Part 2 — “Beyond Neutrality: Reimagining Organisations for a Complex World”
This is part 2 of a 2 Part Article Series
In Part I, I explored how neutrality, impartiality, professionalism, and organisational culture can quietly shape — and sometimes constrain — who we are allowed to be, and the tensions this creates between identity and institutional life. I also traced the origins of these norms. It is important to note that these tensions did not emerge in isolation. They are rooted in deeper histories that continue to shape how organisations function today.
The question, then, is not only how these norms operate — but how deeply they are embedded, whose histories they reflect, and what it would take to move beyond them.
Decolonising the Organisational Mind and a different kind of belonging.
If these norms are shaped by history, then they are not inevitable. They can be questioned and transformed. This is where the idea of decolonising the mind becomes crucial, as Bob Marley sang, “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds.”
Decolonisation is not just about structures — it’s about awareness. It involves recognising how deeply rooted assumptions shape what we see as legitimate, professional, or neutral. As writers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o remind us, colonialism is not only political or economic — it is psychological. It influences how we perceive ourselves, how we value knowledge, and how we understand legitimacy. It raises difficult questions, such as: Why do some speaking styles seem authoritative while others seem emotional? Why are certain forms of knowledge prioritised over others? And why is “neutrality” often defined in terms of dominant experiences?
Decolonising the organisational mind, then, is not about rejecting organisations. It is about expanding them. It is about reclaiming the legitimacy of multiple ways of being, knowing, and leading — carrying multiple identities — cultural, racial, religious, national, ideological — without forcing them into a single mould.
This is where Amartya Sen’s work on ‘Multiple Identities’ becomes particularly relevant. He questions the idea that individuals have a single, dominant identity. Instead, he argues that we all hold multiple identities simultaneously — and that reducing people to just one is both misleading and dangerous.
In organisational life, this insight can be transformative. It challenges the idea that individuals must choose between being “professional” and being “themselves.” It allows us to look beyond this false dilemma and ask a more creative question: What if professionalism could embrace plurality? What if organisations recognised that individuals who carry multiple identities are not complications to be managed — but bridges to be valued?
Instead of threatening cohesion, embracing and recognising multiple identities can strengthen it. They introduce new perspectives and ways to interpret and respond to the world. This raises the question: What if loyalty were measured not by conformity, but by the depth of our engagement? In addition, what if organisations prioritised authenticity over uniformity? What if belonging didn’t mean sacrificing parts of ourselves? What if organisations’ strength was measured by their ability to embrace complexity rather than enforce uniformity?
These questions challenge the long-standing myth of the organisation versus the individual. The latter has limited not only individuals but also the institutions themselves. Breaking that myth is not about choosing one over the other; it is about recognising that the strength of an organisation lies precisely in the richness, diversity, and integrity of the individuals within it.
Get Dr Amjad Mohamed-Saleem’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The tension between the organisation and the individual isn’t a problem to fix but an opportunity to develop institutions that are not only effective but also fair, stable, reflective, and inclusive. Moving forward, organisations will be shaped less by how well individuals fit into them and more by their ability to accept the full complexity of those individuals. A decolonised organisation doesn’t require people to fragment themselves to belong; instead, it fosters an environment where individuals can hold multiple truths simultaneously. These aren’t contradictions; they are expressions of integrity.
Reimagining the Organisation
If organisations are to evolve, they must move beyond the myth that the individual is a threat to institutional coherence. In fact, the opposite is true. Organisations that enable individuals to bring their full, complex selves to the table are more adaptive, more reflective, and more just — echoing a growing body of research, from Scott Page’s work on diversity and complexity to Amy Edmondson’s on psychological safety, which shows that diverse, open environments are better equipped to navigate complex and contested challenges.
If we let go of the idea that individuals must be contained for organisations to function, something else becomes possible. We can begin to reimagine organisations not as machines, but as ecosystems — spaces where alignment does not require silence, loyalty does not require erasure, neutrality does not mean disengagement, and difference is recognised as a resource.
This change is fundamental, involving structural, cultural, and deeply human elements. It calls for a transition from control to trust, from conformity to diversity, from merely performing to being authentic, and from silence to open dialogue. Additionally, it involves discomfort — the readiness to confront viewpoints that question established beliefs about professionalism, leadership, and neutrality.
Is this a decolonised model? In many respects, yes — but it is also more than that.
Today, we see a merging of industrial-era ideas of discipline and efficiency, colonial-era concepts of hierarchy and assimilation, and post-war narratives of neutrality and universality. Together, these have formed a strong yet restrictive framework for organisational operation and expected individual behaviour.
Nevertheless, this model is adaptable. It can be challenged, expanded, and reimagined. This means recognising that current manifestations of “neutrality” and “impartiality” are context-dependent rather than universal; that professionalism is shaped by culture rather than purely value-neutral; and that multiple identities must be able to coexist without hierarchy. Most importantly, it requires a change in imagination — shifting from organisations as machines to organisations as ecosystems, and from individuals as workers to individuals as complete human beings.
That shift offers the potential for something more genuine and freeing. It is not about erasing differences, but about embracing them; not about denying identity, but about integrating it. Reimagining the organisation is not about abandoning standards; it’s about reshaping them. It involves moving from systems that promote uniformity to those enriched by diversity. Organisations do not increase resilience by restricting who can belong, but rather by broadening the concept of belonging.
A Closing Reflection: From Critique to Possibility
If this critique feels unsettling, that’s deliberate. It encourages us to question not only organisations but also the assumptions we’ve internalised about ourselves — what it means to belong, to lead, or to be “professional.” However, this is not a message of despair; rather, it presents an opportunity for growth. In my previous work on radical hope, I’ve emphasised that hope is not merely passive optimism; it is a disciplined practice of imagining and creating what is not yet fully realised. This might be where my earlier work intersects with this one.
Reimagining organisations means developing environments that welcome complexity instead of avoiding it; value diverse identities rather than controlling them; and uphold unconditional dignity. The aim is for these institutions not to limit them but to evolve and grow alongside their ambitions.
Because the future will not be shaped by how well individuals fit into institutions — but by how well institutions can hold the fullness of those individuals. And in that shift lies the possibility of something more honest, more just, and ultimately more human.
