinking and was influenced by developments that believed that social reality can be
optimized and managed with a functionalist mindset (LeLeur, 2014; Mooney et al., 2007).
Midgley and Rajagopalan (2021) refer to this wave as the “applied-scientific methodological
tradition”. The first wave gained popularity during the 1950s and 1960s (Midgley &
Rajagopalan, 2021) but it soon faced criticism for its emphasis on prediction and control with
systems thinkers positioned as experts (Rosenhead, 1989) and neglect of human agency
(Checkland, 1981; Jackson, 2000; Lleras, 1995). This wave failed to account for complexity,
subjectivity, and power in social/organizational reality (Burton, 2003; Flood & Romm, 1995;
Schecter, 1991).
Criticism of the first wave led to a “significant paradigm shift in the theory underpinning
the application of systems thinking” (Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2021) and paved the way for
the rise of the second wave through several scholarly contributions (Ackoff, 1981; Checkland,
1981; Checkland & Scholes, 1999; Churchman, 1979). These scholars emphasized
interpersonal relationships, intersubjectivity, learning, and a spirit of open dialogue and
accommodation and created what came to be known as soft systems thinking. Churchman
(1979) raised fundamental questions on the nature of defining a system arguing that system
boundaries are value-based. Such arguments provided the basis for the recognition of
participatory approaches and collaborative action.
Although the second wave sought to address the shortcomings of the first wave, it soon
faced criticism from scholars for its inability to address issues of power and hidden dynamics
(Jackson, 1982). Rajagopalan (2020) notes that soft systems thinking neglects the multiple
influences of social-structural factors and their effects. Other scholars (Clarke & Lehaney,
1999; Mingers, 1984, 1992; Oliga, 1988) talked about power-based ideological frames that
create false consciousness amongst stakeholders that the soft systems tradition fails to
address. Criticisms of the second wave and an attempt to bridge the growing fragmentation
(Dando & Bennett, 1981) between hard and soft systems thinking gave rise to the third wave
in systems thinking that had a focus on liberation and emancipation (Burton, 2003) and
employed developments from complexity theory (LeLeur, 2014). This wave came to be
known as Critical Systems Thinking (CST).
CST had two foundational theories: Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) (Ulrich, 1983, 1987,
1988, 1994, 1996) and methodological pluralism (Jackson & Keys, 1984). CSH synthesized
Habermas’ (1972) theory of communicative action with the underlying argument that
dialogue is central to rational planning, and Churchman’s (1979) theory that views
boundaries as value-based constructs. Ulrich developed twelve boundary questions in CSH
for systems interventions based on the sources of motivation, control, knowledge, and
legitimacy of the stakeholders involved and affected. Methodological pluralism, on the other
hand, was developed in the works of Flood and Jackson (1991), Jackson (1987, 1990, 1991,
2019), and Jackson and Keys (1984), predominantly in the form of a framework called the
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
160 R. CHOWDHURY
System of Systems Methodologies (SOSM) that aligns an array of systems methodologies
based on two axes: nature of the system and the relationship between participants.
Integrating the two foundational theories, Midgley (2000) proposed Systemic Intervention
(SI) as “purposeful action by an agent to create change in relation to reflection upon
boundaries” (p. 8). SI was founded upon a new approach to systems philosophy that
considers dealing with coercion not so much based on employing methods, but on
engagement with boundaries. It allows for mix-and-match between methodologies and
extends the purpose of methodologies beyond their initial objectives to enable
accommodation between stakeholders and dissolve conflict. SI therefore achieved a
convergence of the initial two stands in CST. More recent research by Jackson (2019)
integrates several key debates in CST and highlights the importance of purpose, curiosity,
self-awareness, flexibility, and risk-taking for managers to display responsible leadership for
a complex world.
Holistic flexibility and its place in CST
CST set the stage open for diversity in thinking, reasoning, designing, and intervening in
OR/MS. However, it soon came to be engulfed with dominant frameworks and meta-
methodologies by scholars (Jackson, 2019, 2000; Midgley, 2000; Mingers & Brocklesby, 1997;
Ormerod, 2014; Sushil, 1994; Ulrich, 2012) that may even contain variety and diversity
within their own boundaries offering little room for practitioners to act boldly outside their
prescribed frameworks. Such limitations can pose a challenge for managers to adopt CST in
a more experimentative and fluid manner in contexts outside traditional systems research
and practice such as general management and consultancy. Further, framework-based
prescriptive models make it problematic for managers who are working with a separate
framework to bring in the benefits of CST. In another critique, Cordoba-Pachon (2010) says
that systems thinkers use their own terminologies that often sound alien in general
management. Such challenges have led to limited adoption of CST in general management
despite its potential. Greater adoption of CST requires managers to wholeheartedly embrace
a more pragmatic stance within and beyond OR/MS. This is where Holistic Flexibility comes
in as the first conceptual lens in CST that offers a more democratic, egalitarian, and flexible
stance for systems practitioners.
Chowdhury (2019, 2020) reviewed key debates in systems research and undertook an
analysis of empirical cases in applied systems thinking and presented Holistic Flexibility as a
conceptual lens for CST. He proposes a fresh perspective by arguing that CST is a state of
mind weaving an inextricable interlinkage between holistic thinking and flexibility. Holistic
Flexibility is the “dynamic interplay between a state of mind that has the ability to absorb
systemic complexity and a state of intervention that has the ability to embrace flexibility both
in intent and form” (Chowdhury, 2019, p. 404); see Figure 2. Elements of Holistic Flexibility
and discussions around the same are covered later in this paper.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 161
Figure 2. Holistic Flexibility (Chowdhury, 2019, p. 404).
Holistic Flexibility argues for a pragmatic stance in CST emphasizing a manager’s ability to
seamlessly manage and work with multiple variables, stakeholders, and factors to deliver
responsible outcomes with the aid of learning-loops. A pragmatic stance aligns with several
other works in OR/MS. For instance, Taket and White (2000) suggest that there can be three
kinds of uncertainties – environmental, guiding values, and related decisions – to which
managers need to continually adapt in a dynamic process of evolution and involution of their
thinking and actions. According to Snowden (2015), systems can transition between simple,
complicated, complex, and chaotic states due to several interlinked factors, influencers, and
constraints. He highlights the preference for individuals-and-interactions over processes-
and-tools, and change-responsiveness over plan-adherence. Ormerod (2013) refers to OR
practice as a “craft” that is based on intuition and experience. Schön (1983, 1987) popularized
the importance of acting reflectively on the spot and being driven by tacit knowledge towards
transformative learning and embedded creativity. Other scholars (Broekmann & Cornish
2000; Fook, 1999; Perdomo & Cavallin, 2014) talk about contextuality driven by reflection,
intuition, and artistry. Schön (1992) talks of reflection-in-action as an on-the-spot process of
reflection and experimentation. Learning remains a central element in the process of doing
and the enhancement of tacit knowledge through reflection-in-action (Khisty & Khisty,
1992). Cordoba-Pachon and Midgley (2003) suggest that the criteria for ascertaining the
sustainability of outcomes based on such practice may also not be fixed and there is a need
for constant iteration and a break-away from traditional thinking.
Holistic Flexibility is neither a framework, nor a methodology; rather, it is a conceptual
lens for managers that can offer them intellectual, emotional, and tactical elasticity in
management practice. Through his research, Chowdhury (2019, 2020) alludes to certain
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
162 R. CHOWDHURY
principles that can help managers in applying CST to aid flexible and responsible practice.
With Holistic Flexibility, managers can deploy CST as a state of mind without explicitly using
any traditional systems frameworks or methodologies; this also implies that managers can
work across mainstream management and systems frameworks seamlessly. Holistic
Flexibility appeals to a manager to be open to “make use of various types of thinking,
reasoning, and doing; of anticipating, creating, and negotiating; of managing, enabling, and
facilitating; of investigating, modelling, and analyzing” (Ormerod, 2018, p. 1359).
Having introduced the place of Holistic Flexibility in CST, it is important to acknowledge
the gaps in the extant literature on the subject. The next section highlights two fundamental
gaps and points towards how these gaps can be addressed by drawing inspiration from the
Nataraja philosophy.
Gaps in the literature on Holistic Flexibility
Principles of Holistic Flexibility not clearly articulated
A general search on the word “principle” directs us to understand the term as a proposition
bearing certain essential qualities and standards about something. Principles help in
clarifying the assumptions, attributes, and actions necessary to bring a concept to life.
