The Role of Love in Organization

What is the role of love in your organization? Take a moment and think about that question. What is your first thought when thinking about love? Does love actually matter? Does it actually exist in the organization? This article is about love in the organization. I assert that love is not only an essential ingredient to the organization's structure and function, but that the kind of love matters.

The importance of love is traced to child development. Infants need to give and receive love (Montagu, 1966), and it is assumed here that love is as important to adults as it was to infants. Why is love important? The first possible experience of love is the time of imprinting (Montagu, 1959; Loder, 1998) by the child on the mother. From that moment, the child latches onto the mother who becomes the template for the child’s identity as a human being. How the child experiences the parent/child relationship determines its health. From the very beginning, the new-born is wired for love (Montagu, 1970) in all its forms. “Out of all the basic needs to survive (oxygen, food, liquid, rest, sleep, activity, bowel and bladder elimination, protection from danger, and the avoidance of pain), the human organism needs love” (Montagu, 1959, p. 444). Though human beings may be self-sufficient, research shows that without love expressed through human relationships the person suffers or may die. After the infant is born, research shows that without love in the various forms of hugging, affirmation, caressing, holding, singing, kissing, etc., the newborn child will become lethargic, will smile less, have a lower appetite, have infrequent bowel movements, babble less, and may die. Montagu (1970) gives enough research examples to show how essential love is in human development. Without love given to the infant, the child may never learn to speak, to walk or feed themselves, and that further emotional deprivation.

For Montagu, love is built into the fabric of human life due to the dependency revealed through the creative design. Montagu proposes that creation is designed and built on love itself and sees love as the essential element upon which are built healthy human relationships (Montagu and Matson, 1979).

The point of this early emphasis on the need for love for healthy development is important because if love is so important in early development of the child, is it not important in the work and living of the adult human being? When all lower needs are reasonably satisfied, social needs become important (McGregor, 2006). Such needs are belonging, association, acceptance, affirmation, inclusion, support, encouragement, membership, friendship, touch, and all such elements that comprise of the act of love (see Van Lange, Higgins, & Kruglanski on the benefits of affectionate touch to promote bonding). Therefore, in all organizations, love, and all the elements constructing love, is an essential aspect of the social. This point of importance continues to gain strength through the exploration of the different facets of love and will become important in the discussion of love in the business context.

Types of Love

The role of love is primarily understood as romantic love called eros. However, there are two other types of love. One is phileo and the other is agape. In an organization, we frown upon romantic relationships because they are often fraught with power inequalities because the structure of the organization is hierarchical. But what about the other two? Phileo love is friendship love. We choose our friends according to certain criteria. By meeting such criteria, they earn the love they receive. Sometimes the criteria are undefined (i.e., we share chemistry), and some criteria are well define according to a pre-determined checklist. The last one is agape love, which has different "faces": compassionate love, unlimited love, altruistic love, and unselfish love. Many scholars have retained the original term agape.

Defining Love

Defining love is difficult Montagu (1970) defines love as “the relationship between persons which contributes to the welfare and development of each” (p. 464).? Oord’s (2005) definition of love is an intentional act that is done as a sympathetic response to others to promote well-being.? Promoting well-being is a common defining element of love (Oman, 2011; Oord, 2005; Post 2005; Uusiautti, M??tt?, & M??tt? (2013); Uusiautti & M??tt?, 2014). Similarly, Gorman (2015) refers to love in terms of increasing positive relationships through compassion, empathy, and through integrating emotional and social intelligences.? Love can be defined as acts, emotions, skills and knowledge (Uusiautti & M??tt?, 2014; Uusiautti, M??tt?, & M??tt?, 2013).

Sorokin (2015), like many others, viewed love through the eyes of religious traditions.? He believed love was the “‘loftiest form of freedom,’ for where there is love, there is no coercion” (p. xvii).? Love is is a creative power.? Love is flexible rather than inflexible.? Thus, a loving act allows for differences and particularities which is required to unite people and groups together.? In other words, Sorokin (2015) believed that agape love has the ability to unite people, and that such unification by the power of love is built into the cosmic processes and is part of the natural evolution of humanity. Such unity is not due to conformity, but unity amidst diversity. Therefore, love is not a commodity but has an unconditional quality.? As Sorokin (2015) wrote: “Is not Agape this aspect of love which is 'love for the sake of love'? If love were granted only to those who deserve it - the virtuous, the ‘elect’ - would not such a love become a mere commercial prize-giving to the "good boys" for their good behavior?” (p. 4).? Such love requires self-love as a requirement for loving others.? This is not ego-centered love, which is utilitarian, hedonistic, and rational in its nature, but ego-transcending.

James Loder defined love as the “non-possessive delight in the particularity of the other” (Loder & Golding 1979).? “Delighting in the particularity of the other” is seeing differences as elements that enrich the relationship.? Such differences are welcomed and encouraged rather than discouraged through imposed conformity.

