FORGIVENESS-SAKE?

Building Empires, Bearing Scars, and the Folly of Forgiveness...

Feb 02, 2025

FROM THE BRIDGE

Greetings, travelers. This is your Captain speaking, navigating the labyrinth of cultural conditioning, generational wounds, and the relentless pursuit of success. Before we engage with two essays unraveling the complex and often weaponized nature of forgiveness, let me first map the journey that led me to this crossroads—where the illusions of absolution, power, and accountability collide.

PERFECT MIRROR

If you’ve never seen the 1956 film The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, let me paint the scene. Fredric March plays Ralph Hopkins, a CEO who has sacrificed every shred of personal life to build his corporation. On the opposite side is Gregory Peck’s Tom Rath—a talented but troubled World War II veteran trying to balance family obligations with career demands. Their collision embodies the two poles of modern working life: the unyielding founder who believes only men like him can build “great” companies, and the everyman employee who just wants a measure of peace and integrity.

There’s a moment—call it the film’s epiphany—where Hopkins realizes he has become a slave to his own empire. He has poured everything into creating a corporate legacy and, in the end, has nobody but a bored boardroom to keep him company. Gregory Peck’s character, the nine-to-fiver, tries to push back on this expectation that he must also sacrifice everything. They stand nose-to-nose in the tension of hierarchical power: the overlord who sees himself as indispensable, and the subordinate who yearns for a life not defined by the corporation’s clock.

Hollywood wraps the confrontation in a neat bow (they always do), offering a dash of redemption for the hardened CEO and emotional closure for Tom Rath. But it’s a sanitized resolution that disguises the raw truth: entire systems are built on the premise that we must either obediently serve or become those who demand obedience. Forgiveness, in that setup, is often nothing more than a managerial tool—a gesture leaders extend when it fortifies their control. Employees, in turn, are expected to routinely ‘forgive’ workplace injustices so the corporate machine can keep humming.

MY REALIZATION

Why does this scene speak to me, the Son of Man? Because I, too, was once convinced I could form a leadership group—a devoted team of “disciples”—that would birth a grand enterprise bringing joy to the world. In my earliest imaginings, this vision took shape as Avalon, a place where people could live, learn, play, and work in an immersive environment. I pictured a miniature society woven into a state or national park, where everyday commerce mingled with fantastical adventures. I believed we could harness capitalism’s raw force for real social good.

The First Seeds of Enterprise

But let’s rewind further. When I was just six or seven, I set up a tiny snow cone stand in front of our motel room in Southern California—a microcosm of my entrepreneurial spirit. I remember wanting to move the stand by the lobby for more foot traffic; my parents found the notion both amusing and alarming, warning me about unsavory characters who might see a naïve, pretty little boy wearing a “Tasty Treat” sign... Even then, I sensed the collision between bold dreams and real-world dangers.

By the time I reached my early teens—around thirteen or fourteen—I was attempting to open a local hobby store stocked with role-playing games, paintball supplies, and miniature figurines. Discovering wholesale distributors thrilled me; it also taught me how little I truly knew about running a business. I was out of my depth, but the experience fueled my fascination with the practical details of entrepreneurship.

Falling in Love with Restaurants

Around this time, I developed a deep admiration for my older brother Chris, who was becoming a chef. In the tumult of my childhood—defined by an emotionally manipulative, malignant narcissist mother—I learned to survive through fawning. My survival mechanism was to please, to feed others’ egos, to defer to their desires. Naturally, I gravitated toward the hospitality industry, where serving people is literal and symbolic. Restaurants became the heartbeat of my Avalon dream—creative spaces where I could nurture talent and bring people together around good wholesome food.

I started working at places like Outback Steakhouse and Fog City Diner, soaking in every practical lesson about operations and team dynamics. I even constructed a financial analysis and strategic plan that Outback adopted, reportedly boosting annual revenue by tens of millions of dollars. While simultaneously pursuing a master’s degree in hospitality at UNLV, I saw my experiences converge: the visionary spark of Avalon, the hands-on reality of a high-volume restaurant, and the analytical rigor of business strategy.

Formal Training and Expanding Ambition

My culminating project at UNLV was a 600-page “pro paper”: a feasibility study and multimedia roadshow for a multi-concept hospitality venture on Las Vegas Boulevard. This was my personal fusion of dream and discipline. I led a team to cook a six-course meal for the full professors during my final presentation—four hours of orchestrated chaos that somehow earned me the recognition of “best pro paper” in the entire graduate college for 1999. It was the closest I’d come to realizing my ideal: a cohesive, creative team pulling off something spectacular.