Although extant literature on Holistic Flexibility (Chowdhury, 2019, 2020) alludes to certain
principles, these are not clearly articulated and there is no discussion on what these principles
should exactly mean for managers. In the absence of an articulation of such principles,
Holistic Flexibility remains a fuzzy concept. Articulating the principles of Holistic Flexibility
will add substance to this new character proposed for CST and will potentially bring it to a
wider audience in OR/MS. This is where the symbolism of the Nataraja comes in. Religious
symbolisms can serve as effective metaphors in understanding complex social/organizational
reality as also reflected in the works of Acevedo (2011), Fotaki et al. (2019), Harper (date not
available), Hekkala et al. (2016), and Ruth (2014), amongst others. Application of
metaphorical archetypes as a mode of inquiry has led to the development and adoption of
various scientific frameworks (Berggren, 1963; Black, 1962; Brown, 1977; Hesse, 1966; Schon,
1963). The Nataraja can serve as a powerful metaphorical archetype – call it a reference – to
understand the philosophy of continual change, adaptiveness, and fluidity that is reflected in
the complexity of situations that managers encounter. The symbols embodied in the
Nataraja can propel thinking about the world we experience from an alternative perspective
and its philosophy can help managers to “dance” in the cyclical and dynamic realities that
they find themselves in. This paper will later present how the symbolisms of the Nataraja
have been drawn from to articulate the principles of Holistic Flexibility.
Lack of a discussion on consciousness in Holistic Flexibility
Holistic Flexibility calls for managers to undergo a mind-shift from the individual to the
collective, from short-term to long-term, from rigidity to fluidity, from holding-on to letting-
go, and from results-focus to learning-orientation. An awareness and understanding of
consciousness can greatly enhance this journey. The philosophy of the Nataraja can be of
profound inspiration for managers to understand the individual self in the realm of the
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 163
cosmic self that can help them work towards the mind-shift highlighted above. A
consciousness-based awareness of certain existential elements can help in striking a balance
in managerial pursuits and in an evocation of managerial behaviors to display humility and
release of the ego. A wide range of research has shown that a consciousness-based discourse
can lead to management behaviors that are more compassionate and rewarding, and
organizational practices that are more responsible and sustainable (Fairholm & Fairholm,
2010; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2010; Khalsa, 2010; Nandram & Borden, 2010; Sheep, 2006;
Tackney et al., 2017; Tzouramani & Karakas, 2016). World events, especially COVID-19, has
taught managers that organizations of the current day exist in highly complex and transient
times and business goals need to be set and management interventions need to be defined by
drawing meaning from such dynamic realities. Importantly, humans interpret meaning out
of affective relationships between the infinite possibilities of perception in relation to the
goals that they work towards (Medin & Aguilar, 1999; Peterson, 2013). This also piques
attention to the importance of intuition in OR/MS. It has been well established for quite some
time that intuitions that guide behavior are pragmatic and embodied in experience (Gibson,
1979; Lakoff, 1987). Intuitiveness and the meaning-making process is not analytical but
stems from higher consciousness (Nandram, 2016). For management consciousness,
intuition needs to be considered as a “holistic spiritual approach” (Nandram, 2016, p. 65)
that require an ability to connect the awareness of the individual existence to the wider
cosmic existence. With a call for managers to think more responsibly, sustainably, and with
value-centricity, there is a need to link Holistic Flexibility with consciousness, which is
currently a gap in the extant literature.
After articulating the principles of Holistic Flexibility, this paper will present an argument
to connect Holistic Flexibility with consciousness. Inspiration will be drawn from the
philosophy of the Shiva to shed light on management consciousness that will serve to
advance the conceptual lens of Holistic Flexibility.
Articulating the principles of Holistic Flexibility
The symbolisms of the Nataraja offer concrete references for the principles of Holistic
Flexibility. In the following discussion, perspectives will be drawn from the panchakritya, or
the five most important functions of the Nataraja, to articulate these principles.
Srishti
Srishti, or creation, represented by the perennial beat of the Nataraja’s mini-drum held in
the upper-right arm is symbolic of dynamism, unconcealment, and constant change.
Philosophically, a system can be interpreted as having no beginning and no end and it is
always in a state of ‘becoming’ (Bunge, 2000). Holistic Flexibility identifies holism as a state
of mind that is constantly demarcating systems and subsystems based on boundaries,
interrelationships, and emergence – identified as the three core determinants of holistic
thinking (Chowdhury, 2019), a view also shared by Jackson (2019). Jovan (2005) defines a
state of mind as an “aim-free flow of ideas and associations that can lead to a reality-oriented
conclusion”. This state of mind can enable a manager to appreciate a system considering
their boundaries, which in turn are dependent on values, perspectives, situational conditions,
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
164 R. CHOWDHURY
and stakeholders. Based on social identity theory, Gregory et al. (2020) highlight the
importance of critically understanding the term “stakeholder” in light of multiple variables
including the researcher, or manager, as an observer. Boundaries cannot be static. Rather,
they are dynamic as the criteria that influence them must change alongside the evolving
nature of a situation (Midgley, 2000, 2003, 2006; Midgley & Pinzon, 2011, 2013; Midgley &
Rajagopalan, 2021). Therefore, a system is always in a state of ‘becoming’ influenced by the
energies between its subsystems (Camargo-Borges & Rasera, 2013; Gergen, 2009; Gergen &
Gergen, 2012; Ulrich, 2017). Boundaries are thus pulsating with expansive energies that are
defining, connecting, and creating, leading to emerging characteristics of new self-organizing
systems that demonstrate the same qualities.
This leads us to the first principle of Holistic Flexibility – system as becoming – that
embraces dynamism and change at the very crux of understanding a system. A system is
constantly being unconcealed just as the pulsating energy of creation in srishti. A manager
needs to address a problem/situation as an emergent representation of a time-shot in the
entire journey of a system that can be understood in terms of a time-lapse. The criteria of
what is intended and what can count as a desirable change may itself keep changing from
context to context. Hence, a manager’s role is not to find a “solution”, but to craft the “next
adaptive move” (Schein, 2016). This is central to the idea of dealing with emergence in
people, structures, and culture (Archer, 1995). Other researchers (Baker et al., 2004; Barros‐
Castro et al., 2013; Petrovic, 2013; Ufua, 2020) have also talked about the benefits of designing
interventions in OR/MS with the understanding of boundaries, interrelationships, and
emergence.
Samhara
Samhara, the power of transformation and regeneration, is represented by the flame held in
the Nataraja’s upper-left arm. This can be used to understand the value of flexibility and
change-adaptiveness in management. Holistic Flexibility talks about flexibility as a “state of
intervention” (Chowdhury, 2019), which can be interpreted as a manager’s involvement in
bringing about transformation through action. It is important to note the shift in focus from
thinking to action as we move from the first to the second principle. Managers need to be
flexible in their use of tools and in their ability to navigate both intended and unintended
consequences of their actions (Rioz & Suarez, 2012). Grohs et al., (2018) talk about the
importance of cognitive flexibility along with the three dimensions of problem, perspective,
and time that they collectively refer to as “fluencies” (Grohs et al., 2018, p. 111) necessary for
systems understanding. Sushil (1994, 1997, 2015) builds his Flexible Systems Methodology
on spectral and integrative theories. Going beyond methodological discussions, the positive
impacts of flexibility have been studied in various fields such as business, government,
manufacturing, administration, ecological management, and services industries (Bahrami &
Evans, 2011; Richman et al., 2011; Sushil, 2015). Holistic Flexibility identifies three kinds of
flexibility along with their respective aspects addressed, dependencies, and related disciplines
(Chowdhury, 2019): first, “cognitive flexibility”, pertains to thinking that is dependent on
nature and nurture, and that draws from the related disciplines of psychiatry, psychology,
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 165
neuroscience, and sociology; second, “formulative flexibility”, pertains to planning that is
dependent on frameworks and models, and that draws from the related disciplines of
management and administration; finally, “substantive flexibility”, pertains to action that is
dependent on resources, and that draws from the related disciplines of material science,
finance, human resource, and supply chain.
Presented with different and/or differing situations, managers need to be able to move
between thoughts and effectively shift between tasks. Flexibility in thought allows managers
to be comfortable with working across paradigms. Flexibility in approaches allows them to
be open to freely adopting multiple approaches in problem-solving. A flexible approach to
resource-utilization allows them to direct and use resources as per contextual requirements
rather than having to stick to straightjacketed plans. These qualities are essential for
managers intending to display transformative flexibility to maintain a meaningful steady
state in the “system as becoming”. Managers need to be open to their own and others’
experiences and changing thought patterns so that they can assimilate new ideas seamlessly
in the continual act of catalyzing transformation.
This leads us to the second principle of Holistic Flexibility – transformative flexibility –
in a system temporarily deduced from a state of flux. Just as srishti and samhara define the
Nataraja’s cosmic cycle, a “system as becoming” and “transformative flexibility” define the
perennial cycle of problem-definition and agile-management. This comes close to a social
constructionist perspective in management that can be sometimes led with unconventional
questions (Camargo-Borges & Rasera, 2013) in a manner that almost metamorphosizes
organizations into something different to instigate new thinking and co-create collaborative
futures. Similarly, Tomm (1988) talks of “circular questions” that create difference and spark
creative friction to unravel new meanings and possibilities.
It is important to note at this point that with flexibility, there comes great responsibility to
ensure adherence to certain core values, respect of shared vision, and focus on responsible
and inclusive goals. To quote from extant literature in Holistic Flexibility: “Flexibility is not
free of danger, unless it is managed with informed choices, decision making with foresight
and balanced control (Chowdhury, 2019, p. 52). Managers need to be working with a spirit
of what Chowdhury (2019) calls “flexibility with authenticity”, and what Sushil (2017) calls
“focused flexibility”.
