nach oben

Erschienen in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

14. lokasaMgraha: An Indigenous Construct of Leadership and Its Measure

verfasst von : Dharm P. S. Bhawuk

Erschienen in: Managing by the Bhagavad Gītā

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Western models and constructs have dominated research in leadership. Cross-cultural research in leadership has questioned the validity of western models, but because of its focus on etics or universals, it has not provided much insight to managers in non-western cultures. We need to develop indigenous models of leadership that can provide insights to guide people’s daily behavior in work and social settings. To fill this lacuna, a small step is taken, and an Indian model of leadership is presented. The construct of lokasaMgraha is derived from the bhagavadgItA, and its relevance for leadership is examined. The construct of lokasaMgraha is further analyzed in the context of Indian concept of self, stages of life (varNAzrama dharma), and the four objectives of life (puruSArthas). This approach results in a rich cultural model of leadership. The construct of lokasaMgraha proposes that not only leaders but also their followers should act so that all their actions are for the greater public good. In other words, leadership is about serving others. All actions, thus, are to be performed without hankering after the outcomes or fruits of one’s efforts, which is the doctrine of niSkAma karma proposed in the bhagavadgItA. The model is grounded in the idea that willy-nilly we are all on a spiritual journey. Implications of this model for global psychology and future research are discussed.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Distinguishing Revelation Politics from Salvation Theology in The Bhagavad Gita’s Message for Leaders and Managers

Nächstes Kapitel Epilogue: Timeless Teachings of the Bhagavad Gītā

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Verse 3.42: indriyaNi parANyahurindriyebhyaH paraM manaH; manasastu parA budhhiryo buddheH paratastu saH. The five senses are said to be superior to the body, and the manas is superior to the senses. Buddhi is said to be superior to manas, and the Atman is superior to even buddhi.

See Bhawuk, 2011a, Chapter 4, for a definition and discussion of manas, buddhi, ahaMkAra, and antaHkaraNa. The closest translation of ahaMkAra would be ego, which comes at the cost of much loss of meaning. People often use mind for manas, which is simply wrong, since manas is the locus of cognition, affect and behavior, whereas mind is only cognitive. And buddhi is closest to the super-ego in Freudian parlance, but without ego, which makes the similarity rather superficial. And antaHkaraNa is the composite internal organ or agent combining manas, buddhi, and ahaMkAra. Adizankara also includes citta in the definition of antaHkaraNa (see Bhawuk,2014 for a discussion of citta).

Verse 7.11: balaM balavatAM cAhaM kAmarAgavivarjitaM, dharmAviruddho bhUteSu kAmo’smi bharatarSabha. I am also the strength of the strong who are without desire and attachment. I am the desire in all beings, which is not against the dharma. In this verse, first kRSNa tells arjuna that he (kRSNa himself) is strength of those who are devoid of desire and attachment, which speaks against having desires or attachment to anything. Strength lies in being without desire and attachment alludes to niSkAma karma, or performing actions without desiring the outcomes of the actions, which is the basic tenet of the bhagavadgItA. niSkAma karma is always for lokasaMgraha or common good, and, therefore, without craving for any outcome. Then he further explains that he is kAma or desire that is consistent with dharma. This indicates that desire or pleasure is to be guided by dharma. Thus, the guiding principle for leading one’s life as a gRhastha or householder is to practice niSkAma karma and to follow the dharma.

cANakya listed the following eight “don’ts” for students: desire, anger, greed, taste, finery or paying attention to how one looks, pleasure or entertainment (e.g., song, dance, show, spectacle, and so forth), too much sleep, and enjoying anything excessively or immoderately. Only taste, finery and pleasure are acceptable in the householder phase of life. Other don’ts apply to all phases of life.

Verse 3.20: karmaNaiva hi saMsiddhimAsthitA janakAdayaH, lokasaGgrahamevApi sampazyankartumarhasi. Adi zaMkara interprets saMsiddhiM as mokSaM gantum (or achieved mokSa), and asthitAH as pravRttA or propelled by.

