• Summarize the article and identify the one (1) alternative/emerging strategy article that you believe is the most important for the practice of strategic management moving forward
• Explain how ideas from the selected article have impacted you and/or why they are significant for you

A) Check for updates Original Article Management Learning Invoking indigenous wisdom 2021, Vol. 52(3) 328-346 The Author(s) 2020 for management learning Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10. 1 177/1350507620963956 journals.sagepub.com/home/mlq SAGE Edwina Pio D Aukland University of Technology, New Zealand Sandra Waddock Boston College, USA Abstract Management thinking today, based in neoliberalism, gears economies, businesses, and whole societies toward constant material growth and achievement of wealth, defined as monetary or financial wealth. In terms of management learning, the dominance of the managerialist/capitalist ideology reinforces existing dominance structures that have long suppressed the voice-and values-of Indigenous peoples. Drawing from work by Indigenous scholars, we focus on the Indigenous wisdom which has the potential to offer a very different form of economy and different sets of managerial values that orient businesses and other institutions towards fostering relationship, responsibility, reciprocity and redistribution for shared wellbeing. Perspectives from Indigenous wisdom can push focus away from today's neoliberalism and "(hu)man"- dominating-nature mindsets, evident in Western cultures, towards more holistically integrated approaches. In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, we argue for a pivot towards recognizing, collaborating with, integrating, and renewing management and business school mindsets by incorporating Indigenous wisdom to build a world in which all-including non-human beings-can flourish. Keywords Indigenous wisdom, management learning, neoliberalism, new economics, relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, redistribution "There is an intrinsic interrelationship between our forests and our peoples of the North and the South. All of Creation is alive and interrelated. The air we breathe has life and gives life to all and cannot be bought, sold or traded. . . . The sacred cannot be commodified nor is it for bargaining. " Source: Open Letter from Indigenous Peoples of the World (http://skyprotector.org/2018/09/12/ open-letter-from-the-indigenous-peoples-of-the-world/) Corresponding author: Edwina Pio, Aukland University of Technology, 42, Wakefield Street, Auckland 1020, New Zealand. Email: edwina.pio@aut.ac.nzPio and Waddock 329 Increasingly, data on climate change, unsustainability, and species extinction sets limits to eco- nomic and material growth (Diaz et al., 2019; IPCC, 2018; Ripple et al., 2019; Scrutton, 2020; Steffen et al., 2018; WWF, 2018), with the world in dire trouble, even putting the human species at risk if things do not change. Then the global Covid 19 pandemic hit. As the world shut down to try to control the spread of the virus, global inequities and disparities became evident, as did the reality of globally being one world. Many of these issues of social inequality, climate change, and poten- tial sustainability collapse have been caused by the current neoliberal economic agenda of constant material and financial growth, and purportedly (but not actually) free markets that created a non- resilient business system (e.g. IPCC, 2018; Lovins et al., 2018). Yet because today's challenges are life-threatening in a real way, it is past the time for change. The pandemic's devastation and need to rebuild provide an unparalleled opportunity to shift thinking-perhaps still in time-to avert the coming climate change and sustainability crises threatening human civilizations. Neoliberal tenets of individual responsibility, self-interest, free markets, free trade, limited gov- ernment, and constant, never-ending growth (Monbiot, 2016; Pirson, 2017) dominate management and economic thinking (Lovins et al., 2018; Monbiot, 2016; Piketty, 2014; Waddock, 2016). Business schools themselves are implicated in the so-called grand challenges facing the world (Collien, 2018; Mclaren, 2020). Consistent with the idea of "challenging conventional ideas and received wisdom" around this thinking (Bell and Bridgman, 2017, p. 4) and opening up new ways of thinking about management learning (Bell and Bridgman, 2018), our aim is to invoke Indigenous wisdom for management learning. Indigenous wisdom encompasses the weave of Indigenous knowledge, values and worldviews which are part of the sacred ecology and relationships with the ecosystem, values, cultural beliefs and relationships that exist within Indigenous communities (Berkes, 2008; Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Four Arrows, 2016; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Narvaez et al., 2019; Pio et al. 2013a). We note that it is well-nigh impossible to separate each woven strand without fraying the process of the weave of Indigenous wisdom, for this sacred ecology embraces a network of cosmologies, cultures, beliefs and epistemologies, which underscore relational connections with all of nature, flora and fauna and people in the web of life (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Genova, 2015; United Nations, 1995). We hope to integrate such perspectives-without appropriating knowledge that rightfully belongs to Indigenous peoples-carefully and collaboratively with Indigenous scholars, activists, and actors-into management learning. Our main contribution is to propose an integrative perspec- tive (Bell and Bridgman, 2017) arguing for the emergence of an economics (or a new economics) and set of management theories based in Indigenous wisdom that particularly emphasizes life- affirming values of relationship, responsibility for the whole system (stewardship), reciprocity, and redistribution (equity) (Harris and Wasilewski, 2004). Indigenous ideas, prevalent from ancient times ((Burm and Burleigh, 2017; Genova, 2015; Huaman and Abeita, 2018; Tran and Kennett, 2017; WIPO, 2019), are not typical of today's management theories, which have recently been shown to be ideologically restricted to ideas about efficiency, profit