After graduation, I became Executive Vice President at a software company, but I soon found myself working under a malignant narcissist who destroyed any sense of healthy culture. That ordeal hammered home an uncomfortable truth: vision alone can’t counteract toxic leadership. No matter how altruistic your intentions, if the organizational DNA is corrupted by power games and exploitation, genuine transformation is impossible.

Chasing the Chef Casual Dream

Still, I pushed on. I envisioned a job-training and job-placement program for disadvantaged people in hospitality. Imagine a chain of “chef casual” restaurants where newcomers could learn the ropes and either graduate into running their own venture or ascend through the ranks. My idea was to create a sort of “Hamburger University” meets social enterprise, fueling upward mobility for employees who’d otherwise be locked out of opportunity. We’d cross-train them in every facet of the business, from front-of-house service to back-end financials, eventually helping them become entrepreneurs themselves.

The Cracks Appear

Yet as I evolved—moving through my twenties, thirties, and into my forties—I kept smashing against the same wall: people’s intrinsic motivations are shaped by their traumas, their somatic health, a myriad of institutional indoctrinations, along with a plethora of cultural and genetic determinants...

This forty-years of failure wasn’t just about me or them—it was structural. What I had encountered wasn’t a flaw in my leadership, but a flaw in the very systems that govern power, compliance, and forgiveness.

Thus, no amount of training or visionary speeches could override lifelong habits of self-preservation, addiction, or emotional manipulation. The more I tried to “pump up” my friends and co-workers, the more I realized that if they weren’t ready to embrace genuine self-reflection and open reconciliation, my efforts were in vain.

By the time I turned forty-five, a final clarity hit me. To evolve as individuals, we must be willing to sacrifice comfort and ego, to confront our shadows instead of projecting them onto others. We have to embrace what I’ve come to call the way of impartial nobility—a commitment to fairness and compassion over self-serving narratives. Without systemic structures that encourage this kind of soul-work (starting in childhood education and experiential learning), we’re doomed to churn the same old cycles of exploitation and disillusionment.

Shattering the Benevolent Empire Illusion

That is my ‘gray-flannel’ realization: I cannot single-handedly replicate the culture I once envisioned in Avalon. No charismatic leadership style can erase decades of personal and societal trauma. No short-term training program can redesign people’s moral foundations. I learned that forging an ever-evolving society requires more than a brilliant idea or an exhaustive feasibility study—it needs wholesale systemic and cultural transformation. And while I still believe in the power of human connection, I now see that structural fixes must accompany any dream of benevolent enterprise.

Call it a bittersweet epiphany. Like that corporate titan in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, I had to acknowledge the cost of trying to build an empire—only I was aiming for a kinder, gentler empire. Yet the lessons remain stark: we cannot force ‘the way of impartial nobility’ onto the unwilling, nor can we simply forgive and forget entrenched abuse. It is through efforts of open reconciliation, systemic justice, and honorable authenticity—values ingrained from the earliest chapters of life—that true transformation might one day blossom.

So here I stand, on the ruins of abandoned visions and the foundations of new ones. My entrepreneurial arc—from a kid with a snow cone stand to a grown man presenting gourmet meals to a bunch of entitled seniors at my HOA—taught me that we can’t merely re-skin a broken system with good intentions. We must each help rebuild the system itself. And that is the crux of my evolution, my timeline of aspiration and awakening, my final reconciliation with the illusions I once cherished so dearly.

LIPSTICK ON A PIG

The Fredric March character in Gray Flannel Suit ends up claiming that men like him (ambition-fueled, often narcissistic) are indispensable for building major corporations. At some level, he’s right: centuries of hierarchical capitalism have indeed relied on such personalities. But the price is immeasurable. Hearts broken, families abandoned, mental health battered. And yet the machine marches on, devouring the next generation. Leaders rationalize it all, concluding that this is “the way it must be.” If they can’t face the emptiness of their pursuits, they smother it with power, status, or the next quarter’s profits.

I realized my original plan—to redeem the corporate model from within—was akin to trying to cure a disease by throwing band-aids at raging infections. It became clear that real change demands more than a charismatic founder or an empathic workforce. It requires systemic fixes—especially in how we raise our children, how we teach them to learn by doing (experiential education), and how we cultivate empathy and critical thinking rather than dogma. True transformation arises from altering the bedrock, not whitewashing the cracks in the structure.