Tirobhava
Tirobhava, or ignorance that traps humans into the tunnel of darkness, is represented in the
symbolism of the Nataraja’s second left-arm pointing downwards as he steps on Apasmara,
the dwarf of the human ego, self-centricity, and jealousy. Managers need to dwarf short-term
goals, and question unsustainable business practices that prioritizes economic gains at the
expense of social and environmental wellbeing. Instead, they need to shift their focus to
outcomes that are democratic, sustainable, inclusive, and empowering, and therefore,
responsible. Wong and Mingers (1994) say that the desire to do socially beneficial work has
always been a motivator for the vast majority of OR practitioners. While identifying their
responsibilities, managers need to exercise value-based judgements to draw their own
boundaries of who and what to include and exclude in their intervention. It is also not
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
166 R. CHOWDHURY
possible to obtain universal information to decide on the right boundaries. Hence, managers
have to work with whatever information is available and possible to obtain at a certain point
of time, or what has been called “sufficiencies” (Snowden, 2015).
To demonstrate responsible practice, managers need to be engaged with their stakeholders
at all stages (Jackson 2000). An important aspect of responsible practice is problem-
structuring at a stage prior to problem-solving. Problem-Structuring Methods (PSMs)
require a combination of technical, institutional, and heuristic understanding (Murphy,
2005). PSMs have the potential of bringing together a variety of factors such as negotiation
devices, accommodations of multiple positions, power relations, understanding and
learning, ownership of problems, and consequence of planned actions (Daellenbach, 2001;
Foote et al., 2007; Franco, 2007; Jackson, 1991; Mingers & Rosenhead, 2004; Ormerod, 1997).
In Holistic Flexibility, responsible outcomes address economic, environmental, and social
parameters (Chowdhury, 2019). Further, managers need to ensure that the benefits of their
interventions are sustained as also highlighted by other scholars (Ashkenas, 2014; McKenna,
2006; Sturdy, 2009). Transferring knowledge and skills to change-teams in their settings and
building systemic capability are fundamental levers for the same goals. Managers need to
play an integral role in questioning assumptions, convening stakeholders, and challenging
dominant beliefs to achieve responsible outcomes. They need to be conscious agents of
change rather than being mere witnesses. Responsible action involves inculcating an attitude
of openness and risk-taking and ejecting ignorance, self-centricity, and myopic thinking.
This leads us to the third principle of Holistic Flexibility – responsible practice – aimed
at addressing problem situations holistically, meaningfully, and sustainably. Responsible
practice needs to touch both human and non-human dimensions as both exist in close
interrelationships with one another (Eckersley, 1992; Gregory & Miller, 2014; Ormerod,
2013). Taking this a step forward, as the Samkhya advocates, the self can be realized in other
selves and the inanimate as well, as an extension of the same cosmic force. Responsible
practice requires one to courageously question one’s own moral reasonings (Midgley &
Pinzon, 2013) and make way for conditions that shape and nurture a just society. It is
acknowledged that demonstrating responsible practice is not easy, especially when over the
longest period of time, managerial intentions and ambitions have led to the creation of
institutions and structures that have resulted in the gravest damage to humans, the
environment and the planet in current times (Rockström & Klum, 2015). The COVID-19
pandemic has brought to the forefront the fragility of such institutions and structures and
laid bare the need of a system for personal, societal, and global consciousness by learning
ethical values and engaging in what Morin (2006) calls “cultural resilience”. Haley et al.,
(2021) refer to this as the process of “critical recovery”. Although difficult, the realization of
this process is not impossible. Managers are only people and “people are essentially caring,
relational, and cooperative… cooperation and symbiosis play a central role in living systems”
(Laszlo, 2020, p. 310).
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 167
Anugraha
Anugraha, or liberation, represented by the raised left-leg of the Nataraja, is indicative of
salvation and graceful co-evolution rather than of humans acting as mere witnesses of the
cyclical metamorphosis of the self and the world resulting in what Kashmir Shaivism and
Samkhya call maya. Managers are continually exposed to new situations and contexts, and
they have to work with new stakeholders or the same stakeholders with new perspectives. In
addition, managers also need to work in a highly complex world where values are no longer
taken for granted, regulations transcend national boundaries, and where the civil society is
increasingly involved in various kinds of activism. A manager can strive for liberation only
by applying a multidimensional approach to learning in every situation, with every
intervention, and with a mindset that would let them challenge their pre-existing mental
models (Garvin et al., 2008). Bowen et al., (2006) say that learning is the main origin of
competitive advantage and that it leads to positive evolution in organizations. Taking the
significance of contextuality deeper, Wang and Ahmed (2003) talk about the
interconnections between individual and collective learning in the context of the
organization system, culture, knowledge management, and continuous improvement. Saadat
and Saadat (2013) argue for the building of “flexible dynamic learning organizations” that
can be pertinent to the intricacies posed by the current age of digital-agility, as argued by
Lenart-Gansiniec (2019).
Borrowing from select works (Argyris & Schon, 1974, 1978; Flood & Romm, 1996),
Holistic Flexibility embraces three loops of learning (Chowdhury, 2019). Single-loop
learning is about doing things right without questioning the end objective. Double-loop
learning involves doing the right thing (as opposed to doing things right). Double-loop
learning shifts the mindset from a “goal-seeking purposive system” to a “goal-searching
purposeful system” (Ackoff & Emery, 1972). Finally, triple-loop learning addresses learning
at a deeper level of values and ethics. Bateson (1972) talks of triple-loop learning as one in
which a manager delves into fundamentally questioning the beliefs behind what they
consider to be right or wrong. It is this spiral of learning that managers need to immerse
themselves in and continually adapt to, in order to remain relevant.
With this we arrive at the fourth principle of Holistic Flexibility – spiral of learning – that
is multipronged and multidimensional and will lead the manager towards what the Samkhya
calls vidya or knowledge. Managers will need to display sincerity and have the courage to ask
difficult questions about their values and biases that influence their boundaries and define
their system time-shots (“time-shot” and “time-lapse” are discussed in section “Srishti”) from
the “system as becoming”. Managers will need to question myopic organizational priorities,
market dynamics, and regulatory pressures that often lead to the misrepresentation of reality,
and misdirection of managerial decisions. It is important to note that in triple-loop learning,
the three loops are not exclusive, but mutually inclusive and draw from one another’s
strengths. Holistic Flexibility, thus, calls for a manager to display efficiency, effectiveness,
and value-centricity through their work (Chowdhury, 2019).
Although the “spiral of learning” appears fourth in the sequence, it is a prelude to
conceiving of a “system in becoming”, deploying “transformative flexibility”, and
demonstrating “responsible practice” and therefore is a seminal principle as it continually
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
168 R. CHOWDHURY
drives the manager to question taken-for-granted assumptions and deep-rooted value
systems ingrained through their personal, educational, and professional discourse.
Sthithi
Sthithi, or reassurance, is represented by the Nataraja’s second right-arm with an open palm.
It is the reassurance that life will continue with order amidst disorder, and that hidden
patterns will emerge out of chaos. A manager’s primary role, as the word suggests, is to
manage, and to lead with a sense of purpose. The manager is responsible for continuity and
enforcing meaningful change whilst seamlessly handling dynamic social/organizational
realities. This balancing act of sorts requires a ‘dance’ of competencies and skills, dependent
on both nature and nurture. With reference to nature, Linard and Aretz (2000) talk about
innate systems thinking traits that managers may display to aid the creation of organizations
that are naturally able to learn and remain nimble. However, such traits may be difficult to
imitate. With research indicating that the presence of systems thinking is directly linked to
better leadership and business performance (Kvedaraviÿius et al., 2009), that lack of systems
thinking is now directly linked to grave financial, technical, and societal losses (Chapman,
2004; Valerdi & Rouse, 2010), and given how current global events have revealed that the
world is more interconnected today than ever before, systems thinking is indeed too
important a capability to be left to just nature. Several scholars have highlighted
competencies and skills for inculcating systems thinking in managers (Davis et al., 2015;
Frank, 2000; Gharajedaghi, 2006; Mahler-Rogers, 2017; Richmond, 1993; Senge, 2006; Sun
et al., 2014). Managers can acquire systems thinking competencies through experiential
learning (Davidz & Nightingale, 2008), coaching (Derro & Jansma, 2008), and simulation-
based exercises (Valerdi & Rouse, 2010).
Holistic Flexibility does not offer a list of competencies for managers. However, it does
point to certain traits and behaviors that managers must display in order to operate with CST
as a state of mind. It is important for managers to pragmatically bring together the first four
principles of Holistic Flexibility not in isolation, but as a lyrical synthesis in an act of artistry.
