Abstract: Human resources are a vital part of organizations and constructions of organizational behavior. Human resource management and development are understood as part and parcel of organizational leadership. Academic and professional literature present perspectives on human resources that often obscure or sacrifice the fundamental humanness and dignity of individuals in the organization in service of capital gain. The purpose of this reflective essay is to offer a view from the author’s own experiences in human resources that views people as peers and friends in organizations, upholding the dignity and humanness of each individual.
Introduction
Human resources are a vital part of organizations and constructions of organizational behavior. Human resource management and human resource development are widely held and understood as part and parcel of organizational leadership. Academic and professional literature present perspectives on human resources that, while perhaps well-intended, often obscure or sacrifice the fundamental humanness and dignity of individuals in the organization in service of capital gain.
There is a sizable body of literature that focuses on doing well for the organization by way of doing well by people. There is much in the recent literature that points to a positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance or organizational performance (Bryson Forth, & Stokes, 2017; Wu, Chen, & Chen, 2017; Eliyana, Ma’arif, & Muzakki, 2019; Guest, 2017; Jadhav, Shenoy, Gulati, Chaudhary, Patel, & Chakrabarty, 2021; Rew, Siguaw, & Sheng, 2020; Sharma & Sharma, 2021; van der Voordt & Jensen, 2023). However, a strong relationship between job satisfaction and job performance or organizational performance does not necessarily mean that organizations and their leaders are, ultimately, concerned with the humanness and dignity of people in the organization.
Works that focus on human resources in organizations and human dignity are scant (Hodson, 2001; Kostera & Pirson, 2017). Works on human dignity, human resources, and organizational leadership typically take a humanistic approach. For example, Domingo and Melé (2022) discuss human relationships in the organization as representative of society and community in which the health and growth of the organization might well depend on preserving the moral values of the community, particularly as those values uphold humanness and human dignity.
I believe there is value to be derived from the humanistic perspective. I appreciate the emphasis on living responsibly in society and acting in ways that seek the best for the community. Humanists have made a case for the social responsibility of organizations in general (Spitzeck, Pirson, Amann, Khan, & von Kimakowitz, 2009) and specifically in human resources management (Arnaud & Wasieleski, 2014). Further, I find resonance in humanistic management principles. For example, Lee (2022) and others argue that love is a ground that should undergird the actions of organizational leaders. However, the humanistic principles do not acknowledge God as the author and source of love. In my view, it is impossible to love without God. Moreover, in order for human resource management to truly uphold human dignity, it must be actuated by God, who is both love and the source of human love (1 John 4:7–8).
Finally, there are scholars who advance the idea that effective human resources management must uphold human dignity as a biblically-based imperative (Megoran, 2022, 2023; Nyambegera, 2005; Roberts, 2015). One of the themes that emerges in Christian views on human resource management is that human dignity is fundamental to our existence because we are created in the image of God (George Busuttil & Van Weelden, 2018; Jonsen, 2017; Megoran, 2023; Nyambegera, 2005). These approaches hold the most in common with my own views, and they will be discussed, along with other Christian perspectives, in some detail in subsequent sections. At the same time, I believe that there is room for a unique view that promotes human dignity, social responsibility, and love from a Christian perspective and reimagines the concept of human resource management.
The purpose of this reflective essay is to offer a view from my own experiences in human resources that sees people as peers and friends in organizations that uphold the dignity and humanness of each individual. In this view, I assert that human resources are God-given gifts, provided and actuated by His Spirit—the greatest of those gifts being love. I call this the “peer-friend model.” The peer-friend model is social responsibility based on the words and actions of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have not encountered such a model in my experience or discovered such a model in the literature. There is a need to bring this view into the leadership dialogue because it has the potential to transform leaders and the organizations they lead.
Throughout this reflection, I use the terms “social responsibility” and “human resources development.” I define these constructs as follows:
• Social responsibility: the personal and collective obligation to love and act in the best interest of humanity and all of the natural world.
• Human resource development: growing and applying the gifts that God provides.
Those definitions are born out of my own experiences and provide meaning in the present context that distinguishes the terms from ways that they might be understood in other sources. Along with the foregoing definitions, I also offer a personal operational understanding of “love:”
Love is the most important social responsibility into which I place all of my God-given resources for the benefit of people in organizations—including family, institution, and community—both in concert and in tension with systems of social and economic structure.
As with the definitions, this operational understanding is provided to provide clarity to the background and foreground of this writing.
Organization of the Reflection
This reflection is organized into four sections. The first section provides a description of some of my leadership experiences that involve human resources. The second section is a brief discussion of several historical and structural aspects of organizational behavior and human resources—aspects from which I derive both understanding and sites for critique of human resource management as a practice. The third section introduces and discusses several biblically based perspectives on organizational leadership and human resources management. Lastly, the fourth section outlines the peer-friend model of human resources and makes recommendations for further study and application of the model.