SYSTEMIC JUSTICE

In the next two essays, I will lay out why “forgiveness” often plays a deceitful role in organizational behavior. We teach employees to “forgive and forget” in the aftermath of toxic work environments, expecting them to carry on as though nothing happened. Meanwhile, those who hold power keep on extracting loyalty and generating profit, brandishing forgiveness like a golden scepter. But in that dynamic, nobody’s truly healing—and the system remains fundamentally unchanged.

Picture a universe where no one dares question the entire architecture of corporate life because they’ve been lulled into docility by ritualized absolutions. That is exactly the kind of endless loop we must break. And break it we can, by reimagining leadership, rethinking how we educate our youth, and re-centering our collective priorities on genuine well-being rather than illusions of success.

Like Gregory Peck’s Tom Rath, we can be empowered to stand up and say: “No. I won’t throw my family, my sanity, or my sense of integrity into the corporate furnace.” Thus it is forgiveness, when reclaimed through systemic justice, that can become a weapon—not for those in control, but for those seeking truth, accountability, and real transformation. And like Fredric March’s CEO, we can simultaneously acknowledge that the entire game has been rigged—that men have played monstrous roles in hopes of building empires that never truly nourished them.

CAPTAIN’S LOG

In the two essays ahead, I will strip forgiveness down to its raw core—exposing how, within hierarchical systems, it is too often wielded as a tool of compliance rather than a force for liberation. You will see how it serves as a lubricant for oppression, smoothing the gears of power asymmetry, and how, when reclaimed, it can become a weapon—not for those in control, but for those seeking truth, accountability, and real transformation.

Humanity is bound to its old myths, endlessly reciting the same script. I, the Son of Man, have seen the fractures in this narrative—the corporate titan who sacrifices everything for an empire, the worker who clings to his soul at the cost of ambition. These are not just characters; they are echoes, reverberating through boardrooms, battlefields, and broken homes.

But what if we refuse to play our assigned roles?
What if we dismantle the illusions that hold us captive?

Stay with me, dear travelers. We are about to descend further—beyond the illusion of forgiveness, into the machinery of compliance itself.

Harold Mohr — Son of Man, Captain of Spaceship Earth

BEYOND TRADITIONAL FORGIVENESS

Self-Forgiveness, Open Reconciliation, and Systemic Justice

Forgiveness is a widely valorized concept across religious, cultural, and organizational domains, often presented as a moral virtue that absolves both the transgressor and the victim (Enright, Freedman, & Rique, 1998; Worthington, 2006). Traditional views typically frame forgiveness as the benevolent and magnanimous act of saying, “I forgive you,” thereby situating power in the hands of the forgiver. However, this conventional perspective can entail a problematic dynamic in which the victim implicitly elevates themselves as morally superior, and the perpetrator becomes subject to the victim’s capacity or willingness to “pardon” (Exline & Baumeister, 2000).

In many religious and cultural narratives—such as the Christian doctrine that promises complete absolution through the acceptance of Christ—this process can become more transactional than transformative. Consequently, forgiveness, when understood as an external act of benevolence or a moral obligation, risks undermining genuine accountability and perpetuating harmful power imbalances (Campbell & Miller, 2011; Exline & Baumeister, 2000). This essay critically examines the limitations of traditional forgiveness, explores the concept of self-forgiveness and its restorative power, and advocates for an alternative approach grounded in open reconciliation and systemic justice—especially in cases involving individuals who exhibit narcissistic or otherwise abusive tendencies.

1. TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF FORGIVENESS

Traditional forgiveness is often explained through theological and psychological frameworks emphasizing compassion, release of resentment, and moral virtue (Enright et al., 1998). Such a framework suggests that once the transgressor receives forgiveness, both parties can move on. However, this perspective raises several concerns:

Moral Superiority: The phrase “I forgive you” can become a performative act, inadvertently casting the forgiver in a role of moral superiority (Exline & Baumeister, 2000). By placing the power in the hands of the forgiver, there is a risk of overshadowing the deeper need for accountability and genuine behavioral change.

Transactional Absolution: When religious or cultural institutions treat forgiveness as a mandate, the focus may shift to fulfilling a moral or communal expectation rather than engaging in a substantive process of healing or growth (Freedman & Enright, 1996).