maximization, and managerial- ism (Mclaren, 2020)-to the exclusion of other important values. In contrast, we argue-and demonstrate through global examples-that numerous Indigenous cultures have developed suc- cessful, long-lived societies (and, but not just, economies) based on a different, holistic and rela- tionally-based set of values. Thus, the question driving our inquiry is: How can Indigenous wisdom facilitate the building of a new economics for management thinking and learning? Indigenous wisdom, built into a new economics and management thinking, would bring about a different future reality than will a return to "business as usual" and also help avoid what one scholar has called the "triumph of nonsense in management studies" and education (Tourish, 2020). Here we concede that much of economics, (Western) management and management learning are inextricably linked both in management thinking and in the mindsets of business schools, tethered330 Management Learning 52(3) to unending material and nancial growth. often at the cost of ecological systems. Yet. a life- affirming and relationally based economics that recognizes and honors the natural environment and human societies. based on Indigenous wisdom can infomi revised management thinking. scholarship. and teaching. In this article. we have focused on the four R's of relationship. respon- sibility. reciprocity. and redistribution using the work of Harris and Wasilewski (2004) as founda- tional to invoke Indigenous wisdom for management learning. Grounded in Indigenous wisdom. which is highly connected to the Indigenous value of connectedness or relationship (Four Arrows. 2019b). such revisions can help guide aworld in which long-term ourishing for all is conceivable. Management thinking and learning need to change to accommodate these very real issues (e.g. Kurucz et al._. 2014) and bring in more integrative and reexive approaches (Bell and Bridgman. 2017; Schneider. 2015) such as offered by Indigenous wisdom. The generally more holistic. Earth-centric. collaborative. participative. and integrative perspec- tives of many Indigenous peoples can bring about a more sustainable approach to managing both human and earthly resources in a way that no longer \"subordinate[s] much of the world to Western logic and discourse (including Indigenous peoples)\" (Banerjee. 2003). Banerjee noted problems associated with modern industrial agricultural practices. which have resulted in destructive approaches like monocropping. We add industrial animal husbandry. clearcutting of forests. use and production of toxins in manufacturing. and destructive mining practices. among many other ecologically and sometimes societally problematic practices associated with today 's economic systemall associated with dominant goals of \"efficiency.\" productivity. and profit (c.f.. McLaren. 2020). In fact. Banerjee claims no less than that \"the Western technocratic approach serves only to empower corporate and national economic interests and prevents communities from preserving their rights to control their own resources\" (Banerjee. 2003. p. 168). He further argues. and we agree. that \"We need to apply insights from other forms of knowledge. however traditional they may be. and interpret these knowledges in economic. scientific. political. cultural. and social terms that challenge existing views of the world and nature\" (Banerjee. 2003. p. 189). Indigenous wis- dom offers a very different perspective. Our contribution is to provide a starting point for thinking about how to incorporate Indigenous wisdom whose sources are very oldyet new to many in management circlesinto the new economics that can inform management learning. Halton (2019. p.48) calls approaches like this one \"the philosophy of the earth.\" If applied across all economies. we believe Indigenous wisdom can transform our world towards one in which all beingshuman and non-humancan live with more dignity and wellbeing in a ourish- ing natural environment. This wisdom moves the system towards what gives life and connected- ness to socio-economic systems (c.f.. Kuenkel and Waddock. 2019; Waddock and Kuenkel. 2019). not just ever-greater material wealth for the already wealthy. who are already well served by the current system. In undertaking this study. we want to recognize our own privilege. positionality. and the lands on which we live. which are characterized by having been colonized. We are aware of the need for researcher reexivity in focusing on our own positionality and representation (Collien. 2018; Manning. 2018). The first author is a woman scholar ofcolor. born and raised in the Indian subcon- tinent. a colonized locale for 200years. She is uent in English. her lingua franca. and can speak and understand some of the local Indian languages. She has worked and interacted with Indigenous peoples for more than two decades. having spent time living with them. listening to them and engaging with those who have spent their entire lives working with them. During these years she has reected on how the colonial imprint dominates definitions of who is Indigenous. who owns land. and how language can be used for both silencing Indigenous tongues as well as giving voice. She has seen the economic benefits that Indigenous art forms have brought to remote villages. facilitating their access to clean drinking water and a variety of protein rich foods. She has also Pio and Waddock 33| observed the benefits of herbal medicines and the lush greenery over the years on parched lands based on watershed development. She is strongly aware of the heterogenous groups that are Indigenous and that while there are similarities, there are also wide dierences in how they approach life. She currently lives in the Southern Hemisphere in another colonial country. Aotearoa. New Zealand. and continues her work with Indigenous peoples through her writing. advocacy and dec olonizing research. In working with various Indigenous peoples. she is strongly aware of the embeddedness of colonialism in thinking and action and thus has actively sought to understand. identify. challenge and work through a dis- engagement process. The second author is a white woman from North America. a land colonized by mostly white migrants and settlers. She is of Irish. French. and Italian heritage. and has studied shamanic prac- tices ofdifferent cultures. including modern-day ones in NorthAmerica for more than two decades. and written with Indigenous scholars. In humbly undertaking this study. she has attempted to keep a keen awareness of potential for biases that come from her decidedly Western \"first world\" posi- tionality and living on land that has been colonized for hundreds of years. As authors. from such different \"worlds.