Personal Experiences
This reflection is informed by over 40 years of institutional leadership, specifically in corporate, education spaces: K-12, higher education, and not-for-profit. In those 40 years, my leadership roles have included advertising and newspaper production, arts organizations—including visual and musical performance ensembles and churches—serving in pastoral and other ministerial roles, K-12 classroom teacher for all levels pre-kindergarten through grade 12, school principal, superintendent-level administration, and higher education faculty and administration.
My responsibilities have spanned all functions and structure of the organization. With particular relevance to the present writing, my experience includes human resource management ranging from recruitment and retention to onboarding, development, and transitioning employees. I have done consulting work in culture, climate, compensation, and benefits. Additionally, I have led, facilitated, and participated in numerous strategic planning sessions and talent searches in corporate, education, and not-for-profit organizations.
I consider myself fortunate to have had positive organizational experiences that illustrate or exemplify regard for human dignity. For example, as a young intern in a professional firm in Washington, DC, that served corporate and government clients, I was mentored by the managing partner, whose responsibilities included human resources. I watched the partner hire and train new employees. I often assisted with the training, especially with computers and other office technology. I watched the partner work through difficult circumstances with employees, ranging from client issues to difficult communication to employee misconduct. All these situations were handled with grace and respect for the employee. I also observed the partner work with employees through termination. Again, those difficult occasions were handled with kindness and dignity. Most importantly, I observed the partner develop true friendships with the employees. These were true friendships, with people in the organization treated as peers. Together as friends they celebrated births of children and grandchildren, performances, book publishing, graduations, new jobs, new homes, and new spouses. And together there was mourning—the loss of spouses, family tragedies, and illnesses—complete with visits to homes and hospitals, churches, and funeral parlors. I know that the partner, now retired, maintains those friendships to this day, even as those friends are octogenarians and nonagenarians.
As I reflect on observations from that early internship and my own leadership journey, it occurs to me that those experiences might have impacted my thinking and practice with respect to human dignity in organizations. I am able to connect my observation of how the managing partner recognized the importance of placing a high priority on families with a personal management experience. Years later, while leading a team at a large state university, I read an article that electronics retailer Best Buy was instituting a no mandatory meetings attendance policy in order to allow employees to prioritize their time in the way that worked best for them and their families (Conlin, 2006). That policy decision resonated deeply with me. The day after reading the article, I announced to the staff members in our university office that, going forward, meeting attendance would be optional. That was a great policy decision for our team and their families. We never regretted it.
Many of my organizational experiences—both as a leader and as a follower—following that early internship have involved developing close inter-personal relationships that can be characterized as friendships. I believe that some of those relationships contributed to strong positive results for the organization. In other words, the organization achieved successes that would not have occurred if friendships with individuals had not extended beyond the organizational context. In other cases, my friendships with people in the organization led to less than favorable outcomes, including mistrust and disengagement with individuals who were not or did not consider themselves friends.
These experiences are reflected in the literature in which friendship in the organization is described as a complex phenomenon (David, Coutinho, & Brennecke, 2023; Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018). De Neve (2018) reported that among participants in an international social survey on factors that included pay, working hours, job security, and others, interpersonal relationships (my emphasis), ranked highest as important for job satisfaction. Some managers perceived benefits for the organization while at the same time needing to act to mitigate risks of friendships in the workplace (Berman, West, & Richter, Jr., 2002). Likewise, managers and employees are advised to proceed with caution when engaging in friendships in light of difficulties managers might have appropriately negotiating the parameters of friendship with people they supervise (Laker, Patel, Malik, & Budhwar, 2020). Specific negative consequences of workplace friendships might include “distraction from instrumental goals, . . . reduced preparation for and deliberation in complex decisions, . . . and reduced perceptions of procedural and distributive justice” (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018, p. 641).
Considering my own experiences together with understandings from the literature, differing organizational outcomes—both across and within organizations—attached to friendships point to conflicts that are inherent to human social relationships. In strictly human terms, there are no perfect relationships—spouses argue, friends disagree, neighbors build fences. Those conflicts notwithstanding, I believe it is better to have friends than to not have friends (Eccl. 4:7–12). Further, as will be discussed later, I believe that friendship, rightly guided by God, is a key factor in a model for human resources.
Organizational Behavior and Human Resources
Organizational Behavior
The roots of organizational behavior theory might be traced to management theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among the leading theories/theorists is Henri Fayol. In the seminal work General and Industrial Management, Fayol details a framework for large-scale industrial management that emphasizes unity of purpose, process, and personnel (Fayol, 1916/1965). Another leading early management theorist was Frederick Winslow Taylor. In his classic work The Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor (1911) focuses on efficiencies of process, selection, and uniformity of personnel to maximize efficiency. Another influential theorist in this area is Elton Mayo. Mayo is associated with his theorizing work around the studies of worker productivity at the Hawthorne Works of the Westinghouse Corporation by Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939). From those studies, Mayo reasoned that development of “teamwork and cooperation” through careful communication is paramount to the efficacy of management and, by extension, industrial efficiency (Mayo, 1945, pp. 68–86). Ultimately, Mayo, in order to encourage more careful study and attention to the importance of social relationships in industry, lamented that:
modern civilization for approximately two centuries has done nothing to extend and develop human cooperative capacities and, indeed, in the sacred name of the sciences of material development, has unwittingly done much to discourage teamwork and the development of social skill. The almost frenzied cultivation of technical skill at the cost of human discouragement has not been able wholly to defeat the desire of individuals for association in work with others. (Mayo, 1945, pp. 116–117)
Additional views that influenced modern organizational behavior theories emphasized the importance of the behavior of groups in society. Such psychosocial perspectives are advanced in the work of Kurt Lewin (1944, 1948). Those theories compare autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire social contexts and elevate democratic ideals rooted in group discussion and decision-making (Lewin, 1944). Lewin is very much concerned with social change. He treats issues of communication, conflict, and change in group contexts across socio-cultural contexts such as politics, marriage, and organizations (Lewin, 1948).
In a seminal article, “Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change,” Kurt Lewin(1947) advances a theory of group dynamics and change. The theory is based on the notion that groups tend to exist in “quasi-stationary equilibrium”—that is, social forces that seek change and social forces that are resistant to change act as fundamentally equal and opposing forces, hence creating a sort of social stasis (Lewin, 1947, p. 16). According to Lewin, significant social change occurs when there is an “unfreezing” of group standards by group decision, the standard is changed, and a new standard is “frozen.” In that unfreezing, change, and freezing process, quasi-stationary equilibrium is disturbed (unfrozen), the standard or value is moved, and the quasi-stationary equilibrium is reestablished (frozen) (Lewin, 1947, pp. 34–39).
The work of Lewin has had a wide-ranging impact on organizational behavior and change. An illustration of the breadth and depth of that impact can be seen in the special issue of the Journal of Change Management dedicated to the legacy of his work. Following the lead article, “Kurt Lewin: 70 Years On” (Burnes & Bargal, 2017), which provides a brief overview of his life as a Jewish refugee of Germany in the time of Hitler and a framing of his life work as a commitment to improving society, the issue contains the following articles:
- “When Theory Meets Practice: Combining Lewin’s Ideas About Change with Motivational Interviewing to Increase Energy-Saving Behaviours Within Organizations” (Endrejat, Baumgarten, & Kauffeld, 2017)
- “Inquiring in the Present Tense: The Dynamic Mechanism of Action Research” (Coghlan & Shani, 2017)
- “Bridging Strategies and Action: Towards a Method for Change Management in Danish Emergency Management Organizations”(Lehmann, 2017)
- How Does Authentic Leadership Influence Planned Organizational Change? The Role of Employees’ Perceptions: Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Lewin’s Three Step Model (Bakari, Hunjra, & Niazi, 2017).
As seen by the topics of those articles, the work of Lewin has both longevity and application for many areas of practice.
At this point, it seems useful to acknowledge thinking that differentiates between groups and organizations. Following Smith (1945), I believe it is reasonable to understand a social group as “a unit consisting of a plural number of organisms (agents) who have a collective perception of their unity and who have the ability to act/or are acting in a unitary manner toward the environment” (Smith, 1945, p. 227). Continuing, Stogdill (1950) defines organization as “a social group in which the members are differentiated as to their responsibilities for the task of achieving a common goal” (Stogdill, 1950, p. 3).
In the 20th century, studies of organizational behavior started to coalesce around definitions of organizational theory, such as “the study of the structure and functioning of organizations and the behavior of groups and individuals within them” (Pugh, 1966, p. 235). Robbins (2018) characterizes organizational behavior as “a field of study that investigates the impact individuals, groups, and structures have on behavior within organizations for the purpose of applying such knowledge toward improving an organization’s effectiveness” (Robbins & Judge, 2018, pp. 9–10). Luthans (2021) defines organizational behavior as “the understanding, prediction, and management of human behavior in organizations” (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2021, p. 15).
While the references above represent some historical aspects of organizational behavior, they are highlighted here primarily because they stand out in my mind as indicators of the social nature of organizations. In other words, it is not my intention to show a progression of thought or understanding in the literature across time. Such a trajectory is not without import. However, it is for me more important to confirm that organizations are inherently social and, as such, are subject to and benefit from principles that guide social interactions. Moreover, as I discuss in the peer-friend model, principles of social interaction and, more specifically, social responsibility are fully and inextricably intertwined with God-given gifts, especially love. Hence, it is appropriate to include love as a foundational aspect of a model such as the peer-friend model that is concerned with organizational (social) behavior.
Perspectives on Human Resources in the Organization
The concept of human resources is a vital part of formulations of organizational behavior. The idea of human resources was advanced in 20th-century corporate circles by Raymond E. Miles (1965). Miles posited that, until the time of his writing, management theorists had been promoting human relations, which was concerned with creating harmonious relationships between managers and rank-and-file workers such that the rank-and-file feel the need to resist the authority (direction) of managers. By contrast, Miles suggests that a more productive view is that managers understand “all organization members as reservoirs of untapped resources” (Miles, 1965, p. 150). Miles emphasizes that human resources theory is more concerned with organization-wide productivity (or efficiency) as a function of employee participation than productivity (or efficiency) as a function of employee morale (Miles, 1965). In my nearly 50 years of working with organizations ranging from Fortune 500 to mom-and-pop startups, it appears that nearly every human resource model is indebted to Miles.
Whether the focus is on human relations (Fayol, 1916/1965) or human resources (Lewin, 1944; Miles, 1965), much of what is forwarded in conversations about “human resources” is predicated on industrial/business organizational theories about the relationship between humans in roles assuperiors and subordinates (Fayol, 1916/1965; Miles, 1965; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939; see Taylor, 1911). Such an orientation can lead to thinking of management as elites and workers as an expendable resource. Even though there are scholars who argue against such thinking (Hatcher & Bowles, 2013; Schein, 2013), I believe that mainstream Western economic theory continues to be the driver of the concept of humans as a resource, as evidenced by key economic theoretical and practical language like “labor supply” and “labor demand” (Borjas, 2019; Ehrenberg & Smith, 2014; Greenlaw & Shapiro, 2017; Council of Economic Advisers, 2023).
Such an emphasis on humans as a labor resource has been understood by scholars as the objectification of human labor—a view or treatment of humans as objects with limited or no agency (Baldissarri, Valtorta, Andrighetto, & Volpato, 2017). For example, Shields and Grant (2010) contend that a primary objective of human resource management in organizations in capital markets is to make human employees labor objects. Management is mostly successful in such objectification and would be entirely successful were it not for the cognitive and affective capacities of employees (Shields & Grant, 2010).
Objectification might function not only as a market phenomenon in macroeconomic terms but also at the social and/or individual level in the workplace. Objectification impacts human relationships between individuals in organizations. Baldissari and colleagues (2017) found that factory workers who feel alienated in workplace human relationships were dehumanized in the organization. There might be differences in the degrees of objectification between types of employees (e.g., factory workers vs. artisans) (Baldissarri et al., 2017). It is also possible that organizational culture is dehumanizing and that workers objectify others and themselves (Auzoult, 2020; Belmi & Schroeder, 2021).
The peer-friend model resists and rejects any objectification of people that might be part of either the concept of human resources or the practice of human resource management. In fact, the peer-friend model shifts the language of human resources from an emphasis on humans as a resource to resources given to humans by God. Further, the model advances the idea that people in organizations are not subordinate or superior to others. Rather, people in organizations are peers and, ideally, friends who are each uniquely resourced or gifted by God. The gifts might be elevated or subordinated by function according to the overarching organizational mission or specific operational tasks. However, the hierarchical emphasis is on the gifts rather than on the people. Such an emphasis contributes to the preservation of humanness—it resists objectification of the person—and it promotes human dignity.
Biblical Perspectives on Human Resources
The peer-friend model is concerned with humanness and the dignity of the individual. There is a precedent for such a concern in contemporary literature by Christian authors who connect human dignity and human resources. Some scholars referred to below assert from a Christian viewpoint that leadership has a sort of moral stewardship obligation to preserve and promote human dignity. For example, Jonsen (2017) aligns development of the person and the organization with the view that all persons are made in the image of God—from the Augustinian imago Dei (see Puffer, 2017)—and, being made in that image, are inherently valuable and worthy of respect and dignity in social interactions.
The imago Dei approach that Jonsen takes seems very practical to me. The peer-friend model relies on the fact that humans are created by God and that God imbues each person with value and worth. For human resource leaders to ignore—or worse, to reject—that fact is to do a great disservice to the organization and, more importantly, to the people who make up the organization.
Megoran (2022) examines human resource management practice through the lens of Black theology and suggests that human resource practitioners pay more careful attention to the fundamental “humanness” of each individual in the organization/workplace. The argument Megoran advances is predicated on the assertion that humans are made in the image of God and Black theology depends on an understanding of the high value of human life that is grounded in the fact humans are made in the image of God. Anything—including organizational or human resources practices—that diminishes the value of humanness and/or the dignity of human life violates that fundamental Black theological construct. Ultimately, Megoran (2022) contends that human resource managers and organizations of all persuasions would benefit from attending to the concepts of humanness as expressed in Black theology.
The perspective that Megoran (2022) offers is even closer to home for me. As a Black American man, I have been and continue to be subjected to a myriad of indignities based on the particular image of God in which I am created. Those indignities range from discrimination in employment and healthcare to verbal and physical violence. In the organization, as in the larger society, I am always aware that I must be hyper-vigilant for people and circumstances that not only ignore my value but also intentionally—and unintentionally—seek to diminish my value. These realities have added complexity to my leadership. Moreover, these harsh realities of Blackness have provided context and framing for the idea of the peer-friend model. Specifically, the need for me to constantly prove my worth and giftedness and to protect my dignity has made clear the need for a social model of human resources that elevates humanness and dignity.