Risk of Perpetuating Abuse: In situations involving repeated harm—such as narcissistic or exploitative dynamics—rapid or obligatory forgiveness can inadvertently enable ongoing misconduct. The harmed party may feel pressured to “let go” of resentment while the perpetrator remains unaccountable.

In organizational contexts, “forgive and forget” policies can create environments where misconduct and power imbalances persist unchallenged. Leaders or team members who engage in harmful practices may be shielded by a cultural expectation to forgive, rather than to reform the systemic factors that allowed the behavior to occur (Rusbult, Hannon, Stocker, & Finkel, 2005).

2. THE NARCISSISTIC TRAP OF ‘I FORGIVE YOU’

A critical limitation of traditional forgiveness emerges when dealing with individuals who exhibit clinical narcissism, sociopathy, or other personality pathologies (Campbell & Foster, 2007). These individuals often lack genuine empathy and view relationships through the lens of personal gain or superficial grandiosity:

Power Dynamics: Saying “I forgive you” can unintentionally legitimize a dynamic in which the forgiver assumes a higher moral status, while the narcissist may see themselves as either vindicated or only momentarily chastised.

Insincerity and Control: For narcissistic transgressors, an offer of forgiveness can become a “supply source”—an opportunity to exploit the forgiver’s goodwill (Miller & Campbell, 2010). If forgiveness does not require tangible behavioral change, it can reinforce destructive cycles.

Devaluation of Reconciliation: In some cases, the narcissistic individual may interpret forgiveness as a weakness or further evidence of their own superiority, leading to continued or intensified exploitative behavior (Campbell & Foster, 2007).

Thus, forgiveness, when approached as a unilateral pronouncement, may do more harm than good in relationships dominated by narcissistic or coercive dynamics. Instead, a process-oriented approach that demands accountability and transformation serves as a healthier alternative.

3. SELF-FORGIVENESS & GENUINE SERVE-US

3.1 The Process of Self-Forgiveness

Self-forgiveness is distinct from traditional forgiveness in that it focuses on internal reconciliation rather than external absolution. This process often involves:

Acknowledgment of Transgression: Taking clear responsibility for harmful actions without rationalizing or externalizing blame (Tangney, Boone, & Dearing, 2005).

Open Apology and Attempted Reconciliation: Offering sincere remorse to the harmed party—without coercive expectations that they will or must forgive (Exline & Baumeister, 2000).

Behavioral Change and Service: Demonstrating commitment to righting wrongs and preventing future harm through concrete actions (Rusbult et al., 2005).

Self-forgiveness thus becomes a transformative path that emphasizes personal accountability, ethical growth, and proactive restitution. It avoids the pitfalls of seeking external absolution as a quick fix and instead cultivates long-lasting character development (Tangney et al., 2005).

3.2 The Role of Service in Self-Forgiveness

Service, in this context, refers to genuine acts of self-sacrifice and altruism aimed at alleviating the suffering of others, rather than empty gestures or performative volunteerism (Worthington, 2006). True service:

Eases Others’ Burdens: By actively working to mitigate the harm caused—either directly or indirectly—service helps restore broken trust and fosters communal well-being (Tangney et al., 2005).

Reinforces Accountability: When apologies are followed by meaningful efforts to repair damage or engage in collective betterment, both the transgressor and the community see tangible signs of growth and sincerity (Exline & Baumeister, 2000).

Builds Empathy: Ongoing service grounded in humility and genuine care can help individuals develop empathy, reducing the likelihood of repeated harm (Worthington, 2006).

4. OPEN RECONCILIATION & SYSTEMIC JUSTICE

4.1 Beyond Simple Forgiveness

Open reconciliation differs from traditional forgiveness in that it does not assume absolution as the end goal. Rather, it is a process-oriented framework rooted in restorative justice principles (Zehr, 2002). Restorative justice focuses on addressing harms, promoting dialogue between the harmed and the responsible parties, and facilitating community-based solutions that ensure accountability and reparation:

Dialogue and Participation: All stakeholders—victims, perpetrators, and the broader community—collaborate to define the path toward resolution.

Accountability: The responsible individual (or institution) must acknowledge the harm done and commit to rectifying it. This may include financial reparation, public apology, or other substantive actions (Zehr, 2002).