\" we balanced our perspectives and kept in mind the privilege accorded both of us as academics. writing for other academics. in a mostly white. Western. and Northern tradition. We also wish to honor our own and all ancestors. for at some point all our ancestors were \"Indigenous.\" though today we may not bear the imprint of that Indigeneity explicitly. We acknowl- edge that we cannot speak for Indigenous peoples. but rather seek to synthesize what we have learned from their writings and cultures in what we hope is a helpful and decolonized way. Any failures in this regard. of course. are ours. One caveat: we recognize that not all aspects of Indigenous life. ways. or knowledge are. or were. positive. There are certainly examples that could be cited of Indigenous peoples doing things with negative consequences. for example. waging wars. torturing captives. committing human sacrifices. engaging in some unsustainable practices. murder. and other atrocities (eg. Spikins. 2019). But as Spikins (2019. p. 31) points out in discussing Indigenous ways. \"A record of strength through inter dependence on each other in our distant past is far more extensive and compelling than that for aggression or competition.\" In this paper we focus explicitly on Indigenous wisdom from a variety of cultures that can collectively and collaboratively inform management learning. to help humanity forge a better path forward than today's dominant management and economic thinking. The next section presents information on Indigenous peoples noting their heterogeneity and acknowledging the diversity in the broad label Indigenous peoples. Here we suggest a useful framework to scaffold understanding some of the core values that inform Indigenous wisdom. Next we discuss four overlapping integrally related values embedded in multiple Indigenous cultures - relationship. responsibility. reciprocity. and redistribution. This section is followed by a discussion which integrates Indigenous perspectives and management learning. The final section presents limitations and the conclusion. Indigenous peoples The world's 370million Indigenous people live in 90 countries and represent about 5% of the world's total population. Collectively. they live on approximately 20% of the Earth's land. The United Nations discusses Indigeneity as follows: Considering the diversity ofIndigenous peoples, an ofcial denition of 'Indigenous' has not been adopted by any UNwsystem body. Instead, the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following: 332 Management Learning 52(3) . Self- identification as Indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the com- munity as their member Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/ or pre-settler societies Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources Distinct social, economic or political systems Distinct language, culture and beliefs Form non-dominant groups of society Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities. (United Nations, 2020). Shah (2010) notes that debates about the term Indigenous have a long history and over the course of many decades were embedded within historical and political processes. Radcliffe (2018) powerfully argues that "Indigeneity is historically and geographically located in the cross-hairs of imperial debris, the colonial present and the uneven powers of social differentiation" (p. 437). Historically, Indigenous peoples have suffered from the impacts of colonialism, particularly from language and definitions imposed by others (e.g. Banerjee, 2003; Banerjee and Linstead, 2004; Na'puti, 2019). The definition above includes both objective and subjective elements, such as ancestry, cultural aspects including religion, tribal organization, community membership, dress and livelihood, language, group consciousness, residence in certain parts of the country and accept- ance by the indigenous community (United Nations, 1995). As many as 5000 Indigenous cultures exist globally, and unfortunately, many are among the planet's extreme poor, making up fully a third of that total (United Nations, 2009). Despite their poverty and having been colonized, conquered, or otherwise dominated for many years (e.g. Mignolo, 2009; Lugones, 2010), Indigenous peoples of the world have much wisdom to contrib ute to modern understanding. Their values and traditional knowledge are aligned in important ways with Eastern thought, and collectively cover much of the world's populace (see Lent, 2017). Indeed, sociologist Martin Savransky has explicitly called for a "decolonial imagination" to be created by "traversing the western abyss" (Savransky, 2017, p. 13). As the UN's first-ever report on the Status of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations, 2009, p. 4) noted, "Indigenous values, insti- tutions, practices and economies are often based on sustainable management of natural resources." Our purpose here is to help advance this idea of a decolonial imagination by integrating Indigenous wisdom and knowledge into Western management and economics to transform away from neolib- eralism's damaging consequences towards a more life-affirming set of economic and societal practices and relationships. Decolonizing inquiry bases itself in critical interpretive practices and Indigenous epistemolo- gies with a critical politics of representation, foregrounding subjugated knowledge through an emancipatory and empowering praxis for collaboration and action (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Dunbar, 2008; Girei, 2017; Smith, 1999; Swadener and Mutua, 2008; Tuck and Mckenzie, 2015). Such inquiry must be "ethical, performative, healing, transformative, decolonizing and participa- tory. . .it must be unruly, disruptive, critical