This brings us to the final principle – pragmatic artistry. The term, “pragmatic” is used to
indicate the importance of contextuality over standardization and seamless customization
over method-adherence. The term “artistry” is used to indicate that such behavior requires
understanding, elegance, and poise in part of the manager and that it does not come by
chance. Artistry requires focus, dedication, direction, and practice. This artistry is meant for
a manager to perform the ‘dance’ of CST to catalyze not just optimal but meaningful
functioning of the systems they work in. Pragmatic artistry requires managers to hone certain
demonstrable traits that include being open to challenge, questioning conventional
paradigms, being ready to embrace diversity, and shifting between thinking and acting with
tenacity, whilst constantly striving for outcomes that are meaningful, empowering, and
sustainable. Finally, they need to adopt a learning attitude and incorporate new knowledge
through their journey.
Just as sthithi means reassurance, it can also be interpreted to mean protection. A
manager’s role is to identify, balance and maintain those symmetries and patterns that are
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 169
inherent in the system in flux. This also calls for a manager to look inwards and explore the
connection between their own consciousness and the wider existence. Needless to say, the
symbolism of the Nataraja manifests great pattern, stability and symmetry despite the
quantum flux it represents.
Having articulated the five principles of Holistic Flexibility, the paper moves on to
introduce a consciousness dimension as an important element for this conceptual lens to
realize its potential.
Holistic flexibility and management consciousness
Inspiration drawn from the Nataraja to articulate the principles of Holistic Flexibility opens
up new vistas for CST in terms of linking it to a consciousness dimension. The following
discussion will draw from the philosophy of the Shiva to crystallize this argument.
Through thirty-six tattvas, or cosmic elements, Kashmir Shaivism expounds how
manifested reality is nothing but Shiva himself. The tattvas are arranged in six descending
categories: Shuddha Tattvas I (elements of universal experience – I), Shuddha Tattvas II
(elements of limited individual experience – II), Ashuddha Tattvas (elements of mental
operation, sensation, and materiality), Jnanaindriyas (elements of sensation), Karmindriyas
(elements of action), Tanmatras (elements of perception or reflection), and Puncha-
Mahabhutas (elements of materiality). The universal consciousness of Shiva is manifested in
the worldly experience through the cycle of the tattvas in a constant pulsating vibration of
energies, or spanda, as represented by the Nataraja. The Shiva philosophy can cast a
profound mind-shift for managers from the prioritization of objective approaches to the
appreciation of the subjective dimension of existence. Kak (2021) talks about similar
developments in the transition of assumptions from classical to quantum science with the
shift in understanding of consciousness as being “produced by the brain” to consciousness
“is primary”. The principles of Holistic Flexibility, which emphasize on intuition and
mindfulness for managers, can be greatly enhanced by understanding the deeper philosophy
of the Nataraja.
More than a hundred years ago, the celebrated metaphysician and Indian art critique,
Coomaraswamy commented:
Throughout the East, wherever Hindu or Buddhist thought have deeply
penetrated, it is firmly believed that all knowledge is directly accessible to the
concentred and 'one-pointed' mind, without the direct intervention of the
senses. Probably all inventors, artists and mathematicians are more or less
aware of this as a matter of personal experience. In the language of psycho-
analysis, this concentration preparatory to undertaking a specific task is "the
willed introversion of a creative mind, which, retreating before its own
problem and inwardly collecting its forces, dips at least for a moment into the
source of life, in order there to wrest a little more strength from the mother
for the completion of its work," and the result of this reunion is "a fountain of
youth and new fertility." [sic] (Coomaraswamy, 1918, p. 24).
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
170 R. CHOWDHURY
The above quote from Coomaraswamy can have significance at two levels for managers.
First, his perspective on how Eastern mysticism believes that universal cosmic knowledge is
“directly accessible” to human beings through concentration and mindfulness. Second, his
commentary that dedicated practitioners (inventors, artists, and mathematicians) – read in
reference to managers – can achieve this universal cosmic knowledge by looking deep
inwards, which can result in “a fountain of youth and new fertility”. The phrase, “fountain of
youth and new fertility” has been borrowed from Jungian (1916, p. 336) psychology and in
the context of this discussion, an interpretation of this phrase can be derived to denote an
illuminated state of mind with knowledge and creativity that can unite the manager and the
problem (subject and object, respectively) on a higher spiritual plane.
Such discussions point towards the understanding that consciousness is the substratum
on which experience, and therefore, reality, is based. For managers, awareness of their
consciousness and participation, prakasha and vimarsha, respectively, in Kashmir Shaivism,
in the wider complex and transient reality can let them lean towards being one with the
context. This understanding can be labelled as management consciousness that can lead to
decision making with mental clarity and responsible goals. A conscious awareness can go a
long way in helping managers drop their ego, display emotional balance, and work in unison
with the universal forces of existence. Even in the toughest situations, consciousness will
allow managers to stay calm and undertake a journey that is fulfilling for the self and the
society (Khalsa, 2010).
Deliberations presented in this paper make a call for managers to invest in greater self-
awareness and to look inwards to engage with organizations and societies in a more
responsible manner creating an intimate connection between themselves and the larger
whole. Several studies have pointed towards the positive effects that practices such as
meditation, concentration, and self-exploration have in business outcomes (Carlock, 2014;
Hafenbrack, 2017; Lockhart & Hicken, 2012; Mrazek et al., 2012). In a Harvard Business
Review article, Seppälä (2015) notes that positive effects of meditation and mindfulness
exercises in business leaders include building resilience, boosting emotional intelligence,
enhancing creativity, improving interpersonal relationships, and sharpening focus. These
qualities need to be clearly embedded in the principles of Holistic Flexibility. Meditation and
mindfulness can aid towards making managers act more intuitively without solely relying on
the rational analytical course.
The five principles of Holistic Flexibility and their relevance for managers
The five principles of Holistic Flexibility can be summarized as the following:
• System as becoming directs towards a dynamic approach to a system based on
negotiation of boundaries, appreciation of interrelationships, and cognizance of
emergence.
• Transformative flexibility brings about transformation in situations propelled by
flexibility in cognition, formulation, and substantiation.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 171
• Responsible practice aimed at addressing problems holistically, meaningfully, and
sustainably touching both human and non-human dimensions.
• Spiral of learning embraces single-, double- and triple-loop learning to enhance
efficiency, effectiveness, and value-centricity respectively.
• Pragmatic artistry embraces pragmatism as a necessary approach in dynamic
situations and artistry, requiring understanding, elegance, and poise.
The symbolisms of the Nataraja inspires the archetypical characteristics of the principles of
Holistic Flexibility as it has been portrayed in Figure 3. Management consciousness is
pictorially depicted as the substratum on which the principles can be realized, symbolically
inspired by the cosmic consciousness in the form of the flaming ring around the Nataraja.
Figure 3. Five principles of Holistic Flexibility inspired by the Nataraja.
Holistic Flexibility and its principles can serve as an inspiration for managers to thread
disparate strands with analysis and logic, and yet transcend these through lateral thinking
and connected rationality. However, this will not be easy as managers are susceptible to the
dominant worldviews that pressurize them to think and act with a reductionist and
isolationist mindset. Considering the five principles of Holistic Flexibility for CST as a state
of mind, ten behaviors have been deciphered as a guidance for managers; see Table 1. A note
on the impeding challenges that managers are most likely to face in this journey and how
these can be overcome has also been provided.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
172 R. CHOWDHURY
Table 1. Holistic Flexibility behaviors, their challenges, and ideas to overcome these challenges.
Expected behaviors
Impeding challenges
Overcoming the challenges
i
Challenging taken-for-
granted beliefs and
expand the contours of
one’s own mental models.
Right from childhood and
through formal education,
managers are in a way
“apprenticed” in knowledge
systems bounded by defined
pedagogies that are contextually
determined and that result in
rigid mental models.
Orient oneself to perspectives that are
unfamiliar. Ask questions on why one
thinks the way one does, and what are
the underlying assumptions of one’s
thoughts. Ask how an alternative
worldview based on a differing set of
assumptions may look like.
ii
Openness to change and
being cognizant of
emergent behaviors of
the system – both
intended and unintended.
Managers often have to focus on
closing projects and moving on
to the next one. Enough time is
usually not spent on
understanding emergent effects
of one’s actions, whether they are
intended or unintended.
Changes in plans are often met
with resistance and they need to
go through cumbersome
approvals.
Understand how the context and the
system themselves transition as an
intervention progresses both due to
the effects of the intervention and due
to external factors. Be open to adapt
to project plans and intervention
designs in response to the changing
context considering both an
intervention and the context as
complex adaptive systems.
iii
Thinking laterally and
make intuitive decisions.
Managers often have to take a
structured approach and rely on
evidence-based decision making
driven by analytical methods.
They also need to present causal
linkages and rational
explanations of their decisions
and actions.
Trust what one intuitively believes
one should do to complement the
rational analytical approach. Believe in
the strength of one’s own judgement
that is based on experience, feelings,
and sense-making. Be open to risk-
taking and critique.
iv
Working across
paradigms and
embracing a wide range
of methodologies from
different frames of
references within and
outside those associated
with traditional systems
thinking.
Paradigms within which
managers operate and
methodologies that they deploy
are often influenced by the
schools they are inducted in and
by the institutions they are
affiliated to. Allegiance can
determine the modus operandi
in OR/MS interventions.