Verse 3.25: saktAH karmaNyavidvAMso yathA kurvanti bhArat, kuryAdvidvAMstathAsaktazcikIrSuloksaGgraham.

Verse 12.5: samniyamyendriyagrAmaM sarvatra samabuddhayaH, te prApnuvanu mAmeva sarvabhUtahite ratAH.

Verse 2.39: eSA te’bhihitA sAGkhye buddhiyoge tvimAM zriNu; buddhayA yukto yayA PArtha karmabandhaM prahAsyasi.

Verse 3.9: yajnArthAtkarmaNo’nyatra loko’yaM karmabandhanaH; tadartha karma Kaunteya muktasaGgaH samAcAra.

Verse 9.28: zubhAzubhaphalairevaM mokshyase karmabandhanaiH; sannyAsayogayuktAtma vimukto mAmupaiSyasi.

Verse 2.47: karmaNyevAdhikAraste mA phaleSu kadAcana; mA karmaphalaheturbhUrmA te saGgo’stvakarmaNi.

Verse 2.48: yogasthaH kuru karmANi saGgaMtyaktvA DhanaJjaya; siddhyaasiddhayoH samo bhUtvA samatvaM yoga ucyate.

zankarAcArya explains yogasthaH kuru karmANi saga tyaktva DhanaJjaya in his BhaSya as follows: yogasthaH san kuru karmANi kevalam IzvarArthaM tatra api Izvaro me tuSyatu iti saGga tyaktvA DhanaJjaya!

Verse 2.49: dUreNa hyavaraM karma buddhiyogAddhanaJjaya; buddhau zaraNamanviccha kripaNaH phalahetavaH.

brihadAranyak 3, 8. 10: Yo vA atadaksharaM GArgyaviditvAsmAllokAtpraiti sa kripaNaH. Cited in ZankarAcArya’s commentary (goyandakA, 2004, p. 62).

kenopaniSad 2.5: iha cedavedIdatha satyamasti na cedihAvedInmahatI vinaStiH.

Verse 3.42: indriyANi parANyAhurindriyebhyaH paraM manaH; manasastu parA buddhiyor buddheH paratastu saH. The senses are said to be superior to the gross body, and manas is superior to the senses. Buddhi is superior to manas, and atman is superior to buddhi.

Verse 10.10: teSAM satatayuktAnAM bhajatAM prItipUrvakaM; dadAmi buddhiyogaM taM yena mAmupayAnti te. I give buddhiyoga to those who are constantly engrossed in me and chant my name with love. With buddhiyoga they achieve me.

Verse 18.57: cetasa sarva karmANi mayi saMnyasya matparaH; buddhiyogamupAzritya maccitaH satataM bhava. By surrendering all the karma with your citta or manas (e.g., voluntarily and naturally), surrender yourself completely to me. By taking shelter in buddhiyoga constantly place your citta or manas in me, i.e., become one with me.

zankarAcArya also notes two kinds of buddhi in the opening statement of his commentary on the third canto of the Bhagavad-Gita—zAstrasya pravrittinivrittiviSayabhUte dve buddhI bhagavatA nirdiSte, sAGkhye buddhiH yoge buddhiH iti ca. kriSNa enumerates two kinds of buddhi in the bhagavadgItA, a buddhi that is inner bound employed by the jJAnis or those who follow the path of knowledge and a buddhi that is outer bound employed by people pursuing material life (goyandakA, 2004, p. 76).

Verse 2.50: buddhiyukto jahAtIha ubhe sukritaduSkrite; tasmAdyogAya yujyasva yogaH karmasu kauzalam.

Yogo hi karmasu kauzalaM svadharmAkhyeSu karmasu vartamAnasya yA siddhayasiddhayoH samatvabuddhiH IzvarArpitacetastayA tat kauzalaM kuzalabhAvaH (Goyandaka, 2004, p. 62).