and dedicated to the goals of justice and equity" Denzin and Lincoln, 2008, p. 2). Such approaches reclaim Indigenous voices, understanding their history and values and foregrounding their sacred relationship with the cosmos (Swadener and Mutua, 2008). Swadener and Mutua (2008) note that decolonizing work is enmeshed in activism, in the non-silencing of Indigenous knowledge, and involves "working collaboratively on common goals that reflect anticolonial sensibilities in action" (p. 31). Kincheloe and Steinberg (2008) emphasize the importance of "helping construct conditions that allow for Indigenous self-suffi- ciency, while learning from the vast storehouse of Indigenous knowledges that provide compelling insights into all domains of human endeavor" (p. 135).Pio and Waddock 333 As authors, we shy away from asserting that Indigenous peoples can be defined through a few characteristics, as this would be essentializing Indigenous groups into a few clearly defined catego- ries, erasing Indigenous specificity. It also creates "discourses of whiteness [ that are] a source of structural advantage for the dominant culture" (Banerjee and Tedmanson, 2010, p. 159). Epistemologies of a given Indigenous people are rooted in specific lands and specific waters, a stance that recognizes the significance both politically and explicitly of this specificity (Tuck and Mckenzie, 2015). Kincheloe and Sternberg (2008) write of the burden of essentialism in the study of Indigenous knowledge, wherein dichotomies and simplistic binary opposites disallow space for dialogue. Thus, we acknowledge the "diversity in the broad label Indigenous people and note the importance of counter-essentialist perspectives and significance of geographic place" (Smith, 1999) to "decolonize management knowledge," to use Girei's (2017) terminology. Taking these principles into account, we draw from the work of LaDonna Harris, a Comanche Native American social activist, and Jacqueline Wasilewski, who describes herself as an Irish/ French/Welsh/Manx Gael/English/Dutch/Swiss/Cherokee American. Despite their recognition that even in North America, there is "no single native American culture" (Harris and Wasilewski, 2004, p. 490), these authors nonetheless suggest a useful framework for how to understand the core val- ues that inform (North American) Indigenous wisdom. Since we will show that similar values inform other Indigenous traditions, we adopt Harris and Wasilewski's (2004, p. 492-493) frame- work of (1) relationship or the "kinship obligation," (2) responsibility, or the "community obliga- tion" (stewardship of the whole system), (3) reciprocity or the "cyclical obligation," and (4) redistribution or the "sharing obligation." Though there are numerous different Indigenous peoples in the world deeply connected to their place, they tend to share common worldviews (Harris and Wadilewski, 2004; also, Four Arrows, aka Don Trent Jacobs, 2016, a member of the Oglala Medicine Horse Tiospaye). John Bamba, who is a Dayak from Kalimantan in Asia, summarized Indigenous values in the United Nations' first report on the status of Indigenous peoples in 2009, in ways that are aligned with both Four Arrows' (2016) "Indigenous worldview" and Harris & Wasilewski's framework. The UN report described core values as sustainability or biodiversity (versus monoculture), collectivity or cooperation (ver- sus competition), naturality or organic (opposed to mechanistic), spirituality including rituality (including but not just scientific), process-orientation towards effectiveness (versus just efficiency), subsistence or domesticity, and customary law or locality (as opposed to globality) (United Nations, 2009, p. 15). The UN report further notes that these values stand in dramatic contrast to "prevailing modern values-productivity, individualism, technology, rationality, efficiency, commercialism, and globalization" (United Nations, 2009, p. 5). We agree and build on this insight. In close alignment with Harris and Wasilewski's four values, Narvaez et al. (2019) grouped a (Native American) worldview into three overlapping and integrally related categories: (1) connect- edness and interdependence with nature and all living beings, (2) collective wellbeing, and 3) reci- procity and relational responsibility. The following sections describe these values and illustrate how they are embedded in multiple Indigenous cultures. Relationship Relationship or the kinship obligation in Native American tradition, according to Harris and Wasilewski (2004, p. 492) is the "profound sense that we humans are related, not only to each other, but to all things, animals, plants, rocks-in fact to the very stuff the stars are made of. This relationship is a kinship relationship. Everyone/everything is related to us as if they were our blood relatives." Halton (2019, p. 58) quotes philosopher Thomas Hobbes, whose views permeate Western and "developed" world thinking. Hobbes in a famous quote described nature as "the life334 Management Learning 52(3) of man. soiirary. poor. nasty. brutish and short.\" That perspective has deeply permeated Western worldviews. Importantly. and in distinct contrast are Indigenous worldviews, in which Halton (p. 58). writes. \"The actual state of nature. of animate mind. was one ofprofound sociality. and virtu- ally the reverse of Hobbes\" depiction. which was more a description of the state of civilization.\" Four Arrows (2019a. p. 191) explicitly highlights how many North American Indigenous commu- nities and worldviews are \"inseparable from the spiritual sense of interconnectedness to all things visible and invisible.\" The examples that follow in this and ensuing sections are meant to show how these values permeate Indigenous cultures in a wide range of places. The importance of relationship comes from the Anishnabe. from Michigan USA. who believe that plants are like people and that they assemble into nations. Hence there is need to discover their purpose through observations ofplant and animal species (Reo and Ogden. 2018). The Anishnabe believe in moving beyond binaries such as native and non-native and prefer to get the assistance of all speciesor a kin-centric positionality (Salmon. 2000)in stewarding the Earth. Aki or Earth is a foundational concept in their ethic of the land. Anishnabe beliefs are similar to beliefs of the Raramuri peoples of Mexico (Salmon. 2000). the Yupik of western Alaska and the Indigenous people of New South Wales. Such a spiritual perspective of relationship and connection is part of a holistic and integral worldview in many Indigenous cultures. including North American Indigenous peoples (Four Arrows. 2016). in which ancestors and cultural traditions are honored and respected (United Nations. 2009). The New Zealand Maori known as magma whemta or people of the land also emphasize spiritual and physical connection to their ecosystem. W}: emta means land and also pla- centa. In this culture. a newborn's whenua (placenta) is buried in the land. physically and spiritu- ally connecting the child to the land. Individuals. from this perspective. are in a relational world. where kinship is respected and honored (Pio and Graham. 2018). In another context. Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. which have been in Australia for at least 40.000years. see sustainability and spirituality as relationships with land. lan- guage and knowledge systems that are interconnected and through which the world is interpreted. Additionally. as Throsby and Petetskaya (2016. p. 125) note. \"The nature of Indigenous peoples\" relationship with land typically implies an obligation to safeguard and protect rather than acquire.\" unlike in the \"developed\" West. where land acquisition and exploitation of nature solely for human benefit are common (Lent. 2017). In fact. Rose argues that for Indigenous peoples land is referred to as country and one has to care for country in a form of stewardship for the whole (c.f.. Block. 1993). which consists of people. animals. plants. dreamings. minerals. water. air. and sky (Rose. 1996). Many Indigenous practices express and nurture such kinship with the natural environment as well as with sacred histories to emphasize peoplehood. Burns (2015) finds that the Indigenous teachings of the Okanagan who live in British Columbia and Washington focus on the whole self. with interconnec- tions and balance with ecological systems and how this notion may be considered for ecological design processes for sustainability. This holistic perspective differs quite radically from the Western econom- ics conception (drawn from Enlightenment thinking) that human beings are separate from and superior to nature's other beings (c.f.. Zakai. 2006). Taking it seriously in economic and management thinking and learning. means that ideas about human \"dominance\" over nature would have to be given upand a more connected. relational. and consequently life-affirming approach adopted. Responsibility Responsibility or the community obligation. according to Harris and Wasilewski (2004. p. 492). \"rests on the understanding that we have a responsibility to care for all of our relatives.\" similar to the idea of stewardship expressed above. In many Indigenous cultures. responsibility. which is Pio and Waddock 335 deeply linked to the idea of relationship to all. manifests itself as a deep identification with the particular land and all of its creatures and resources (e.g. United Nations. 2009). The Native American Iroquois principle that decisions need to be considered in terms of how they will affect the next seven (and how they came from seven past) generations (Kawamoto and Cheshire. 2004) is one manifestation of the value of such stewardship responsibility. In another example. the tribal peoples of Jharkhand in India believe that Smparmj or seven strips of land are part of creation symbolizing the totality of land both above and below the soil (Ekka. 2012). Their land is entwined in their socio-cultural identity. as reflected in surnames like Ekka or tortoise. Soreng or rock. Beck or salt. These names ensure that individuals have a symbi- otic relationship with nature and treat nature's creatures and resources as their brothers. sisters. or relatives (as in the relational perspective discussed above). The breath represents the spirit in all living things for Indigenous peoples. For Maori. the term wafma is loosely translated as soul. spirit or essence ofaperson (Keiha and Pio. 2015). There is an interrelationship among water. breath. and wind. which forms (reciprocal) connections with the land through language. prayer and song. as an expression of a sacred covenant (Cajete. 2015). As a consequence. in this view. \"a complex cycle evolves in which traditional environmental knowl- edge informs environmentally sound practices that in turn are founded upon a deeply internalized belief system\" (p. 264). Therefore. as Cajete generalizes. \"Each indigenous community is consid- ered a sacred place. a place of living. learning. teaching. healing and ritual a place where the people share the breath oftheir life and thought\" (Cajete. 2015. p. 269).As in many other Indigenous contexts. the Anishnaabe teachings of multiple North American tribes (Reo and Ogden. 2018) instruct that all living beings have gifts that they share with the rest of Creation. When accepting these gifts. humans bear responsibilities to the land and system reciprocity to ensure their steward- ship. Plants and animals are considered persons. All plants and animals have their own wisdom. purpose and creation stories and humans are not separate from the natural environment. In fact. nature finds its own balance and therefore elders eschew drastic chemical interventions. Reciprocity Reciprocity or cyclical obligation \"underscores the fact that in nature things are circular\" (Harris and Wasilewski. 2004. p. 493). This perspective creates a very different perspective than traditional Western management thinking and economics. which view nature as something from which resources can be extracted. manipulated. used. then discarded in what ecologists call a linear take- make-waste process (McDonough and Braungart. 2010). Many Indigenous values emphasize instead the cyclicality of nature. recognizing what in sustainability circles is called circularity or the circular economy (Stahel. 2016). Biodiversity and beliefs about forests frame Indigenous communities\" ecological ethos and long-term sustainability orientations (Torri and Hermann. 201 1). Some Indigenous practices explicitly express and nurture this kinship with the natural environment as well as sacred histories that emphasize peoplehood and seeing these elements in a reciprocal relationship. Three themes aligned with this concept are responsibility to honor knowledge and continuity. family relation- ships and communal values. and relationships to land and water. Cyclicality or reciprocity is reflected in the following story. Referencing the Guj j ar people from Sariska in Rajasthan. India. Torri and Herman (2011) note the importance ofthe feminine divinity Mara. who is invoked to maintain her benevolence along with respectful behavior towards nature. Such behavior ensures that the divinity is not offended and therefore the people and land are pro- tected and there is sustainable prosperity. As a Guj j ar inhabitant explained. \"The Mara protects the forests. We don't cut the trees in the woods because we will be punished by the Mara that lives 336 Management Learning 52(3) there. The punishment of the Mata can be stern and can cause the death of a member of the family or a domestic animal." Highlighting the interconnectedness of all these values, the Maori idea of Manaaki encom- passes power, control and influence through caring for others, reciprocity, honoring and leading with moral purpose (Pio et al., 2013b). Individuals, from this perspective, are endowed with obli- gations and empowered to be guardians of this planet in their thinking and behavior (Pio and Graham, 2018) (see the section on Responsibility above). Further, in Maori culture, Kaitiakitanga refers to guardianship or stewardship of planetary resources and the ecosystems through which life is created, and nurtured, with spiritual and material well-being for future generations and to the natural world. This idea of reciprocity is highly consistent with the notion, discussed briefly above, of stewardship for the whole Earth-or what some call planetary stewardship (Power and Chapin, 2009), and a far cry from neoliberalism's (deliberate) ignorance of the natural and social systems that constitute the world. While individualism characterizes much management thinking today, many Indigenous per- spectives, like many Eastern and Southern ones, are holistic and value the good of the whole or collective wellbeing over that of individuals in these reciprocal and circular relationships (c.f., Lodge and Vogel, 1987). For many Indigenous peoples, human beings and their communities are but one part of the bigger whole or collective that encompasses nature and all other beings (Narvaez et al., 2019). Indigenous peoples tend to see their identity as well as their cultural heritage, including intel- lectual property, more as part of a collective, tribe, or group than as individual, bound together in reciprocity. Key values identified as common to Indigenous cultures by the UN include "honour, respect for one another, deference to Elders, family and kinship and related roles, sharing, coopera- tion, humour, knowledge of language, customs and traditions, compassion, humility, avoidance of conflict, spirituality, peace and harmony" (United Nations, 2009, p. 190). Such values stand in distinct contrast to Western values of individualism, individual rights, and competitiveness, which are deeply embedded in management thinking through neoliberal economics. Another expression of the reciprocity associated with collective wellbeing, is the term ubuntu, which originated in Southern Africa and means the state of being human, to reflect the importance of the collective (Perezts et al., 2020). Ubuntu is often translated as "I am because we are," reflect- ing the idea that a person becomes human through others (Pio et al., 2013a) and cannot exist out- side the community (social) context. While the Bantu and Nguni languages are the source of the term ubuntu, this is also expressed in other parts of Africa such as for example, unhu and ubuthosa in Zimbabwe, botho in Botswana, numuntu in Tanzania and umuntu in Uganda (Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013). Gutierrez similarly (2018) notes that Native Americans tend to view their knowl- edge, including traditional ways and cultures, as collective property in perpetuity, not necessarily having identifiable authors or creators, since it belongs to the collective. indigenous governance structures are often radically different from Western notions of hierarchy, patriarchy, and dominance, also reflecting the idea of reciprocity. Indigenous governance tends to be non-hierarchical, decentralized, inclusive, and sometimes matriarchal, taking the form of confedera- tions in Native American traditions (Mann, 2019). Children are kept close by their elders to build this sense of community (Narvaez, 2019). Indigenous Andeans similarly believe in the ayni principle of collective common good or reciprocity and the philosophy of good living or Sumaqkawsay (Huambachano, 2015). This belief of the Andeans entails obligations between humans and Pachamama or the earth mother. Therefore, there is allin lank'ay or working together in harmony, allin munay or ethical values, and allin yachay or ancient traditional knowledge and its application. This sense of reciprocity or cooperation/collaboration creates a sacred relationship between humans and the earth exemplified in the practices of Ikibiri and Gadugi in Burundi. The BurundiPio and Waddock 337 cultural pattern, Ikibiri functions to socially connect the community and is grounded in the ethic of Ubuntu or humanity to others, to accomplish tasks in a timeframe through community strengths (Muchiri et al., 2019). This perspective is not limited to Africa. The Cherokee people have a recip rocal social system of Gadugi or cooperative working groups of people to support each other to accomplish a goal (Corntassel and Hardbarger, 2019). The Cherokee nations of Oklahoma in the USA have the plural concept of iyunadvenelidasdi or lifeways, which means the practice of doing things repeatedly through daily practices of resurgence for the complex connections between land, language, community (Corntassel and Hardbarger, 2019). This perspective emphasizes coopera- tion and collaboration-the biological idea that nature is built on symbiosis at least as much as competition (De Waal, 1996, 2008)-unlike current economics and much of management think- ing, which fosters a dog-eat-dog competition. In a similar vein, O'Sullivan (2019) discusses walking backwards into the future or the Maori proverb Hoki whakamuri kia anga whakamua. She emphasizes the values of the cultural collective of Moana. Moana includes Maori, the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand and the peoples of the Pacific nations. Their ideology "proffers an eternal and symbiotic inter-connectivity between those who inhabit earth and what they add to or take from that relationship" (p. 425). In this context col- lective and individual responsibility align with historic and contemporary aspects of cultural tradi- tions and practices, through respect, reciprocity, and connectivity between humans and the earth. Using the case of the Mundas of India, Shah (2010, p. 58) notes that their sacral polity, or a view that "all aspects of life were legitimized by the spirits', and related cosmology ensure that the sacred and secular are intimately connected with mutual reciprocity and egalitarianism in how lives are lived. This view is part of the complex relationship with the environment and mutual reci- procity extended to plants, water, animals, and land. More broadly, many Indigenous cultures share a holistic perspective on collective governance, where reciprocity and mutuality are paramount, and where policies tend to be based on consultation and discussion within the whole community (United Nations, 2009). Reflecting a holistic conception of wellbeing, Indigenous peoples often believe, according to the UN, that health means 'harmonious coexistence of human beings with nature, with themselves, and with others, aimed at integral well-being, in spiritual, individual, and social wholeness and tranquility' (United Nations, 2009, p. 157, quoting the Health Workshop, Guaranda, Bolivar, Ecuador; United Nations, 1995). Redistribution Redistribution or the sharing obligation in Native American Indigenous traditions has as its primary purpose 'to balance and rebalance relationships' (Harris and Wasilewski, 2004, p. 493). For Native Americans the idea of redistribution means "sharing, not only material wealth, but information, time, talent and energy, one's total self (p. 493) in what is sometimes called a giving economy. Gutierrez, for example, notes that in her Lakota culture the very idea of wealth is radically dif- ferent from the neoliberal economics notion of financial wealth, material acquisition, and constant growth. She comments, "For Lakota, wealth means to live by our virtues in order to have a happy, well-balanced life. The goal is not materialistic things but helping, giving, and taking care of one another. Our wealth is measured in our ability to care for our people and to provide a strong foun- dation for future generations" (Gutierrez, 2018, p. 16). Redistribution is not limited to North American Indigenous peoples. In the adinkra symbols of the Akan in Ghana, Quaynor (2018) highlight three things: first, the funtunfunefu denkyemfunefu, which is two crocodiles with separate mouths but one stomach. This image stresses that nourish- ment is through what we and others eat. The second aspect is wonsa, which highlights that if one's hand is in the dish, people do not eat everything and leave you nothing. This view highlights that338 Management Learning 52(3) individual action is necessary for communal resources. The third aspect is kronti ne akwamu, which means that one head does not form a jury or council, emphasizing the need for interdepend- ence of the collective in decision-making. The holistic perspective also evidences itself in how Indigenous peoples, for example, in North America, relate to the concept of flourishing-global flourishing as contrasted with global econ- omy and in the idea of a "gift economy." Narvaez et al. (2019, p. 6) claim, "The goal is to promote a flourishing life through following nature's gift economy (constant sharing, reciprocal giving-and- taking among entities), being receptive to the natural flow of events, working with nature respect- fully to promote diversity, including valuing human life as inseparable from the lives of other members of the bio-community." This sentiment is also reflected in the Lakota saying, Mitakuye Oyasin, which is translated as "all my relations," reflecting the kincentric perspectives discussed above. Mitakuve Oyasin reflects this giving culture in distinct contrast to the Western culture of acquisition of material goods, the perspective that humans cannot be separated from nature (e.g. Brokenleg, 1999), and it accords dignity and respect to other living beings, who are thought of as persons (Narvaez et al., 2019). The Sto: lo gift economy of the coast Salish, who inhabit the territory from the lower Vancouver Island to the town of Yale on the Fraser River, thrives through an economic philosophy of gifting in the potlatch or Stl'e'aleq traditions (Kelly and Kelly, 2015). These traditions have ensured that these indigenous peoples have prospered for thousands of years-in a very different conception of "economy" than many people today are familiar with. In these traditions, there are three symbolic levels of exchange: the purpose of the event such as property exchange or names; exchange between host family and witnesses; and exchange between host family and guests with gift giving. In this process elders, as wisdom keepers and witnesses of the past Stl'e'aleq, follow strict proto- cols. Sto: lo is thus part of the fabric of reciprocity and consists of an extensive network of exchange linked with the spiritual world, to ensure wellness and wholeness of the people and the land. Discussion: Integrating indigenous perspectives for management learning From a management learning perspective, integrating and recognizing (Fraser, 2018) Indigenous wisdom poses significant questions of power and the possibility of further colonialization or "erasure" of those perspectives (Na'puti, 2019). That is especially true if such learnings are sim- ply absorbed into more dominant Western economics and management perspectives without col- laboration with Indigenous