Roberts (2015) presents a case for biblically based human resource management that differs from those that center on the image of God. Roberts proposes a model for human resources management that reframes servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970) attributes—“servanthood, stewardship, servant leader behavior, servant leader character, and servant leader foresight”—in biblical terms (Roberts, 2015, p. 45). While these ideas seem reasonable, it is difficult to understand the exact basis for the model and, by extension, how the model ultimately addresses concerns for humanness and human dignity from a biblical foundation. I say this because although servant leadership may align in many ways with biblical ideals, servant leadership is not necessarily a biblical concept or practice (Wallace, 2007). What Roberts argues in setting up biblical principles as a way to arrive at servant leadership runs counter to what the peer-friend model seeks. Specifically, the peer-friend model seeks human relationships that are entirely grounded in relationships with God. The ideals expressed in the Bible, as far as they are understood, are themselves the highest ideals for human relationship; they are not a vehicle to arrive at another higher ideal.
Moving from a discussion of approaches that seek to directly address human dignity, Prahaladaiah, Udayakumar, and Soni (2023) rearticulate strategies for maximizing employee satisfaction and job performance using biblical terms or principles. The authors cite and align Bible passages with eight human resource practices: fair pay, timely wages, protection from exploitation, recruitment and retention, empowerment of employees, supportive professional development, equity and impartiality, and employee relations. For example, the authors frame fair pay in terms of Colossians 4:1: “Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair” (NKJV). In another example, the authors cite Proverbs 26:10, “Hiring a fool or a stranger who is just passing by is dangerous—you don’t know who might get hurt (ESV),” as a biblical principle to inform recruitment in the organization (Prahaladaiah, Udayakumar, & Soni, 2023).
As with Jonsen, albeit for different reasons, the Prahaladaiah approach seems quite practical in that it addresses ground-level concerns faced by human resource leaders. Those everyday, ground-level realities are sites for human interaction; such realities should be a part of any effective model. The peer-friendship model, in its present nascent form, provides a more abstract view and adds what I consider to be essential: a rationale to reimagine ground-level concerns in terms of the functioning of God-given gifts as resources that humans have the privilege of employing.
The peer-friend model shares some views with all of the foregoing biblical perspectives on human resources. I believe that each of the perspectives invokes a kind moral rightness. That is, they hold that doing the right thing for people is the right thing to do. Moreover, I believe that the Bible is, among many other things, a foundational text for understanding moral rightness. In other words, the Bible is a reliable source to which we may refer in order to know the right thing to do. In the following section, I summarize this reflection with a description of the peer-friend model.
Toward a New Model of Human Resources
I would like to propose a different understanding of human resources that shares attributes of the approaches discussed above. Like Miles, I believe that all humans possess something of great value. Like Jonsen and Megoran, I believe that theological ideals can underpin practice in the field, particularly with respect to protecting and uplifting the dignity of humans, all of whom are created in and bear the priceless image of God. Like Prahaladaiah, I believe that there is great benefit in articulating and directly aligning organizational practice with biblical principles. Similar to Vianney and Domènec, I believe that the organization exists as part of a community of stakeholders who hold a moral interest in both society, generally, and in the organization, specifically.
What I will add to those theorists is that we will do better to reconceptualize human resources, both across the organization and from a biblical perspective, as uniquely gifted peers and friends. In other words, no person is superior or subordinate. Rather, each person has a role or roles that may at times carry more or less weight or import according to the circumstances. Moreover, each person is, relationally, a potential friend, created to love and support friends in the organization.
Before further characterizing such an understanding of human resources, I will add a bit more background. Building upon the discussion of the social nature of organizations above, it is important to understand human relationships as Jesus has situated them in the context of social responsibility. Jesus provides specific guidance for social relationships in the form of a directive to “love each other” (John 15:17). Along with that directive, Jesus makes this statement: “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends [emphasis added], for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15). Even though Jesus is Creator and Lord, He calls us “friends.” In this sort of Lord and friend relationship, Jesus is our example. When people in Jesus’s inner circle argued over who was the “greatest,” His response was: “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all” (Mark 9:35, NIV). Again, of Jesus’s example, Paul writes: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:6–7, NIV).
For people in society who are willing to accept these truths, this is the human part of human resources: we are all peers and friends with a responsibility to love each and every person and to act in the best interests of every person.
I recognize that it might still be argued that Jesus Christ, perhaps by default if not by declaration, provides that some people will be servants and some people will be masters (John 15:20) and that such an understanding renders the immediately preceding claim that we are all peers and friends untenable. For me, such an argument raises serious alarm. Referring back to Megoran (2022, 2023) and the connection between Black theology and human dignity via the image of God, one of the points of the peer-friend model is to liberate people for oppressive social constructs such as servant-master relationships. More to the point, I believe that arguments that propound a biblical rationale for default hierarchies in human relationships are slippery slopes of the sort that were used to create slave Bibles (Lumpkin, 2019) and to justify slavery, especially in the Western Hemisphere.
In my mind, when Jesus calls us friends, He means exactly that. We are friends that are not to be subjected to servitude. We are not to denigrate people by dehumanizing constructs. The peer-friend model seeks to address oppressive hierarchies in organizations. Within a social frame of human peer-friends there should be no superiors and subordinates.
Social Responsibility
It is at the direction of Jesus Christ that we find our understanding of social responsibility and community service. Christ says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:18–20, ESV). The instruction to “make disciples of all nations” is, essentially, a mandate for social action. More specifically, there are functional components of that social action of making disciples. Those functional components are “baptizing” and “teaching.” I will focus here on the teaching component.
Examining further, the what (object) of the teaching is obedience to that which Jesus has commanded. Once again, this is a social directive. Jesus says: “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command” (John 15:12–14, NIV). With this, the directive is clearly social, framed in terms of love and relationship, both human and divine. Hence, we arrive at an understanding that Jesus is saying that it is our social responsibility to love each other and to teach love.
There is one more aspect of this social responsibility that I will highlight. The command to love is centered around the ultimate loving social action: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13, NIV). Lest we are tempted to think the concept of friends is somehow exclusive or restricted to a certain select group of people, we turn to this foundational saying for clarification: “God so loved the world [emphasis added] that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, NIV). That world means all people in all eras of time. The social mandate to love is for all people—for each and every individual who has ever lived, is living, and will live.
Jesus’ love for all is to be emulated by all, as social responsibility, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5, KJV). The teaching is also, as we shall explore further below, about giving. “The Son of Man [Jesus] did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt.20:28, NIV). Our social responsibility is to be exercised unselfishly. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Phil. 2:3–4, NIV).
Finally, it will be noted that the heading and introduction to this section place social responsibility and community service together. I view these life (leadership) components as being essentially a single indivisible concept. If we are to differentiate between the two ideas, it would be to say that social responsibility might be thought of as a global/universal mandate that is applicable at all times throughout life. Social responsibility is an essential principle. Community service can be thought of as responsibility or action in a specific context or circumstance that is born out of the essence of social responsibility. An example of such a construction: feeding people who are hungry is a social responsibility. Whereas, feeding a neighbor in your context (e.g., immediate, local, regional, national, etc.) is community service.
Biblically Informed Understanding of Uniquely Gifted Human Resources
The resources part of human resources may be understood as gifts from God. Beginning with life itself, the gifts of God are varied. We do not all have the same gifts (Rom. 12:3–8; 1 Cor.12) or the same measure of the same gifts (Luke 19:11–27). Further, God supplies gifts to be used in service of both individual and collective needs (2 Kings 4:1–7; Eph. 4:12). Ultimately, the greatest gift and highest service is that of love (1 Corinthians 13). Human resources, then, are actually gifts such as life, teaching, material, service, compassion, administration, prophecy, and many others that God provides so that we can fulfill our social responsibility to love, which is at once gift, action, and being.
The gifts of God flow from the grace of God (Eph. 4:7). Organizations will do well to receive these gifts of grace and to position themselves for maximum growth as part of a meta-organization that might be characterized as “the body of Christ” (1 Cor.12:27). Hence, the organization will be situated for best results as the Apostle Paul relates: “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:11–13, NIV).
Paul presents a mature discourse on the gifts of God (Rom. 12:3–8; 1 Cor. 12–13; Eph. 4:7–16) that can be viewed as human resources with unique applications in the organization. Such a view is outlined below in Table 1.
Table 1
Human Resources – Gifts of God in the Organization
| Gifts of God | Biblical Reference | Human Resource Application in the Organization |
|---|---|---|
| Prophecy | Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:10 | Advanced knowledge and integrous articulation of circumstances and events |
| Service | Romans 12:7 | Disinterested action for the benefit of people |
| Teaching | Romans 12:7 | Education for continual growth |
| Encouragement | Romans 12:8 | Pointing people to the best potential within themselves and their world |
| Giving | Romans 12:8 | Unselfish sharing and distribution of resources |
| Leadership | Romans 12:8 | Making the most of personal influence for good |
| Mercy | Romans 12:8 | Approaching less than ideal relational actions or circumstances with grace and generosity |
| Apostle | Ephesians 4:11 | A firsthand, first-person follower of the Way |
| Evangelism | Ephesians 4:11 | Unapologetic promotion of and recruitment to the organizational mission |
| Pastor | Ephesians 4:11 | Guide and caretaker of people |
| Wisdom | 1 Corinthians 12:8 | Best interested application of knowledge, skill, and resources |
| Knowledge | 1 Corinthians 12:8 | Possession of information |
| Faith | Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 12:9 | Persistent belief in goodness as a positive force independent of empirical evidence |
| Healing | 1 Corinthians 12:9 | Restoration of diminished human abilities and capacities |
| Miraculous Powers | 1 Corinthians 12:10 | Extraordinary physical, cognitive, and affective abilities applied for change apart from ordinary or typically expected means |
| Discernment | 1 Corinthians 12:10 | Knowledge of intents, motivations, causes, and effects that lie below the immediately observable |
| Speaking in Tongues | 1 Corinthians 12:10 | Extraordinary ability to communicate in languages that are non-native languages |
| Interpreting Tongues | 1 Corinthians 12:10 | Extraordinary ability to understand and translate in languages that are non-native languages |
| Hope | 1 Corinthians 13:13 | Adopting and articulating optimistic perspectives |
| Love | Ephesians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 13:13 | Ultimate confluence and infinite, perpetual animation of all gifts, which love as a whole exceeds, by orders of incalculable magnitude, the sum of the parts |
As shown in the table, persons who have any of the gifts are equipped for unique, specific contributions to the organization. The gifts and the persons who employ the gifts are interdependent. Each person bears a social responsibility to use the gift for the good of both the individuals and the organization as a whole. Finally, as Paul asserts, I believe that the greatest human resource is love (1 Cor. 13:13). Love is the gift that sums up and exceeds all gifts—it simultaneously provides people the resources of cause, existence, purpose, direction, and ultimate fulfillment. Love is, indeed, the greatest human resource.
Conclusion
My personal leadership and followership experiences have provided a broad view of organizations and human resource practice. Reflection on working in and around a wide variety of organizations raised important questions about the responsibility of leadership to act in the best interests of both the individual and the organization. Traditional approaches to organizational behavior and human resources, rooted in capital market economics, often leave issues of humanness and dignity unresolved—or worse, they may reduce humans to inconsequential objects. At the same time, there are contemporary scholars who propose models to preserve human dignity in organizations via theological, biblical, and social moral constructs.
My own view is that the most promising approach to human resources is found in a peer-friend perspective on social responsibility based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Such a peer-friend perspective sees all persons in the organization as equally valued and, most importantly, loved by God and people across the organization. This peer-friend theory is extended via application of specific God-given gifts—human resources—in the organization. Those human resources include and are summed up in the gift of love.
The peer-friend human resource model is an idea that can be described as the beginning of a new theory of human resources. In academic terms, the idea is limited because it has not been tested by traditional empirical means. The description of the model, via the foregoing reflection, is also limited presently to theoretical constructs—applications for specific contexts and scenarios have not been discussed. With these limitations in mind, I recommend that academic researchers, human resource practitioners, and organizational leaders build on the model in its present form by conducting empirical research and, as appropriate, applying the theory in their respective fields. I believe that this theory holds great potential for individuals and organizations of all types. I look forward to taking up the challenges of further research and development of this topic. May God be glorified! May people be edified!
Michael Gayle, PhD, is an assistant professor of teacher education and a curriculum and learning design specialist at Andrews University. In 2023, Michael successfully defended his leadership doctoral dissertation in arts-based research, titled Teaching Shante Curtelia Dominique Ophelia Brown Johnson: An autoethnography of a black male, Seventh-day Adventist, Jazz Avant-Garde artist. He is a multi-talented creative, writer, artist, musician, poet, husband, father, and friend. His focus is living a Christ-centered life.
References
Arnaud, S., & Wasieleski, D. (2014). Corporate humanistic responsibility: Social performance through managerial discretion of the HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1652-z
Auzoult, L. (2020). Can meaning at work guard against the consequences of objectification? Psychological Reports, 123(3), 872–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119826891
Bakari, H., Hunjra, A. I., & Niazi, G. S. K. (2017). How does authentic leadership influence planned organizational change? The role of employees’ perceptions: Integration of theory of planned behavior and Lewin’s Three Step Model. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 155–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1299370
Baldissarri, C., Valtorta, R. R., Andrighetto, L., & Volpato, C. (2017). Workers as objects: The nature of working objectification and the role of perceived alienation. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 24, 153–166.
Belmi, P., & Schroeder, J. (2021). Human “resources”? Objectification at work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 384–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000254
Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N., Jr. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62(2), 217–230.
Borjas, G. (2019). Labor economics (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Bryson, A., Forth, J., & Stokes, L. (2017). Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Human Relations: Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 70(8), 1017–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717693073
Burnes, B., & Bargal, D. (2017). Kurt Lewin: 70 years on. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1299371
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (2017). Inquiring in the present tense: The dynamic mechanism of action research. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1301045
Conlin, M. (2006, December 4). Smashing the clock. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16040492
Council of Economic Advisers. (2023, April 17). The labor supply rebound from the pandemic. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/04/17/the-labor-supply-rebound-from-the-pandemic/
David, N. A., Coutinho, J. A., & Brennecke, J. (2023). Workplace friendships: Antecedents, consequences, and new challenges for employees and organizations. In A. Gerbasi, C. Emery, & A. Parker (Eds.), Understanding workplace relationships: An examination of the antecedents and outcomes (pp. 325–368). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16640-2_11
De Neve, J. E. (2018). Work and well-being: A global perspective. In A. Blankson, A. Clark, C. Cooper, H. James, C. Krekel, J. Lim, P. Litchfield, J. Moss, M. I. Norton, M. Rojas, G. Ward, & A. V. Whillans (Eds.), Global happiness policy report (pp. 74–128). Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Domingo, V., & Melé, D. (2022). Re-thinking management: Insights from western classical humanism. Humanistic Management Journal, 7, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-021-00115-z
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Smith, R. S. (2014). Modern labor economics: Theory and public policy (12th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Eliyana, A., Ma’arif, S., & Muzakki. (2019). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment effect in the transformational leadership towards employee performance. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 25(3), 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.05.001
Endrejat, P. C., Baumgarten, F., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). When theory meets practice: Combining Lewin’s ideas about change with motivational interviewing to increase energy-saving behaviours within organizations. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1299372
Fayol, H. (1916/1965). General and industrial management (C. Storrs, Trans.). Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.