Douglas and Nganga (2013) expounds on Friere’s concept of radical love as the foundation of dialog as well as the dialog itself.? Friere’s notion of love in the classroom is teachers having the courage to take the risk to let go of practices that exhibit oppression and dominance, for love “cannot exist in a relation of dominance (Friere, 1993, pg. 89, as cited by Douglas and Nganga, 2013).

Often, love is defined and understood by what it is not or by exploring its opposites (Lanas & Zembylas, 2015). If love is not being taught, then what is being taught is in the form of damaging “emotional diseases” of fear, hate, inequality, injustice, and the promotion of human conflict (Gorman, 2015).

Finding a unified and universally acceptable definition of love is an exercise in futility, and some researchers make no attempt to do so (Douglas and Nganga, 2013).? For example, Buscaglia (1972), in his “Love Class,” did not try to define love at all.? To define love was to delimit love.? Love seemed infinite (Buscaglia, 1972; Hegel, as cited by Lewis, 2013). Love neither restricts nor is restricting or controlling.? Love is a feeling, yet not a single feeling.? The possibility of the infinity of love does not help research, but the possibility of love having unlimited facets may reveal how difficult and essential the search should be.

However, there are two dynamics of love: conditional or unconditional. The dynamics of unconditional love that resound across all these authors is unselfish, altruistic, unconditional, unbinding, other-centered, agape love. Such love is not coerced, manipulated, or an exchange in any form, but is freely given (Oman, 2011).? Unconditional love as a way to unselfishly enjoy the well-being of others and to voluntarily engage in acts of care and service on their behalf without expecting anything in return.? This is done without exception in an enduring and constant way (Beauregard, et al, 2009). Citing Underwood (2008), Oman (2011) outlines five qualities of compassionate love: Valuing the other at a fundamental level, free choice for the other without coercion, have cognitive accurate understanding; to some degree, the needs and feelings of the person to be loved and choosing what might be appropriate to truly enhance the other person’s well-being; having one’s heart engaged so as to respond with love in an integrated way; and an openness and receptivity toward opportunities to give and receive love (Underwood, 2008; Oman, 2011).

The dynamic of conditional love is a love that is a commodity to be traded for behavior and belief compliance. It is love with strings attached. Love comes with spoken and unspoken conditions that one must meet in order to receive it from another. It is the "if" and "then" of a relationship. If you do "this" for me, then I will do (or give) "that" for (to) you. It is as subtle or not-so-subtle withdrawal of love until the "contract" is fulfilled.

Love in the Organization Context

So, let us take these definitions and dynamics and put it into the business or organizational context. How much does it cost for a relationship in your organization?? In other words, “What do I have to do to get you to love me?”? Or, mirroring the spirit of Inouye (2012), “What do I have to do to become lovable to you?”? And if one is to give love, the questions are equally relevant, “What are the criteria that makes one lovable or worthy to receive your love?” This is a business way of looking at love.? Depending on the answer, love is either a commodity that is to be traded or exchanged, or something that is freely given and received with “no strings attached."? As a commodity, love becomes a power and control factor due to its ability to influence through bartering for particular beliefs, thinking, behavior, and feelings.? In this way, love is given and received through coercion, manipulation, or as a reward, or withdrawn until such expectations are met.? If given and received with no strings attached, love is a fully autonomous act.

This point of conditional love was most pointedly expressed by Montagu and Matson (1979) who wrote: “Conditional love has given rise to what Fromm has called the ‘marketing’ approach to love—an approach that is fully exploited by the advertising profession. ‘Love’ is traded for ‘good’ behavior and withheld for ‘bad.’ Children so conditioned grow up to be merchandisers in ‘love’ both in the premarital and marital periods of their lives” (p. 129) which continues throughout adulthood.

Consider the questions at the beginning of this section. If there is anything one has to do to get you to love them or to become lovable to you, then that love is conditional. When love is conditional, the response is disingenuous because it is given out of compliance. In other words, if one needs or wants such love, then one will do most anything to get it-whether that is creating a false self or bending one’s self, behaviors, thinking, beliefs, and emotions to meet another’s expectations.?The relationship becomes a dependent relationship whereby one loses the ability to act autonomously and is dependent on the approval of others.? However, if the answer to the questions above is truly “nothing” (granted that some may respond with “nothing” because they are truly unaware of their expectations or the systemic or structural power and control elements), then the love is freely given with no strings attached.? Because love is freely given, the response to that love is freely given as well. In other words, the response is an authentic and autonomous expression of one’s self, one’s thoughts, and one’s feelings.

Qualities and Characteristics of Unconditional Love

Citing Underwood (2008), Oman (2011) outlines five qualities of compassionate love: Valuing the other at a fundamental level, free choice for the other without coercion, have cognitive accurate understanding; to some degree, the needs and feelings of the person to be loved and choosing what might be appropriate to truly enhance the other person’s well-being; having one’s heart engaged so as to respond with love in an integrated way; and an openness and receptivity toward opportunities to give and receive love (Underwood, 2008; Oman, 2011).