Verse 2.51: karmajaM buddhiyuktvA hi phalaM tyaktvA manISiNaH; janmabandhavinirmuktAH padaM gacchantyanAmayam.

Verse 3.1: jyAyasI cetkarmaNaste matA buddhirJanardan; tatkiM karmaNi ghore mAM niyojayasi KeZava.

Verse 3.3: loke’smindvividhA niSTha purA proktA mayAnagha; jnAnayogena sAGkhyAnAM karmayogena yoginAM.

Verse 3.4: na karmaNAmanArambhAnnaiSkarmyaM puriSo’znute;na ca saMnyasanAdeva siddhiM samadhigacchati.

Verse 3.5: na hi kazcitksaNamapi jAtu tiSThatyakarmakrit; kAryate hyavazaH karma sarvaH prakitjairguNaiH.

Verse 3.6: karmendriyANi saMyamya ya Aste manasA smaran; indriyArthAnvimudhAtma mithyacarH sa ucyate.

Verse 3.7: yastvindriyANi manasa niyamyArabhate’rjuna; karmendriyaiH karmayogamasaktaH sa viziSyate.

Verse 3.8: niyataM kuru karma tvaM karma jyayo hyakarmaNaH; zrIrayAtrApi ca ten a prasiddhyedakarmaNaH.

niyataM nityaM yo yasmin karmaNi adhikritaH phalAya ca azrutaaM tad niyataM (goyandakA, 2004, p. 88).

Verse 3.20: karmaNaiva hi saMsidhimAsthitA JanakAdayaH; loksaMgrahamevApi saMpazyankartumarhasi.

Verse 4.15: evaM jnAtvA kritaM karma pUrvairapi mumukshubhiH; kuru karmaiva tasmAttvaM pUrvaiH pUrvataraM kritam.

Verse 3.21: yadyadAcarati zreSThastattadevetarA janaH; sa yatpramANaM kurute lokstadanuvartate. Verse 3.22: na me ParthAsti kartvyaM triSu lokeSu kiMcana; nAnavAptamavAptavyaM varta eva ca karmaNi.

Since God is gender free or can be either male or female, I prefer to use “he and she” when referring to God instead of he or she.

Verse 4.14: na maM karmANi limpanti na me karmaphale sprihA; iti mAM yo’bhijanati karmabhirna sa badhyate.

Verse 3.25: saktAH karmaNyavidvAMso yathA kurvanti Bharata; kuryAdvidvAMstathAsaktazcikIrSurloksaMgraham.

Verse 3.26: na buddhibhedaM janayedajnAnAM karmasaNginAm; joSayetsarvakarmANi vidvAnyuktaH samAcaran.

Verse 3.27: prakriteH kriyamANAni gunaiH karmaNi sarvazaH; ahaMkarvimudhAtmA kartAhamiti manyate.

Verse 3.28: tattvavittu m = MahAbAho guNakarmavibhAgayoH; guNa guNeSu vartante iti matvA na sajjate.

Verse 4.13: cAturvarnyaM mayA sriSTaM guNakarmavibhAgazaH; tasya kartAramapi mAM viddhyakartAramavyayam.

Verse 3.29: prakriterguNasaMmUDhaH sajjante guNakarmasu; tAnakritsnavido mandAnkritasnavinna vicAleyet.

Verse 3.26: na budddhi bhedaM janayedajnAnAM karmasaGginAm, joSayetsarvakarmANi vidvAnyuktaH samAcaran.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. (1955). Role differentiation. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (in collaboration with J. Olds, M. Zelditch, Jr., and P. E. Slater) (Eds.), Family, socialization, and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.

Bharati, A. (1985). The self in Hindu thought and action. In Marsella, A. J., DeVos, G., & Hsu, F. L. K. (Eds). Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 185–230). New York, NY: Tavistock Publications.