Orient oneself to knowledge and
contributions of schools of thought
and institutions that one is not
accustomed with. Be open to try out
methodologies that one is not familiar
with or collaborate with partners who
declare allegiance to a different or
differing paradigm.
v
Connecting the dots
between various factors
and modes of
representation, even
those that may seem
distant from the problem
itself.
Managers are taught to focus on
the problem and be specific
about solutions they offer. There
is a general understanding that
precision and directed action
result in more robust solutions.
Use intuition and desegregated data
to understand, project, or even
imagine interconnections between a
range of factors from the social,
economic, political, environmental,
technological, and regulatory aspects
impinging upon a problem situation.
vi
Being creative in one’s
approach to knowledge
generation and leverage
different ways of
knowing.
Managers are used to depend on
limited sources of knowing
driven by a Western rational
analytical approach that normally
involves theories, propositions,
algorithms, and
experimentations.
One needs to be open to
complementing conventional ways of
knowing with other creative modes
such as art, theatre, experience,
memory, and informal interaction.
vii
Displaying a learning
attitude and challenging
oneself and other
stakeholders by
incorporating new
insights in their work,
thereby enhancing
efficiency, effectiveness,
and value-centricity.
In usual business, due to
commercial pressure, managers’
focus on learning decreases in
priority as one moves from
efficiency to effectiveness to
value-centricity. In reality, value-
centricity is often ignored or
eyewashed in the wake of
achieving business results.
Ask tough questions. One needs to
question project sponsors, leaders,
and boards regarding why something
is being done and what are its
implications for stakeholders and for
the ecosystem in the short- and the
log-run. Involve diverse perspectives
in project planning and
implementation by inducting team
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 173
Expected behaviors
Impeding challenges
Overcoming the challenges
members of different genders,
ethnicities, sexual identities, sexual
orientation, educational disciplines,
and socio-economic backgrounds.
viii
Involving and
empowering stakeholders
by creating conditions for
the involved and the
affected to realize their
full potential.
Projects are normally
conceptualized, designed and
implemented with a top-down
approach. In business, project
teams are brought in after a
project is finalized by the
sponsors. The affected are hardly
or never consulted.
Conceptualize projects bottom-up
starting from drawing hypotheses on
how wider stakeholder groups could
be affected. This can only happen by
bringing in the affected from the early
stages. While inducting project teams,
consider both skills and values.
Democratize the project journey.
ix
Focusing on delivering
outcomes that benefit
social, economic, and
environmental factors
and thereby ensuring the
wellbeing of current and
future generations.
Usually, projects concentrate on
a specific aspect, and they are
focused on delivering outcomes
within a defined time-period.
Holistic impact and future
generations are hardly taken into
consideration; a good example is
the effect of climate change on
the society, economy, and
environment.
Move from focusing on short-term
activities to focusing on impact that is
holistic and long-term. Use real
examples from the world, such as the
impact of climate change, to
understand the vulnerabilities of the
structures and institutions traditional
management has landed humanity in.
Voice opinions honestly and fearlessly
as mature and responsible
organizations will respect such views.
x
Appreciating one’s
position in the higher
level of cosmic existence
by understanding the
value of management
consciousness.
It is common to hear that
managers do not have time to
focus on meditation and
mindfulness exercises in today’s
busy world. Additionally, modern
management has seen the
rational analytical supersede the
consciousness discourse.
Practice mindfulness and meditation.
It is a good idea to have a guide for
self-discovery. Proactively make an
attempt to shed the ego, and display
humility, self-control, and emotional
resilience.
It is not argued that a manager needs to display all the above behaviors at the same time in
every situation. However, they should be cognizant of these behaviors and consider the
implications of their actions in light of these behaviors. This journey necessitates training, a
great deal of preparation, a supportive environment, and personal qualities that one must
possess.
The next part of this paper will present a critique of the discussions presented thus far
highlighting both its contributions and limitations.
Critique of Holistic Flexibility and its principles
Contribution
Holistic Flexibility offers a seamless, egalitarian, and universal lens to CST supported by the
five principles articulated in this paper. Throughout the 1980s leading to current times, CST
has made considerable impact in OR/MS (Jackson, 2019) promising a more flexible and
pluralist approach for problem-solving conceiving issues beyond paradigm-wars and
methodological-marginalizations. Jackson (2019) gave the SOSM (for SOSM, refer section
“Systems Thinking and Critical Systems Thinking”) a more flexible and open stance allowing
practitioners to mix-and-match methodologies and come up with their own depending on
the situation and considering various value-driven parameters. Various other scholars have
proposed different ways of critiquing rationalities, mixing methods, and working towards
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
174 R. CHOWDHURY
stakeholder inclusivity and empowerment (Mingers & Brocklesby, 1997; Mingers & Gill,
1997; Midgley, 2000; Ulrich, 2012; Ormerod, 2014). However, such works remain within the
rational-analytical domain of problem-solving (Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2021). More recent
research (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2019; Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2021; Rajagopalan, 2016;
Rajagopalan & Midgley, 2015) represents a break-away for this domain that has taken
systems approaches beyond the use of methodologies and has lent it a more cognitive
character. Holistic Flexibility and its principles take the momentum of these developments
even further to consider CST as a state of mind. It also helps labelling the emerging
unconventional deployment of CST by practitioners as was also highlighted by Dr Luis
Sambo (Regional Director for Africa, World Health Organization) who spoke about how
CST helped him navigate the complexities of the situation during the Ebola epidemic in West
Africa without having to use systems approaches in their pure sense (Jackson & Sambo,
2020).
CST as a state of mind can open-up new avenues for the discipline especially at a time
when several studies have shown the power of the unconscious over the rational-analytical
(Balconi & Lucchiari, 2008; Berlin, 2011; Bunce et al., 1999; LeDoux, 1998; Phelps et al., 2000;
Wiens, 2006; Wong et al., 1994).). Holistic Flexibility takes CST beyond methodologies,
frameworks, and prescriptions making systems thinking a cognitive skill to allow managers
to deliver excellence in a Volatile-Uncertain-Complex-Ambiguous (VUCA) environment.
The principles of Holistic Flexibility allow a manager to ‘dance’ in the rhythm of flux where
realities are temporal and experiences are contextual. They allow managers to understand
that what they perceive to be prudent at one point in time might be based only on a selective
abstraction of reality created by their own perspectives and biases. From this derives the need
to reflect on their own mental models and on the implications of their actions on the society,
the planet and on themselves. This also calls for managers to explore deep interconnections
between their individual consciousness and the larger existence, an evolving body of
knowledge currently gaining prominence under fields like quantum management (Heaton
et al., 2011; Sheldrake, 2018; Tsao & Laszlo, 2019), conscious capitalism (Mackey & Sisodia,
2014), and integral systems thinking (Floyd, 2008).
Finally, it is important to note the story of an ancient unconventional metaphor from
Hinduism – the Nataraja – for OR/MS. To cite Peterson (2013, p. 17):
“It is time to understand these stories, instead of considering them the
superstitious enemy of science. The great myths of mankind are not theories
of objective existence. They are, instead, imaginative roadmaps to being. They
have emerged, painstakingly, piecemeal, as a consequence of our continual
close self-observation, our developing understanding of the patterns of action
that are essentially adaptive, and their representation in symbolic, narrative
and dramatic form, during the transition from implicit behavioral pattern to
explicit communicable form.”
Inspired by the cosmic dance of the Nataraja, the principles of Holistic Flexibility can
‘unbound’ a manager into a world of self-discovery in the process of co-creating the “system
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 175
as becoming”. This perspective can indicate a paradigm shift from an emphasis on the
individual to a focus on the collective (Pavlovich & Krahnke, 2012), a much-required quality
in current management.
Limitations
Arguments presented in this paper have certain limitations categorized under three areas –
conceptual, integrative, and practical – in the discussion below. How these limitations open
up new avenues for research in CST will also be highlighted.
We start with the first limitation – conceptual. Concepts contribute to direct one’s
thoughts and understanding in grasping complex ideas, and thereby they play an important
role in cognition (Carey, 1991). Although the literature on Holistic Flexibility states that it
does not offer a framework or methodology, it still has the danger of appearing theoretical,
especially for managers who are not exposed to the OR/MS tradition. This can be daunting
when this paper argues that Holistic Flexibility offers a more democratic and egalitarian
stance to CST. However, it is important to note that Holistic Flexibility calls for fluidity in
thinking, approaching, and doing as a differentiating characteristic in CST; in addition, the
proposal to include the consciousness aspect as its core element in this paper makes a distinct
contribution towards building a new cognitive character for CST. With inspiration drawn
from religious symbolism to evolve this new conceptual lens and with the position it situates
itself in, understanding whether Holistic Flexibility is an advancement in CST or whether it
sits at the frontier of an emergent new fourth wave in systems thinking is an area of future
research (for waves in systems thinking, refer to Midgley, 2003).
The second limitation is integrative. Although this paper introduces a distinct
consciousness angle and advances the extant literature on Holistic Flexibility, it does not
clearly address how this aspect can influence a manager in embracing each of the five
principles. Select works (Gu & Zhu, 2000; Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2021; Rajagopalan, 2020;
Shen & Midgley, 2007a,b,c, 2014, 2015) in systems science talk about integrating
consciousness in management interventions from a methodological standpoint. However,
consciousness in this paper has been limited as an additional consideration. This presents an
area of future research on how consciousness, drawn from the Shiva philosophy, can be
integrated in Holistic Flexibility in a more robust manner.