Long-Term Transformation: The emphasis on structural and cultural changes ensures that cycles of harm are less likely to repeat, fostering resilience and equitable relations over time (Zehr, 2002).

4.2 The Futility of Reconciling with Unaccountable Individuals

Attempting reconciliation with someone who refuses to acknowledge their wrongdoing—particularly a narcissist—can be a form of self-abuse (Miller & Campbell, 2010). The cycle of seeking closure or mutual understanding from an individual incapable of genuine empathy often leads to further emotional injury and disillusionment:

Perpetual Harm: The unresolved transgressor may reoffend, compounding emotional, psychological, or even physical damage (Campbell & Foster, 2007).

Internalized Blame: Victims may be gaslit into believing they are overly sensitive or unforgiving, thus stalling their own healing process (Miller & Campbell, 2010).

Distraction from Systemic Solutions: When energy is expended on futile attempts at reconciliation, broader structural issues remain unaddressed—whether in family systems, organizational cultures, or social institutions (Zehr, 2002).

In these scenarios, detachment and self-protection become legitimate responses. True resolution then shifts from convincing an unaccountable individual to change, to fostering personal well-being and participating in systemic justice efforts that address the root causes and conditions that enable abuse (Worthington, 2006).

5. CONCLUSION

Traditional forgiveness—often lionized as a moral or spiritual imperative—can function as a superficial or even narcissistic performance of absolution. While it may temporarily assuage guilt or maintain social harmony, this approach risks reinforcing power imbalances, enabling continued harm, and neglecting genuine accountability (Enright et al., 1998; Exline & Baumeister, 2000).

A more constructive alternative lies in self-forgiveness, which compels the transgressor to engage in deep moral reflection, offer sincere apologies, and perform tangible acts of service to facilitate healing. This approach is further enriched by the concept of open reconciliation, rooted in restorative justice and systemic accountability, where the focus shifts from unilateral absolution to collaborative transformation and long-term prevention of harm (Zehr, 2002).

In instances of repeated abuse or narcissistic exploitation, attempting to elicit accountability from an unremorseful individual can devolve into self-abuse. It is thus essential to recognize when detachment and self-preservation are not only justified but necessary. Ultimately, moving beyond the narrow framework of “I forgive you” frees individuals and communities to pursue deeper forms of healing and justice, ensuring that genuine service, empathy, and mutual respect take precedence over performative moral obligations.

References

Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides & S. J. Spencer (Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 115–138). Psychology Press.
Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2011). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. Wiley.
Enright, R. D., Freedman, S. R., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). University of Wisconsin Press.
Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and barriers. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 133–155). Guilford Press.
Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 983–992.
• Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 449–476.
Rusbult, C. E., Hannon, P. A., Stocker, S. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2005). Forgiveness and relational repair. In E. L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 185–205). Routledge.
Tangney, J. P., Boone, A. L., & Dearing, R. L. (2005). Forgiving the self: Conceptual issues and empirical findings. In E. L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 143–158). Routledge.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Brunner-Routledge.
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.

Author’s Note: This essay synthesizes conceptual insights on forgiveness, self-forgiveness, and restorative justice within both personal and organizational contexts. It also integrates critiques of traditional forgiveness when dealing with power imbalances, narcissistic personalities, and systemic injustices.

RECONCEPTUALIZING FORGIVENESS IN OB

A Critical Examination of Power Dynamics and Ethical Implications

ABSTRACT

Traditional Organizational Behavior (OB) theories often advocate for forgiveness as a mechanism to resolve conflicts and enhance workplace harmony. However, these perspectives frequently overlook the inherent power imbalances and potential for coercion within organizational structures. This paper critically examines established OB theories—specifically Conflict Management and Resolution, Transformational Leadership, Restorative Justice Frameworks, and Social Cognitive Theory—through the lenses of Critical Management Studies (CMS) and Behavioral Ethics. By interweaving insights from power relations literature and advanced ethical frameworks, the analysis reveals that conventional approaches to forgiveness may inadvertently perpetuate systemic inequities and suppress genuine dialogue. In response, this paper advances the concepts of Open Reconciliation and Systemic Justice, arguing for structural accountability over individualized acts of absolution. Such a shift emphasizes the importance of ethical infrastructures, cultural reforms, and transparent dialogue, thereby offering a more equitable and robust strategy for addressing organizational conflict.