Bhawuk, D. P. (2003). Culture’s influence on creativity: the case of Indian spirituality. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(1), 1–22.CrossRef

Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2005). A model of self, work, and spirituality from the Bhagavad-Gita: Implications for self-efficacy, goal setting, and global psychology. In K. Ramakrishna Rao & S. B. Marwaha (Eds.), Toward a spiritual psychology: Essays in Indian psychology (pp. 41–71). Samvad Indian Foundation: New Delhi.

Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2008). Toward an Indian organizational psychology. In K. R. Rao, A. C. Paranjpe, & A. K. Dalal (Eds.), Handbook of Indian psychology (pp. 471–491). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2011). Spirituality and Indian psychology: Lessons from the Bhagavad-Gita. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2014). citta or consciousness: Some perspectives from Indian psychology. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 28(1 & 2), 37–43.

Bhawuk, D. P. S., Mrazek, S., & Munusamy, V. P. (2009). From social engineering to community transformation: Amul, Grameen Bank, and Mondragon as exemplar organizations. Peace & Policy, 14, 36–63.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Cakrabarti, S. K. (1987). Managerial effectiveness and quality of work life: Indian insights. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.

Cakrabarti, S. K. (1993). Managerial transformation by values: A corporate pilgrimage. New Delhi: Sage.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647.CrossRef

Cropanzano, R., Dasborough, M. T., & Weiss, H. M. (2017). Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 233–258.CrossRef

England, G. W. (1975). The manager and his values: An international perspective. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.

Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance., 5, 277–298.CrossRef

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of the empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128–148.CrossRef

Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

goyandakA, H. (2004). zrImadbhagavadgItA zAMkarabhASya. Gorakhpur, India: Gita Press.

Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–166). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.CrossRef

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 39–51). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Hemphill, J. K. (1950). Relations between the size of the group and the behavior of “superior” leaders. The Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 11–22.CrossRef

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences (2nd ed.). California: Sage.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly., 16, 321–328.CrossRef

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352.CrossRef

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, L–97.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, & political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Kahn, R. L., & Katz, D. (1952). Leadership practices in relation to productivity and morale. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Kahn, R., & Katz, D. (1953). Leadership practices in relation to productivity and morale. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 554–571). New York: Harper & Row.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1951). Human organization and worker motivation. Industrial Relations Research Association: Industrial Productivity.

Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12(1), 62–82.CrossRef

Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model of social beliefs in multi-cultural perspective. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 119–197). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299.CrossRef

muktAnand, S. (1995). muktesvarI (second edition). ganezapurI. India: gurudeva siddha pITha.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture., 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Shartle, C. L. (1979). Early years of the Ohio State University leadership studies. Journal of Management, 5(2), 127–134.CrossRef

sinhA, J. B. P. (1980). The nurturant task leader. New Delhi: Concept Publishing House.

sinhA, J. B. P. (1990). Work culture in the Indian context. New Delhi: Sage.

sinhA, J. B. P. (1995). The cultural context of leadership and power. New Delhi: Sage.

sinhA, J. B. P. (2000). Patterns of work culture: Cases and strategies for culture building. New Delhi: Sage.

Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small groups. American Sociological Review, 20(3), 300–310.CrossRef

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. Oxford: Wiley.

Triandis, H. C. (2009). Fooling ourselves: Self-deception in politics, religion, and terrorism. Westport, CT: Praeger.

vedavyAsa. (1970). zrImadbhAgavatam-mahApurANa. gorakhpura. Gorakhpur: Gita Press.

Wilson, M. S. (2010). Developing tomorrow’s leader today: Insights from corporate India. Singapore: Wiley.

Titel: lokasaMgraha: An Indigenous Construct of Leadership and Its Measure
verfasst von: Dharm P. S. Bhawuk
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Managing by the Bhagavad Gītā
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99610-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-99611-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99611-0_14

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner