Unconditional Respect for Diversity Is an Illusion: Wisdom from Buddhist Dependent Origination for Running Organizations

In modern organizations, “diversity” is treated as an almost sacred, untouchable value. The belief that people from diverse backgrounds create synergy and that different perspectives drive innovation has become common wisdom. In the tech industry especially, Diversity & Inclusion has established itself as a core keyword of organizational culture.

But when you actually work as a leader, you realize that these idealistic principles create surprisingly complex dilemmas. Should we unconditionally respect every kind of diversity? When an individual’s choices clash with the organization’s goals, what criteria should a leader use to make decisions?

In this post, I want to share a specific dilemma I faced while working as a chapter lead in a frontend organization of about 100 people, and the wisdom I found within the limits of respecting diversity.

Along the way, I’ll explore how Buddhist philosophy — particularly dependent origination and the Middle Way — can offer practical insights for running modern organizations.

Where the Dilemma Begins

As a leader striving to build an excellent organization, I need to support and encourage my team members’ growth. But with 100 people in the group, there are inevitably those who think differently.

Recently, one team member sent me into deep contemplation. They had outstanding technical skills, executed their current responsibilities flawlessly, and earned the trust of their colleagues. From my perspective, they’d be a perfect fit for a lead role — but they declined any such additional responsibility.

Whenever I suggested new challenges for their growth, they would calmly respond:

“I’m not really thinking about that right now.”

“I’d rather focus on other things.”

If they had been underperforming while also refusing to grow, it would have been a clear-cut problem. But the fact that they were already doing excellent work made it all the more ambiguous.

This experience raised fundamental questions for me:

“Is it right to set higher goals for someone who’s already doing well enough?”

And: “How far should the principle of respecting individual diversity and choice extend?”

I’m sure many of you have wrestled with similar dilemmas. Facing this kind of situation, we tend to oscillate between two extremes: “We must unconditionally respect diversity” on one side, and “The organization’s goals require uniformity” on the other.

Through this experience, I realized I needed a new perspective that transcends these binary choices. Looking more deeply into that team member’s situation, I felt the need to examine the very concept of diversity more carefully. What traps might be hiding within the notion of “respecting diversity” that we so readily take for granted?

The Trap of Respecting Diversity

As I dug deeper into this issue, I realized that diversity is often approached in a binary way — people tend to simply divide it into either respecting diversity or not.

But reality isn’t that simple. Respecting diversity isn’t an absolute principle; it should be approached as a question of how much an organization or society can accommodate given its specific characteristics.

This connects to the truth revealed by the Buddhist concept of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). Because all phenomena exist in mutual dependence, neither absolute freedom nor absolute control is possible. (I know bringing up Buddhism out of nowhere might seem surprising, but the stories from Buddhist teachings actually offer a great deal of life wisdom.)

Take the South Korean constitution as an example. South Korea is a democracy that guarantees its citizens’ freedom, yet Article 8 of the constitution allows for the dissolution of political parties under certain conditions. This means that when elements threaten the basic democratic order, freedom cannot be granted without limits. In other words, even the state doesn’t unconditionally respect all forms of diversity.

The same principle applies to organizations. Should a company tolerate an employee who doesn’t keep regular working hours or insists on working from home despite an uncooperative attitude, simply because “we respect diversity”? Diversity deserves respect, but when it conflicts with the organization’s operations and objectives, limits are inevitable.

Through these observations, I arrived at a conclusion: unconditional respect for diversity is an illusion that cannot exist.

So is diversity always a bad thing? Of course not. Diversity clearly has both light and shadow.

The Light and Shadow of Diversity

The positive effects of diversity are undeniable. When team members with varied backgrounds and ways of thinking come together, new ideas emerge and more approaches to problem-solving become available. Working in a frontend organization of about 100 people, I’ve met an incredible variety of developers and collaborated closely with non-developer colleagues. Through this, I’ve felt the synergy created when talented, diverse people come together.

But diversity doesn’t always produce positive outcomes. As differences in opinion grow, the time and energy required for coordination increase exponentially, and team cohesion can weaken in the process. As Buddhist dependent origination teaches, because all phenomena are interdependent, a change in one element can have unexpected effects on the entire system.

Understanding this dual nature of diversity allowed me to look at the team member I mentioned earlier from a new angle.

Anattā (Non-Self) and the Possibility of Change

Reflecting more deeply on this team member, I was reminded of the Buddhist concept of anattā — non-self. Individual diversity is not a fixed, unchanging attribute; it shifts constantly. Just because that team member doesn’t want to grow right now doesn’t mean they never will.

As a leader, I’ve always tried to present higher-level goals to my team members. This wasn’t merely about driving performance — it came from a genuine desire to draw out each person’s potential and help them grow as professionals. But through this process, I reached a conclusion: growth cannot be forced. You can propose growth, but the final decision and responsibility belong to the individual.

Ultimately, I realized that what’s needed is the wisdom to respect someone’s choice in the present moment while keeping the door open for change and waiting patiently.

But simply waiting isn’t the answer either. As a leader, I also needed concrete principles for how to communicate and act.

Wisdom from the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Communication

What helped me here was the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path — the eight practices the Buddha prescribed as the path to enlightenment.

Among these, Right Speech and Right Action clearly illustrate the principles a leader should follow when communicating with team members.

Right Speech means avoiding lies, divisive talk, harsh words, and idle chatter, and instead speaking truthfully and helpfully. Right Action means behaving in ways that don’t harm yourself or others.

When proposing growth, it’s crucial to use truthful, constructive language rather than criticism or coercion, and to act in ways that benefit both the individual and the organization. The key isn’t pushing some abstract goal of “getting better” — it’s concretely showing what that growth means and what positive impact it can have.

But when you try to put these principles into practice, you inevitably face another complex problem: how to balance your own values as a leader with your team members’ diverse perspectives.

Leadership Through Compassion and Skillful Means

This dilemma resembles the clash of political ideologies. Progressive and conservative — each has its own strengths and weaknesses. It’s not a matter of right versus wrong, but a difference in which direction to pursue. The same goes for organizational culture. Even if I hold certain beliefs and values as a leader, is it justified to impose them on my team? Yet if I allow total freedom in everything, the organization may descend into chaos.

In Buddhism, compassion (karuṇā) isn’t mere sympathy — it’s genuinely helping others find true well-being. I believe my desire for my team members’ growth is an expression of this same compassion. And through the wisdom of skillful means (upāya), different approaches should be used for each person based on their situation and disposition.

Rather than applying the same yardstick to everyone, it’s about understanding individual contexts and finding the appropriate method for each.

As I examined these various Buddhist principles, I realized they all converge on a single core idea: balance.

The Middle Way

In the end, just as respecting diversity matters, so does maintaining certain standards and order to achieve organizational goals.

So how do you strike this balance? One conclusion I’ve reached from running my team is that “not all diversity must be unconditionally respected.” This doesn’t mean diversity should be restricted — it means diversity should be channeled in a direction consistent with the organization’s fundamental purpose.

As a leader, I strive to provide a safe environment where team members’ diversity is respected, while also setting clear standards and guidelines for effective collaboration. From a Buddhist perspective, a leader is both someone who supports team members in growing at their own pace and in their own way, and someone who sets direction and guides them toward it.

Balancing these two roles isn’t easy, but I believe it’s the Middle Way that yields the best results for both the organization and the individual. Just as the Buddha found the Middle Way between extreme hedonism and extreme asceticism, a leader must find the balance point between unconditional respect for diversity and unilateral control.

Wrapping Up

Diversity is an essential ingredient for organizational growth and innovation. But it’s the leader’s job to ensure it doesn’t breed conflict and inefficiency. I’ll continue to think about how to set the right standards for achieving organizational goals while respecting my team’s diversity. And I intend to keep sharing the insights I gain along the way.

As the Buddha taught, I want to remember the wisdom of “Don’t follow the mind — teach the mind,” and continue making wise choices between individual diversity and organizational objectives. I believe this is the essence of Buddhist leadership that modern organizations need.

That concludes this post on the wisdom of organizational management through the lens of dependent origination.