Lewis (2013) cites Hegel who said, “genuine love is only possible between equals.” This questions whether a business can be truly loving. A hierarchical system is not a system of equals, and so we might want to face the structural barriers to love. Thus, agape love as imbibing equality, social, and cultural justice and virtues, one would not be surprised to find a theme of a countercultural understanding of love as a force for transformation (Lanas and Zembylas, 2014; Douglas and Nganga, 2013) or revolution.? Lanas and Zembylas (2014) theorized that love is a transformational political concept, expounding the pedagogy of love as a way to address unjust social and educational structures (Lanas and Zembylas (2014).? Citing Chabot’s five types of human relationships, love is characterized as lacking competition, dependent on others, self-giving, willing to work with others, and choosing to give one’s self (Lanas and Zembylas, 2014).? Agape love is a love void of competition and violence, and is shown through cooperation and compassion (Cunningham, 2004, as cited by Douglas and Nganga, 2013). How would this challenge and transform the business mentality?

To see love subtly, love (though not specifically labeled as such) has been referred to as “regard” by Rogers (1995) and other researchers.? Positive regard can be either conditional or unconditional.? Conditional regard is divided into two types: Positive conditional regard, whereby rewards are given when one meets certain conditions, and negative conditional regard, whereby punishments are given as consequences.? Rewards tell a worker, "I like you" or "I approve of you," and punishments or disapproval in various ways says, "I don't like you," "change," and "I disapprove." Although the dynamics have been parsed saying, "I like you, but I do not like what you did," It is still an act of love withdrawal because one is regarded less, and a worker will change to receive positive regard. More importantly, the employee sees the relationship at risk.

Conclusion

?Let us go back to our question, "What is the role of love in your organization?" Is it conditional or unconditional? Love is a relational dynamic, and so when love is conditional, it can be used to control, which is in contrast to unconditional love which promotes autonomy. Is it a one-way love? I have heard about organizations expecting employees to love their job and their organization but never an organization loving their employees-not unconditionally anyway. It is all about spoken and unspoken contracts, return of investment, and agreements which automatically spell out the conditions for the relationship. While unconditional love may be found in dyadic relationships, such true unconditional love is held back by the structure and processes of the organization that confines the relationship to terms of employment, performance expectations, who has access to information, control of information through a chain of command, who can communicate with whom, who has more value based on performance, who has role or rank, who controls termination, etc. It makes the questions about what one has to do to become lovable clear in the minds of those who seek to belong. And if a person wants to belong, they will become whatever the organization wants them to be.

References

Beauregard, M., Courtemanche, J., Paquette, V., & St-Pierre, E. L. (2009). The neural basis of unconditional love. Psychiatry Research, 172(2), 93–8.

Buscaglia, L.F. (1872). Love. Fawcett Books.

Douglas, T. R. & Nganga, C. (2013). What’s radical love got to with it: navigating identity, pedagogy , and positionality in pre-service education. International Journal of Critical Pedago.

Gorman, J. (2015). What’s love got to do with transformative education? Journal of Sustainable Education, 1.

Lanas, M. & Zembylas, M. (2015). Towards a transformational political concept of love in critical education. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 34(1), 31–44.

Lewis, T. A. (2013). Beyond Love: Hegel on the Limits of Love in Modern Society. Journal for the History of Modern Theology, 20(1), 3–20.

Loder, J. E. & Golding, E. W. (1989). The transforming moment: Understanding convictional experiences. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Inouye, K. (2012). Conditional love; representations of migrant work in Canadian newsprint media. Social Identities, 18(5), 573–592.

McGregor, D. (2006). The Human Side of Enterprise (Annotated). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Montagu, A. (1959). Behavior as viewed in the behavioral sciences and by American education. Teachers College Record, 60, 440-448.

Montegu, A. (1966). On Being Human. New York: Hawthorn Books.

Montagu, A. (1970). A Scientist Looks at Love. The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 51(9), p. 463-467.

Montagu, A., & Matson, F. (1979). The Human Connection. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Oman, D. (2011). Compassionate love: accomplishments and challenges in an emerging scientific/spiritual research field. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(9), 945–981.

Oord, T. J. (2005). The love racket: Defining love and agape for the love-and-science research program. Zygon, 40(4), 919–938.

Post, S. G. (2005). Benevolent unlimited love, happiness, and health: Rx 'Do Unto Others'. Explore: The Journal Of Science And Healing, (5), 360.

Rogers, C. R. (1995). On Becoming a Person. Western Behavioral Sciences Institute.

Sorokin, P. A. (2015). Ways & Power Of Love: Techniques Of Moral Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press.

Underwood, L. G. (2005). Interviews with trappist monks as a contribution to research methodology in the investigation of compassionate love. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35(3), 285–301.

Uusiautti, S., Maatta, K., & Maatta, M. (2013). Love-based Practice in Education. International Journal about Parents in Education, 7(2), 134–144.

Uusiautti, S., & Maatta, K. (2014). How can teachers enhance learning as love- based leaders. The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership, 20, 1–9.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2021). Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. (P. A. M. Van Lange, E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski, Eds.) (Third). The Guilford Press.