George Busuttil, L. R., & Van Weelden, S. J. (2018). Imago Dei and human resource management: How our understanding of the breath of God’s Spirit shapes the way we manage people. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 21(1).
Greenlaw, S. A., & Shapiro, D. (2017). Principles of macroeconomics 2e. OpenStax.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Center for Applied Studies.
Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139
Hatcher, T., & Bowles, T. (2013). Bridging the gap between human resource development and adult education: Part one, assumptions, definitions, and critiques. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 20(2), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.10248
Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at Work. Cambridge University Press.
Jadhav, K. R., Shenoy, S. V., Gulati, K., Chaudhary, V., Patel, A. A., & Chakrabarty, A. (2021). An investigation on the relationship between employee job satisfaction and organizational performance with particular reference to the manufacturing industry. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 12(9), 3481–3493.
Jonsen, R. H. (2017). Strategic person and organization development: Implications of imago Dei for contemporary human resource management. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 20(1). http://cbfa-cbar.org/index.php/jbib/article/view/456
Kostera, M., & Pirson, M. (Eds.). (2017). Dignity and the organization. Palgrave Macmillan.
Laker, B., Patel, C., Malik, A., & Budhwar, P. (2020, September 24). What to do when you become your friend’s boss. Harvard Business Review.
Lee, M. T. (2022). Love as a foundational principle for humanistic management. In M. Pirson (Ed.), Love and organization (pp. 5–38). Routledge.
Lehmann, S. (2017). Bridging strategies and action: Towards a method for change management in Danish emergency management organizations. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1301060
Lewin, K. (1944). The dynamics of group action. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A, 1, 195–200.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 1(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. Harper & Row. Lumpkin, J. B. (Ed.). (2019). The Negro Bible—The slave Bible: Select parts of the Holy Bible for the use of the Negro slaves of the British West-India islands. Fifth Estate.
Luthans, F., Luthans, B. C., & Luthans, K. W. (2021). Organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach (14th ed.). Information Age Publishing.
Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of an industrial civilization. Andover Press.
Megoran, N. (2022). Being “human” under regimes of human resource management: Using Black theology to illuminate humanisation and dehumanisation in the workplace. African Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.15249/16-1-290
Megoran, N. (2023). Workers as human beings: Recognising the imago Dei in the neoliberal workplace. Black Theology, 21(3), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14769948.2023.2255776
Miles, R. E. (1965). Human relations or human resources? Harvard Business Review, 43(4), 148–163.
Nyambegera, S. (2005). Human resource management: A biblical perspective. Uzima Publishing House.
Pillemer, J., & Rothbard, N. P. (2018). Friends without benefits: Understanding the dark sides of workplace friendship. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 635–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0309
Prahaladaiah, D., Udayakumar, H. M., & Soni, M. (2023). Impact of job satisfaction on employee performance: A study with reference to biblical management principles. IUP Journal of Management Research, 22(2), 49–61.
Puffer, M. (2017). Human dignity after Augustine’s Imago Dei: On the sources and uses of two ethical terms. Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics, 37(1), 65–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44504864
Pugh, D. S. (1966). Modern organization theory: A psychological and sociological study. Psychological Bulletin, 66(4), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023853
Rew, D., Siguaw, J. A., & Sheng, X. (2020). Service productivity, satisfaction, and the impact on service firm performance. Services Marketing Quarterly, 41(4), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2020.1830640
Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2018). Organizational behavior: What’s new in management (18th ed.). Pearson.
Roberts, G. (2015). Christian Scripture and human resource management: Building a path to servant leadership through faith (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Harvard University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2013). The role of organization development in the human resource function. In J. Vogelsang, M. Townsend, M. Minahan, D. Jamieson, J. Vogel, A. Viets, C. Royal, & L. Valek (Eds.), Handbook for strategic HR: Best practices in organizational development from the OD network (pp. 9–16). AMACOM.
Sharma, S., & Sharma, A. K. (2021). Relationship between high performance work-based practices, employee satisfaction, productivity and retention in IT companies: A correlational study. IUP Journal of Management Research, 20(2), 37–52.
Shields, J., & Grant, D. (2010). Psychologising the subject: HRM, commodification, and the objectification of labour. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 20(2), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/103530461002000205
Smith, M. (1945). Social situation, social behavior, social group. Psychological Review, 52(4), 224–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062051
Spitzeck, H., Pirson, M., Amann, W., Khan, S., & von Kimakowitz, E. (Eds.). (2009). Humanism in business. Cambridge University Press.
Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053857
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers.
Van der Voordt, T., & Jensen, P. A. (2023). The impact of healthy workplaces on employee satisfaction, productivity and costs. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 25(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-03-2021-0012
Wallace, J. R. (2007). Servant leadership: A worldview perspective. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 114–132.
Wu, C., Chen, I., & Chen, J. (2017). A study into the impact of employee wellness and job satisfaction on job performance. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 10(2), 252–269.