Finally, practical limitations of deploying Holistic Flexibility can arise as it calls for flexible
and creative adaptations of individual systems methodologies and methodologies outside the
OR/MS tradition in unison. Although Holistic Flexibility offers the liberty of making bold
experimentations with methodologies, it implicitly presumes that managers would have an
understanding of and some degree of expertise in these methodologies. Developing
understanding of the wide variety of systems methodologies can pose application-related
challenges due to the maturity and expertise they demand from a practitioner. Additionally,
use of systems methodologies, whether in their pure form or creatively, demands
involvement of multiple stakeholders and are lengthy to execute due to the depth of work
they demand. Although the discussions provide cues for managers on how to overcome
practical challenges of Holistic Flexibility, in reality, managers often have to succumb to
pressure from their affiliated organizations (wherever applicable) or from themselves due to
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
176 R. CHOWDHURY
commercial considerations. The aspect of management consciousness introduced above can
offer some light at the end of the tunnel. Applying Holistic Flexibility and its consciousness
dimension to organizations and establishing partnerships for comparative research projects
to assess the impact of its deployment can be a potential area of future research.
Conclusion
This conceptual paper presented a discussion to articulate the principles of Holistic
Flexibility and make a case for management consciousness by drawing inspiration from the
Shiva Nataraja. Holistic Flexibility is a conceptual lens in CST to aid flexible and responsible
management practice. The paper began by introducing the symbolism of the Nataraja and
arguing for the relevance of religion and philosophy for management research. Having
provided an orientation to CST, the conceptual lens of Holistic Flexibility was introduced,
and an argument was established for the importance of articulating its principles and for the
necessity to connect these principles with an understanding of consciousness. Drawing from
the panchakritya, or the five most important functions of the Nataraja, five key principles of
Holistic Flexibility were articulated. These are the “system as becoming”, drawing from
srishti or creation, “transformative flexibility”, drawing from samhara or transformation,
“responsible practice” drawing from tirobhava or (freedom from) ignorance, “spiral of
learning” drawing from samhara or liberation, and “pragmatic artistry” drawing from sthithi
or assurance. An argument was presented to establish the importance of management
consciousness drawing from the Shiva philosophy. Behaviors associated with the principles
were enlisted along with the challenges for managers to display these behaviors. This journey
necessitates training, a great deal of preparation, a supportive environment, and personal
qualities that one must possess. Finally, a discussion was presented on how Holistic
Flexibility and its principles can lend a new character to CST as a state of mind to supersede
a rational-analytical approach in systems thinking. Contributions and limitations of the
arguments, along with areas for future research, were presented. This paper is the first
scholarly inquiry into how the philosophy of the Shiva Nataraja can shed new light on
management science, in general, and CST, in particular.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Kanav Narayan Sahgal for his support in proof-reading this
paper and for his valuable deliberations to improve the arguments presented. The author is
grateful to the Associate Editor of the journal for their detailed reviews and feedback that
have immensely helped in shaping the contribution and positioning of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 177
References
Acevedo, B. (2011). The Screaming Pope: Imagery and leadership in two paintings of the Pope
Innocent X. Leadership, 7(1), 27-50.
Ackoff, R. L., & Emery, F. E. (1972). On purposeful systems: an interdisciplinary analysis of
individual and social behavior as a system of purposeful events. Aldine-Atherton.
Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: the Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Addison-Wesley.
Ashkenas, R. (2014) Why Consultants Should Be Accountable For Results, Not Recommendations.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronashkenas/2014/07/01/why-consultants-should-be-
accountable-for-results-not-recommendations/#54d2ec949cc7.
Bahrami, H. & Evans, S. (2011). Super-flexibility for real-time adaptation: perspectives from Silicon
Valley. California Management Review, 53(3), 21–39.
Baker, V. E., Foote, J. L., Gregor, J. E., Houston, D. J., & Midgley, G. (2004). Conserving soil and water
for society: Boundary critique as a means for improving the effectiveness of water conservation
campaigns and community involvement in small watershed management. 13th International Soil
Conservation Organization Conference, Brisbane.
https://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/isco/isco13/PAPERS%20A-E/BAKER.pdf.
Balconi, M., & Lucchiari, C. (2008). Consciousness and arousal effects on emotional face processing
as revealed by brain oscillations: A gamma band analysis. International Journal
of Psychophysiology, 67(1), 41–46.
Bandyopadhyay, A. (2021). Maharishi Gautama’s Doctrine of Doubt and Time Polycrystals. The
International Conference on Consciousness-Based Leadership & Management, May 21-23, 2021,
Maharshi International University.
Barros‐Castro, R. A., Midgley, G., & Pinzón, L. (2013). Systemic Intervention for Computer‐
Supported Collaborative Learning. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(1), 86-105.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine.
Bowen, G.L. Rose, R. A., & Ware, W. B. (2006). The reliability and validity of the school success
profile learning organization measure. Evaluation and program planning. DOI: 10.1016/j.
evalprogplan. 2005.08.005
Berggren, D. (1963). The use and abuse of metaphor. The Review of Metaphysics, 16, 450–472.
Berlin, H. A. (2011). The Neural Basis of the Dynamic Unconscious. Neuropsychoanalysis, 13(1), 5-
31.
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Itacha, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bravo, I., & Aduan, Z. (2015). Sankhya School. https://www.slideshare.net/Mathyanyan/sankhya-
school-indian-philosophy.
Broekmann, I. A., & Cornish, L. A. (2000). The ‘Dark’ and ‘Light’ of Teaching Development in an
Engineering Course. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 337-343.
Brown, R. H. (1977). A poetic for sociology. Cambridge University Press.
Bunce, S. C., Bernat, E., Wong, P. S., & Shevrin, H. (1999). Further evidence for unconscious
learning: Preliminary support for the conditioning of facial EMG to subliminal stimuli. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 33, 341–347.
Bunge, M. (2000). Systemism: The Alternative to Individualism and Holism. Journal of Socio-
Economics, 29(2), 147-159.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
178 R. CHOWDHURY
Burton, M. (2003). Review of systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice by
Midgley G. 2000. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 13(4), 330–333.
Cabrera, D., & Cabrera, L. (2019). What Is Systems Thinking?. In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M.
Childress (Eds.), Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, pp. 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_100-1
Camargo-Borges, C., & Rasera, E. F. (2013). Social Constructionism in the Context of Organization
Development: Dialogue, Imagination, and Co-Creation as Resources of Change. Sage Open, 3(2).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013487540.
Carlock, R. S. (2014). How meditation can make you a better leader. Forbes. Accessed 25 January
2021. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2014/01/28/how-meditation-can-make-you-a-better-
leader/.
Capra, F. (1975). Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern
Mysticism. Shambhala Publications.
Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge Acquisition: Enrichment or Conceptual Change? In S. Carey, & R.
Gelman (Eds.), The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 257-291.
Cash, K. C., & Gray, G. R. (2000). A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the
workplace. Academy of management executive, 14(3), 124-134.
Chapman, J. (2004). System Failure: Why governments must learn to think differently. 2nd Edition.
Demos.
Chatterjee, S. C. (1996). Hindu religious thought. In K. Morgan, K. (Ed.), The religion of the Hindus.
Shri Jainendra Press, pp. 206-265.
Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley.
Checkland, P. B., & Scholes, J. (1990) Soft systems methodology. Wiley.
Choudhury, R. (2016). Shiva: The Dance of Consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f19pXVVmsaU.
Chowdhury, R. (2019). Systems Thinking for Management Consultants. Springer.
Chowdhury, R. (2020). An Appreciation of Metaphors in Management Consulting from the
Conceptual Lens of Holistic Flexibility. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2670.
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach. Dell.
Coomaraswamy, A. (1918). The Dance of Siva. Fourteen Indian Essays. The Sunrise Turn.
Cordoba-Pachon, J. R. (2010). Systems practice in the information society. Routledge.
Cordoba-Pachon, J. R., & Midgley, G. (2003). Addressing Organisational and Societal Concerns: An
Application of Critical Systems Thinking to Information Systems Planning in Colombia. Research
Memorandum Number 36, Hull (UK): University of Hull Business School.
Daellenbach, H.G. (2001). Hard OR, Soft OR, Problem Structuring Methods, Critical Systems
Thinking: A Primer. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Hard-OR-%2C-Soft-OR-%2C-
Problem-Structuring-Methods-%2C-%3A-
Daellenbach/d9254901e89b564cafbebdb536a823b78adaa3d4.
Dasgupta, S. (1975). A History of Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0412-8.
Davidz, H. L., & Nightingale, D. J. (2008). Enabling systems thinking to accelerate the development
of senior systems engineers. Systems Engineering, 11(1), 1–14.