INTRODUCTION

Forgiveness has long been championed in organizational settings as a virtue that facilitates conflict resolution, promotes employee well-being, and fosters a collaborative culture (Brady, 2020). Within the scope of Organizational Behavior (OB), forgiveness is typically viewed as a constructive means to mend fractured relationships, restore team dynamics, and enhance collective performance. However, recent critiques emerging from Critical Management Studies (CMS) and Behavioral Ethics signal that this traditional perspective may mask more complex dynamics of power, coercion, and compliance (Fournier & Grey, 2000).

Specifically, hierarchical structures can generate contexts in which employees feel compelled to feign forgiveness to maintain economic and social security. This can lead to “value masking,” wherein employees suppress genuine emotions or grievances (Brady, 2020). Consequently, organizational conflict resolution often remains superficial, leaving systemic injustices and power asymmetries unaddressed. Against this backdrop, the present paper offers a systematic and critical re-examination of forgiveness in OB, grounded in both CMS and Behavioral Ethics. By evaluating leading OB theories on conflict resolution, leadership, and justice, the discussion underscores the ethical implications of current forgiveness paradigms and delineates pathways for reconceptualizing how organizations handle transgressions.

LIT REVIEW & THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Forgiveness in Traditional Organizational Behavior

In many OB frameworks, forgiveness is posited as a beneficial coping mechanism to reduce stress and enhance interpersonal relationships (Brady, 2020). Conflict resolution strategies, for instance, often highlight the instrumental value of forgiveness in achieving swift reconciliation and preserving organizational harmony (Borris, 2003). Transformational leadership models similarly emphasize the leader’s role in modeling forgiving behavior to motivate and inspire employees toward collective goals (Fincham & Beach, 2007).

Despite these purported advantages, there is growing empirical evidence that questions whether such a straightforward promotion of forgiveness is universally advantageous. For instance, Bazerman and Gino (2012) note that organizational norms often shape the enactment of forgiveness, sometimes leading to inconsistencies in how transgressors are judged or rehabilitated. Moreover, Zhu, Zhang, and Shen (2021) found that leader forgiveness can unintentionally legitimize unethical behavior when employees interpret such benevolence as permission to act in ways that favor organizational outcomes at the expense of ethical principles.

Power Dynamics and Coercion

Power is both overt and covert in organizational settings. Classic studies (French & Raven, 1959) delineate multiple bases of power—such as reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert power—that leaders and managers wield. Mechanic (1962) further elucidates how power exists at various levels in complex organizations, including those without formal authority, thereby complicating how “forgiveness” may be practiced or demanded. These foundational works align with the CMS viewpoint, which critiques managerial practices for potentially perpetuating systemic hierarchies and constraining employee agency (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Fournier & Grey, 2000).

When employees are structurally dependent on their superiors—whether for job security, promotions, or performance evaluations—they may have limited freedom to negotiate the terms of conflict resolution (Knoll & Van Dick, 2013). Under these constraints, forgiveness can become coerced, serving managerial interests by dampening dissent or accelerating project timelines. Thus, the classic assumption that forgiveness is freely given out of benevolence or moral conviction overlooks the complexity of organizational power structures (Brady, 2020).

Behavioral Ethics and the Psychology of Forgiveness

Behavioral Ethics investigates the cognitive and emotional processes underlying moral decisions in organizations (Bazerman & Gino, 2012). Within this domain, both punishment and forgiveness of a transgressor are seen as rooted in self-regulatory mechanisms that modulate perceptions of fairness and reciprocity (Zhang et al., 2022). Yet, Behavioral Ethics research also indicates that social cues, norms, and leadership behaviors significantly influence how employees conceive of ethical issues (Treviño, den Nieuwenboer, & Kish-Gephart, 2014).

Crucially, when forgiveness is embedded in a culture that prizes high performance and loyalty, employees may engage in impression management to appear morally compliant (Goffman, 1959), even if privately they harbor unresolved grievances. The result is not true emotional reconciliation but a performance of harmony, effectively muting authentic conflict and permitting structural imbalances to remain intact.

Critical Management Studies and the Challenge to Mainstream OB

CMS problematizes mainstream management theories by investigating how capitalist and bureaucratic frameworks often prioritize organizational efficiency over employee well-being and societal impact (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Fournier & Grey, 2000). From a CMS perspective, advocating forgiveness as an organizational “best practice” can serve as an ideological tool that shifts responsibility onto individuals to “move on,” rather than prompting leaders and structures to address systemic causes of wrongdoing (Weiskopf & Willmott, 2013).

In other words, CMS scholars caution that forgiveness might be used to sustain the status quo. Instead of challenging inequitable policies or leadership practices, employees are encouraged to forgive and forget, forestalling meaningful structural change. When combined with the insights of Behavioral Ethics, this critique underscores the ethical risk of neglecting how power imbalances shape the trajectory of organizational forgiveness.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ESTABLISHED OB THEORIES

1. Conflict Management and Resolution Theories

Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, such as negotiation and mediation, typically position forgiveness as a moral and practical imperative for restoring team cohesion (Borris, 2003). However, in highly stratified organizations, employees often lack the psychological safety to express dissenting viewpoints without fear of retaliation (Edmondson, 1999).

Value Masking and Coerced Forgiveness: Due to economic dependence, employees may feel compelled to demonstrate performative forgiveness to align with leadership expectations and avoid negative repercussions (Brady, 2020). This “value masking” undermines the authenticity of conflict resolution, leaving deeper systemic issues unaddressed.

Obscured Power Relations: Conflict resolution processes rarely account for the fact that not all parties enter negotiations with equal leverage. By focusing on interpersonal harmony, organizations risk ignoring the root causes of conflict, often tied to unjust organizational norms or exploitative work practices (Fournier & Grey, 2000).

2. Transformational Leadership Theory

Transformational leaders are lauded for ethical role modeling, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration (Bass & Riggio, 2006). While these attributes can foster a culture of compassion, they may also cloak hierarchical imbalances.

Conditional Benevolence: Leaders who selectively forgive employees may create an environment where forgiveness is contingent upon meeting performance benchmarks or demonstrating unwavering loyalty (Fincham & Beach, 2007). This dynamic can breed mistrust and discourage authentic feedback.

Power Retention: Transformational leaders hold significant sway in framing organizational values. If forgiveness is portrayed as a requirement for team cohesion, employees may self-censor or acquiesce to management decisions to maintain favorable standing (Knoll & Van Dick, 2013).

3. Restorative Justice Frameworks

Restorative justice aims to address wrongdoing by involving all stakeholders in dialogue and mutual problem-solving (Borris, 2003). Although commendable for its emphasis on inclusivity:

Resource and Time Constraints: Implementing comprehensive restorative practices is often arduous in fast-paced work environments with high productivity demands. As a result, organizations may adopt a veneer of restoration without offering the necessary resources for deep conflict exploration.

Preservation of Hierarchy: Even when dialogues occur, power asymmetries can inhibit frank disclosure of grievances. Subordinates may fear career repercussions, leading to incomplete resolution and the maintenance of structural inequities (Fournier & Grey, 2000).

4. Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory underscores the interactive influence of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors in shaping conduct (Bandura, 1986). Within organizations, the decision to forgive—or withhold forgiveness—is influenced by perceived intentions, organizational culture, and self-regulatory processes (Zhang et al., 2022).

Subjective Bias and Intent Perception: Leaders and peers may interpret a transgressor’s actions through the lens of existing stereotypes, prejudices, or favoritism. Thus, forgiveness can be unevenly applied, allowing those with social capital to secure leniency while marginalized individuals face harsher penalties (Zhu et al., 2021).

Impression Management: To align with perceived organizational values, individuals might perform virtuous acts of forgiveness publicly, even if they remain resentful or are coerced into compliance (Goffman, 1959). Over time, such duplicity can erode trust and undermine genuine ethical cultures.

Emerging Critiques: Critical Management Studies and Behavioral Ethics

Critical Management Studies insists that mainstream management prescriptions—like the universal promotion of forgiveness—often serve to reproduce the status quo (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992). Behavioral Ethics further highlights how individual ethical choices are deeply entwined with contextual pressures and institutional norms (Bazerman & Gino, 2012).

Taken together, these perspectives illuminate how traditional forgiveness paradigms may:

Obscure Power Asymmetries by suggesting conflict resolution is purely a matter of personal virtue, neglecting how hierarchy shapes who can afford to forgive or be forgiven.

Enable Ethical Blind Spots where leaders or employees exploit the virtue of forgiveness to conceal ongoing misconduct or shortcut systemic reforms.

Stifle Genuine Dialogue as individuals prioritize impression management over the risk of challenging entrenched organizational norms.

OPEN RECONCILIATION & SYSTEMIC JUSTICE

To address these limitations and prevent the co-optation of forgiveness as a managerial tool, this paper introduces an integrated framework centered on Open Reconciliation and Systemic Justice. Rather than positioning forgiveness as an unexamined moral good, the framework seeks to embed ethical reflection, structural accountability, and genuine dialogue into the core of conflict resolution processes.

1. Self-Forgiveness and Personal Integrity

Encouraging critical self-reflection can mitigate the reliance on hierarchical absolution. By fostering spaces where employees and leaders alike engage in honest introspection about their complicity in organizational harm (Knoll & Van Dick, 2013):

Personal Accountability: Individuals learn to take responsibility for their actions, reducing scapegoating or paternalistic forgiveness from superiors.

Ethical Consistency: Self-forgiveness, grounded in integrity, prevents the externalization of moral judgments, ensuring that ethical behavior becomes an internalized norm rather than a set of mandated rules.

2. Open Reconciliation Without Coercion

Open reconciliation emphasizes dialogue over closure and rejects the expectation that employees must forgive as a sign of loyalty or teamwork.

Safe Dialogue Spaces: Establish forums where employees can voice grievances without fear of professional or social retaliation. This might involve anonymous reporting channels, third-party mediators, or rotating leadership in resolution sessions (Edmondson, 1999).

Voluntary Participation: To counter the coercive tendencies of hierarchical forgiveness, participation in reconciliation processes should remain voluntary, emphasizing respect for individual emotional boundaries and cultural values (Fournier & Grey, 2000).

3. Systemic Justice Over Performative Forgiveness

Shifting attention from interpersonal absolution to organizational reforms acknowledges that structural problems often underlie repeated interpersonal conflicts (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992).

Policy Revisions and Ethical Codes: Institutionalizing fairness through anti-discrimination policies, transparent promotion paths, and equitable pay structures ensures that power imbalances are addressed at their source.

Accountability Mechanisms: Clear, enforced guidelines for managerial and peer conduct can reduce the ambiguity that leads to subjective or politicized applications of forgiveness. By instituting checks such as ethics committees or ombudspersons, organizations create safeguards against the misuse of moral discourses.

Continuous Monitoring: Implement ongoing evaluations of the organizational climate regarding fairness, inclusion, and power distribution. Regularly revisiting these metrics can reveal where hidden power imbalances persist or resurface.

DISCUSSION

A pivotal insight from this critical analysis is that forgiveness, while potentially beneficial, cannot be detached from its sociopolitical contexts. Within organizations, hierarchical relationships and cultural norms profoundly influence whether forgiveness is granted freely or extracted under duress. Critical Management Studies highlights how mainstream prescriptions for forgiveness risk aligning with managerial objectives, potentially stifling dissent and solidifying asymmetrical power structures (Fournier & Grey, 2000).

By embedding forgiveness in broader systems of accountability and transparency, organizations can foster authentic healing rather than superficial reconciliation. The proposed Open Reconciliation and Systemic Justice framework underscores the necessity of safe dialogue spaces and structural reforms. This shift requires not only policy changes but also cultural evolutions in how organizations conceptualize moral responsibility (Weiskopf & Willmott, 2013).

Moreover, future research could empirically test the efficacy of these proposed interventions. For example, longitudinal studies might examine how the introduction of voluntary reconciliation circles—where participants are explicitly told they need not forgive—affects indicators such as employee well-being, retention, and ethical behavior (Bazerman & Gino, 2012). Likewise, implementing robust structural justice measures could be evaluated for their capacity to reduce repeat transgressions, power abuses, and unethical pro-organizational behaviors.

CONCLUSION

Traditional OB theories often promote forgiveness as a universal remedy for organizational conflict, overlooking the complexity of power dynamics and ethical implications. By critically examining these theories through the lenses of CMS and Behavioral Ethics, it becomes evident that dominant frameworks risk conflating moral virtues with organizational control mechanisms. The proposed emphasis on Open Reconciliation and Systemic Justice seeks to redress these oversights by foregrounding structural accountability and cultivating spaces for authentic dialogue. In doing so, organizations stand to foster more equitable, transparent, and ethical cultures in which forgiveness—when it does occur—emerges from genuine reflection rather than coerced compliance.

In the end, the problem isn’t just forgiveness—it’s the illusion that it alone can heal systems designed to sustain power imbalances. Only systemic accountability, not moral obligation, can break the cycle.