Davis, A. P., Dent, E. B., & Wharff, D. M. (2015) A Conceptual Model of Systems Thinking
Leadership in Community Colleges. Systems Practice and Action Research, 28, 333–353.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 179
Derro, M. E., & Jansma, P. A. (2008). Coaching Valuable Systems Engineering Behaviors. IEEE
Aerospace Conference, 1-8 March 2008, 1–17.
Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Towards an ecocentric approach. State
University of New York.
Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. W. (2012). Reinventing Management Training: How Spiritual
Values Change the Practice of Modern Management and of Managerial Education. In M. R.
Fairholm, & G. W. Fairholm (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching Ethics in Business and
Management Education. IGI Global, pp. 16-30.
Flood, G. (1996). An introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press.
Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Wiley.
Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Diversity management: Triple loop learning. Wiley.
Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (Eds.) (2013). Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and
Practice. Springer.
Floyd, J. (2008). Towards an integral renewal of systems methodology for future studies. Futures,
40(2), 138-149.
Fook, J. (1999). Critical reflectivity in education and practice. In B. Pease, & J. Fook (Eds.),
Transforming Social Work Practice. Postmodern critical perspectives. Allen & Unwin, pp. 195-208.
Foote, J. L., Gregor, J. E., Hepi, M. P., Baker, B. E., Houston, D. J., & Midgley, G. (2007). Systemic
problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 58, 645-654.
Fotaki, M., Altman, Y., & Koning, J. (2019). Spirituality, Symbolism and Storytelling in Twentyfirst-
Century Organizations: Understanding and addressing the crisis of imagination. Journal of
Management, Spirituality and Religion, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619875782
Frank, M. (2000). Engineering Systems Thinking and Systems Thinking. Systems Engineering, 3(3),
163-168.
Franco, L. A. (2007). Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organizational
settings: an empirical investigation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 760–768.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is Yours a Learning Organization?. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being — Beyond self and community. Harvard University Press.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. (2012). Playing with purpose. Adventures in performative social science.
Left Coast Press.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. 2nd Edition. Elsevier.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a Science of Workplace Spirituality. In R. A.
Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance, M.E. Sharpe, pp. 3-28.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Gregory, A. J., Atkins, J. P., Midgley, G., & Hodgson, A. M. (2020). Stakeholder identification and
engagement in problem structuring interventions. European Journal of Operational Research,
283(1), 321-340.
Gregory, A. J., & Miller, S. (2014). Using Systems Thinking to Educate for Sustainability in a Business
School. Systems, 2, 313-327.
Grohs, J. R., Kirk, G. R., Soledad, M. M., & Knight, D. B. (2018). Assessing systems thinking: A tool
to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28,
110-130.
Gu, J. & Zhu, Z. (2000). Knowing wuli, sensing shili, caring for renli: Methodology of the WSR
approach. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13, 11-20.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
180 R. CHOWDHURY
Hafenbrack, A. C. (2016). The paradox of mindful work: Meditation reduces unpleasant task
motivation but not performance. Best Paper Proceedings of the Academy of Management
Conference: Anaheim, CA. DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2016.9
Haley, D., Paucar-Caceres, A., & Schlindwein, S. (2021). Critical Inquiry into the Value of Systems
Thinking in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/
systems9010013.
Harper, K. C. (Date not available). Biblical Leadership Metaphors and Contemporary Management
Theory. Global Journal of Classic Theology. https://www.globaljournalct.com/biblical-leadership-
metaphors-and-contemporary-management-theory/.
Heaton, D., Schmidt-Wilk, J., & McCollum, B. (Eds.) 2011. Consciousness-based Education and
Management. M.U.M. Press.
Hee, C. C. H. (2007). A holistic approach to business management: perspectives from the Bhagavad
Gita. Singapore Management Review, 29(1), 73-84.
Hekkala, R., Stein, M. K., & Rossi. M. (2016). Metaphors in managerial and employee sensemaking in
an information systems project. Information Systems Journal. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12133
Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. University of Notre Dame Press.
Hood, R.W., Hill, P.C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: an empirical approach.
Guilford Press.
Ison, R., & Straw, E. (2020). The Hidden Power of Systems Thinking: Governance in a Climate
Emergency. Routledge.
Ivanov, K. (2011). Critical Systems Thinking and Information Technology: Some summary
reflections, doubts, and hopes through critical thinking critically considered, and through hyper
systems. In D. Haftor & A. Mirijamdotter (Eds.). Information and Communication Technologies,
Society and Human Beings: Theory and Framework. IGI Global, pp. 493-511.
Jackson, M. C. (1987). New directions in management science. In M. C. Jackson, & P. Keys (Eds.),
New directions in management science. Gower Press, pp. 133-161.
Jackson, M. C. (1990). Beyond a system of systems methodologies. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 41, 657-668.
Jackson, M.C. (1991). An Argument for Complementarism. Systems Methodology for the
Management Sciences. Contemporary Systems Thinking. Springer, 253-270.
Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems approaches to management. Wiley.
Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity. Wiley.
Jackson, M. C., & Keys, P. (1984). Towards a System of Systems Methodologies. In R. L. Flood, & M.
C. Jackson (Eds.), Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Wiley.
Jackson, M. C. & Sambo, L.G. (2020). Systems Thinking. OR 62 Online.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUwij18dirg&list=PLo52A9r56pbuRx4dM8P1x4iSDab8wT8
mj&index=2.
Jovan, M. (2005). Klinicka psihijatrija. Belgrade: Naša knjiga. ISBN 9788690155910.
Jung, K. (1916). Psychology of the Unconscious. (Translated by Hinkle, B. M.). Kegan Paul Trench
Trubner.
Kak, S. (2021). Convergence of Vedic Philosophies and Information Technologies: Space in E-
Dimensions”. The International Conference on Consciousness-Based Leadership & Management,
May 21-23, 2021, Maharshi International University.
Khalsa, A. S. (2010). Conscious Business. Kundalini Research Institute.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 181
Khisty, C. J., & Khisty, L. L. (1992). Reflection in Problem Solving and Design. Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 118(3), 234–239.
Klostermaier, K. (2007). A Survey of Hinduism. 3rd Edition. State University of New York Press.
Kvedaraviÿius, J. E., Skaržauskien, A., & Palaima, T. (2009). Systems thinking as intelligence
competence and its relationship to leadership performance. Problems and Perspectives in
Management, 7(2).
https://businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/article/assets/2637
/PPM_EN_2009_02_Jonas.pdf.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The
University of Chicago Press.
Larson, G. (2011). Classical Sāṃkhya: An Interpretation of Its History and Meaning. Motilal
Banarsidass. ISBN 978-8120805033.
Laszlo, C. (2020). Quantum management: the practices and science of flourishing enterprise. Journal
of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 17(4), 301-315.
LeDoux, J. (1998). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life.
Touchstone.
LeLeur, S. (2014). The meaning of system: Towards a complexity orientation in systems thinking.
International Journal of Systems and Society, 1(1), 22.
Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2019). Organizational Learning in Industry 4.0. Problemy ZarzÈdzania –
Management Issues, 17(2), 96-108.
Linard, K. T., & Aretz, B. (2000). Systems Thinking Competencies and the Learning Organization. 1st
International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-
72/055%20Linard%20Competencies.pdf.
Lleras, E. (1995). Towards a methodology for organizational intervention in Colombian Enterprises.
Systems Practice, 8, 169-182.
Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2014). Conscious Capitalism. Harvard Business Review Press.
Lockhart, J., & Hicken, M. (2012). 14 executives who swear by meditation. BusinessInsider.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-who-meditate-2012-5?op=1.
Mahler-Rogers, D. (2017). Infusing Complex Problem-Solving and Systems Thinking in College
Leadership Development Programs. PhD Thesis. Old Dominion University, DOI:
10.25777/qvbzm677
McKenna, C. (2006). The World’s Newest Profession. Cambridge University Press.
Medin, D.L. & Aguilar, C.M. (1999). Categorization. In R. A. Wilson, & F. Keil (Eds.), MIT
Encyclopedia of Cognitive sciences. MIT Press, pp. 104-105.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Midgley, G. (2003). Systems thinking. Sage.
Midgley, G. (2006). Systemic Intervention for Public Health. American Journal of Public Health.
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.067660.
Mingers, J., & Gill, A. (Eds.) (1997). Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Combining
Management Science Methodologies. Wiley.
Midgley, G., & Pinzón, L. A. (2011). The implications of boundary critique for conflict prevention.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 1543–1554.
Midgley, G., & Pinzon, L. A. (2013). Systemic Mediation: Moral Reasoning and Boundaries of
Concern. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30, 607–632.
Midgley, G., & Rajagopalan, R. (2021). Critical Systems Thinking, Systemic Intervention and Beyond.
In Handbook of Systems. ScienceSpringer Publishing Company.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
182 R. CHOWDHURY
Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: towards a framework of mixing
methodologies. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 25(5),489–509.
Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem Structuring Methods in Action. European Journal of
Operations Research, 152(3), 530-554.
Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2007). Understanding social problems. 5th Edition. Wadsworth
Publishing.
Morin, E. (2006). Restricted Complexity, General Complexity. http://cogprints.org/5217/1/Morin.pdf.
Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding
convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12, 442-448.
Murphy, F. H. (2005). The Art and Science of Practice: Elements of a Theory of the Practice of
Operations Research: Practice as a Business. INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics, 35(6), 449-
546.
Nandram, S. S., & Borden, M. E. (Eds.) (2010). Spirituality and Business: Exploring Possibilities for a
New Management Paradigm. Springer.
Nandram, S. S. (2016). How Do Spirituality, Intuition and Entrepreneurship Go Together?
Philosophy of Management, 15, 65–82.
Nash, L. (1994). Believers in business. Thomas Nelson.
Oliga, J. C. (1988). Methodological foundations of systems methodologies. Systems Practice, 1, 87-
112.
Ormerod, R. J. (1997). The Design of Organisational Intervention: Choosing the Approach.
International Journal of Management Science, 25(4), 415-435.
Ormerod, R. J. (2013). OR competences: the demands of problem structuring methods. European
Journal of Decision Process, 2, 313–340.
Ormerod, R. J. (2014). Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR
investigations. EURO Journal of Operational Research, 235, 784–797.
Ormerod, R. J. (2018). The logic and methods of OR consulting practice: towards a foundational
view. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(9), 1357-1378.
Pavlovich, K., & K. Krahnke. (2012). Empathy, Connectedness, and Organization. Journal of
Business Ethics, 105, 131–137.
Perdomo, J., & Cavallin, H. (2014). Transforming Building Design Through Integrated Project
Delivery in Architectural and Engineering Education. Proceedings of the ASCE 2014 Construction
Research Congress. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784413517.037.
Peterson, J. B. (2013). Three Forms of Meaning and the Management of Complexity. In K. Markman,
T. Proulx, & M. Linberg (Eds.), The Psychology of Meaning. American Psychological Association,
pp. 17-48.
Petrovic, S. P. (2013). Systemic intervention in creative managing problems in enterprises. Journal of
Business Economics and Management, 16(5), 949–961.
Phelps, E. A., O’Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., & Gore, J. C.
(2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(5), 729–738.
Pullanoor, H. (2019). How the Indian icon Nataraja danced his way from ancient history to modern
physics. Quartz India. https://qz.com/india/1759244/a-brief-history-of-nataraja-the-dancing-
hindu-god-shiva/.
Rajagopalan, R. (2016). Immersive systemic knowing: Rational analysis and beyond. PhD thesis,
University of Hull, Hull, UK.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 183
Rajagopalan, R. (2020). Immersive Systemic Knowing: Advancing Systems Thinking Beyond Rational
Analysis. Springer.
Rajagopalan, R., & Midgley, G. (2015). Knowing differently in systemic intervention. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 32, 546–561.
Richardson, C., Sinha, L., & Yaapar, M. S. (2014). Work ethics from the Islamic and Hindu
traditions: in quest of common ground. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 11(1),
65- 90.
Richman, A., Johnson, A., & Noble, K. (2011). Business impacts of flexibility: an imperative for
expansion. Corporate Voices for Working Families. https://www.wfd.com/PDFS/
BusinessImpactsofFlexibility_March2011.pdf.
Richmond, B. (1993). Systems thinking: Critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. System
Dynamics Review, 9(2), 113-133.
Rioz, J. P., & Suarez, X. L. M. (2012). Organizational Cybernetics and Urban Planning: The case-
study of a University of A Caruna. In S. N. Grosser, & R. Zeier (Eds.), Systemic Management for
Intelligent Organizations. Springer, pp. 211-225.
Rockström, J., & M. Klum. (2015). Big World, Small Planet: Abundance within Planetary
Boundaries. Yale University Press.
Ruth, D. (2014). Leader as priest: Plucking the fruit of a flawed metaphor. Leadership, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715012467488
Saadat, V., & Saadat, Z. (2016). Organizational Learning as a Key Role of Organizational Success.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 219-225.
Schecter, D. (1991). Critical systems thinking in the 1980s: A connective summary. In R. L. Flood, &
M. C. Jackson (Eds.), Critical systems thinking: Directed readings. Wiley, pp. 213-226.
Schein, E. H. (2016). Humble Consulting: How to provide real help faster. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Schon, D. (1963). Invention and the evolution of ideas. Tavistock.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey Bass.
Schön, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2),
119–139.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Random
House.
Seppälä, E. (2015). How Meditation Benefits CEOs. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2015/12/how-meditation-benefits-ceos.
Sheep, M. L. (2006). Nurturing the Whole Person: The Ethics of Workplace Spirituality in a Society
of Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 66 (4): 357–375.
Sheldrake, R. (2018). Science and Spiritual Practices. Coronet.
Shen, C. Y., & Midgley, G. R. (2007a). Toward a Buddhist Systems Methodology 1: Comparisons
between Buddhism and Systems Theory. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 20(3), 167–194.
Shen, C. Y., & Midgley, G. R. (2007b). Toward a Buddhist Systems Methodology 2: An Exploratory,
Questioning Approach. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 20 (3), 195–210.
Shen, C. Y., & Midgley, G. R. (2007c). Toward a Buddhist Systems Methodology 3: An Application in
a Taiwanese Non-Governmental Organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 20(3), 211-
244.
Shen, C. Y., & Midgley, G. R. (2015). Action research in a problem avoiding culture using a Buddhist
systems methodology. Action Research, 13(2),170-193.
Snowden, D. (2015). Keynote: Embrace Complexity, Scale Agility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYlqhvzI_VQ.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
184 R. CHOWDHURY
Sturdy, A. (2009). Popular Critiques of Consultancy and a Politics of Management Learning?
Management Learning. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350507609339686.
Sun, D., Hyland, P., & Cui, H. (2014). Designed Framework for Delivering Systems Thinking Skills to
Small Business Managers. Systemist, DOI:10.3390/systems20x000x
Sur, S. (2017). Beyond the Indus: How Hinduism Offers an Alternate Management Paradigm.
Philosophy of Management, 16, 69–89.
Sushil. (1994). Flexible Systems Methodology. Systems Practice, 7(6), 633–652.
Sushil. (1997). Flexible systems management: an evolving paradigm. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 14(4), 259–275.
Sushil. (2015). Diverse shades of flexibility and agility in business. In Sushil, and G. Chroust (Eds.),
Systemic flexibility and business agility. Springer, pp. 1–19.
Sushil. (2017). Does flexibility mitigate or enhance risk? Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 18, 169–171.
Tackney. C. T., Chappell, S., Harris, D., Pavlovich, K., Egel, E., Major, R., Finney, M., & Stoner, J.
(2017). Management, Spirituality, and Religion (MSR) ways and means: a paper to encourage
quality research. Journal of Management Spirituality, Religion, 14(3), 245-254.
Taket, A., & White, L. A. (2000). Partnership and participation: decision-making in the multiagency
setting. Wiley.
Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, Strategic or
reflexive questions. Family Process, 27, 1-15.
Tracey, P. (2012). Religion and Organization: A Critical Review of Current Trends and Future
Directions. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 87–134.
Tsao, F., & C. Laszlo. (2019). Quantum Leadership: New Consciousness in Business. Stanford
University Press.
Tzouramani, E., & Karakas, F. (2016). Spirituality in Management. In M. de Souza, J. Bone, and J.
Watson (Eds.), Spirituality across Disciplines: Research and Practice. Springer, pp. 273-284.
Ufua, D. E. (2019). Exploring the Effectiveness of Boundary Critique in an Intervention: a Case in the
Niger Delta Region, Nigeria. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 33, 485–499.
Ulrich, W. (2012). CST’s two ways: a concise account of critical systems thinking. Ulrich’s Bimonthly,
November-December 2012.
https://www.academia.edu/10632862/Ulrich_W._2012_._CSTs_two_ways_a_concise_account_of
_critical_systems_thinking?email_work_card=title.
Ulrich, W. (2017). The concept of systemic triangulation: its intent and imagery. Ulrich’s Bimonthly.
http://wulrich.com/bimonthly_march2017.html.
Valerdi, R., & Rouse, W. (2010).When Systems Thinking Is Not a Natural Act. Paper presented in
Systems Conference, 2010 4th Annual IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/SYSTEMS.2010.5482446
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2003). Organizational learning: a critical review. The Learning
Organization, 10(1), 8-17.
Wiens, S. (2006). Subliminal emotion perception in brain imaging: Findings, issues, and
recommendations. Progress in Brain Research, 156, 105–121.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 3(2872), 23–
29.
Williams, R. R. (2010). Space for God: lived religion at work, home, and play. Sociology of religion: a
quarterly review, 71(3), 257-279.
Wong, N., & Mingers, J. (1994). The nature of community OR. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 45, 245-254.
IP: 151.210.158.40 On: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:35:24
Delivered by Ingenta
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 185
Wong, P. S., Shevrin, H., & Williams, W. J. (1994). Conscious and nonconscious processes: An ERP
index of an anticipatory response in a conditioning paradigm using visually masked stimuli.
Psychophysiology, 31, 87–101.
Zhu, Z. (2000). Dealing with a differentiated whole: The philosophy of the WSR approach. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 13, 21-57.