thinkers, acknowledgement and adequate recognition (c.f., Lugones, 2010). Gutierrez (2018, p. 11), a Lakota woman, points out that such issues are "questions of who holds power, who lacks it, who has a right to ownership, and who remains perpetually disposed and powerless." Still, if we are to negotiate the "western abyss" created by the dominance of western thinking, we need to create a "decolonial imagination" (Savransky, 2017), and overcome the dominance of today's embedded management (capitalist) ideology. This ideology, as Mclaren (2020, p. 188) notes, was quite deliberately constructed for "strengthening capitalism and to maintain the superi- ority of business and the managerial elite." The end result is an overwhelming emphasis on profits and efficiency (Mclaren, 2020, p. 188), at the expense of other values that better serve the emer- gence of a flourishing, life-enhancing world for all, the need for which the Covid-19 pandemic, not to mention the climate crisis, makes starkly clear. Indeed, it is those very limitations of thought-the dominant mindset of neoliberalism, positiv- ist, and mechanistic thinking-that have propelled humanity into the ecological and socio-politicalPio and Waddock 339 crises of the day (e.g. Lovins et al.. 2018; McGilchrist. 2009). Neoliberal economics generally overlooks or ignores our human existence as part of a living natural world and as connected to each other (and other beings) in deeply meaningful ways. while Indigenous wisdom offers a clear set of alternatives. As Banerjee and Tedmanson (2010) succinctly point out. that without such an expan- sive project to incorporate such wisdom into management thought. however \"un-innocent\" it might be. discussions of diversity and diverse perspectives are simply \"trying to be polite\" (citing Bell Smith and Nkomo. 2001). Thus. we believe that for management learning. it is important that Indigenous wisdom be taken seriously (Banerjee and Linstead. 2004) as part of developing a new economics and new organizing philosophies based on values that have more potential to serve \"all\" ofthe world. rather than the managerial elite (e.g. McLaren. 2020). Using their relational. reciprocal. responsibility. and redistribution values. Indigenous peoples. through thousands of years. while not perfect stewards of the world. have generally not polluted water. endangered species. or destroyed forests irreparably. At the same time. they ensured that they had food and shelter (Morgan. 1999). plus communities in which all participants were engaged and had voice. These ideas. that is. of honoring all people. nature. and all other beings. and even the planet. conceived as Gaia. and of reconceiving the notion of wealth toward something more like wellbeing (Pirson. 2017). have much to offer in our resource-constrained. sustainability-chal- lenged. pandemic-fraught world. The idea of redistribution. for example. redefines wealth in important ways. that is. as virtues that enable a happy. well-balanced life spent in cooperation with other beings and nature rather than in competition \"red in tooth and claw.\" moving towards coop- eration and co-existence with other beings rather than exploitation. Management thinking today. based in neoliberalism. gears economies. businesses. and whole societies toward constant material growth and achievement of wealth. defined as monetary or finan- cial wealth (e.g. McLaren. 202 0; Pirson. 2017; Waddock. 2016). Neoliberalismmodern capitalism or neoclassical economics by any nameis based on ideas of economic efficiency. productivity. and continual (financial and material) growth (Collien. 2018; Me Laren. 2020; ). rather than values that are inherently more life-affirming. emphasize inclusiveness and voice. and are relationally power- ful. McLaren (202 0) has aptly demonstrated the deliberateness with which this philosophy of \"man- agerialism\" was embedded in business schools by the Ford Foundation. It was taughtflearned as being value free. based in \"facts\" about efficiency and productivity that were viewed as helping societies. while diminishing the capacity for people other than managers and leaders to engage in decision processes. McLaren highlights the managerialist'capitalist ideology in which most busi- ness school thinking. research and teaching is embedded as producing an environment that is never questionedand is hard to question because it is considered to be value neutral. Neoliberal economics builds on the thinking of a strong proponent. Margaret Thatcher. who famously claimed. \"There is no such thing as society\" (e.g. Lovins et al.. 2018; Monbiot. 2016; Waddock. 2016). This economic approach. about which Thatcher also claimed \"There is no alternative\" (or TINA). fails to take into account the negative socio-ecological impacts and risk of ecosystem collapse of\"efficiency\" measures like industrial agriculture. trawling for fish. and blowing the tops off of mountains to get at resourcesso-called externalitieson the natural environment. Indeed. the natural environment is ignored in neoliberal thinking (Lovins et al.. 2018; Monbiot. 2016;). while it is central in Indigenous wisdom. placing human beings directly into the processes of life-giving. As Korten (2015) consistently argues. \"We are living beings born of a living Earth and we ignore that at our peril.\" Neoliberalism's purportedly \"value neu- tral\" approach to economics is. however. what is taught largely unquestioningly in business schools around the world (Collien. 2018). The Indigenous values of relationship. responsibility for the whole (stewardship). reciprocity. and redistributionclearly recognizable as value-ladenhave the potential to offer a very 340 Management Learning 52(3) different form of economy and different sets of managerial values that orient businesses and other institutions towards generativity. life. inclusivity. participation by all. and shared wellbeing. That is. they emphasize what Donaldson and Walsh (2015) in their seminal paper on business purpose called collective value absent dignity violations. For example. Indigenous wisdom frames \"wealth\" as wellbeing. harmony with self. others. and nature enable management thinking to work its way out of its set of limited perspectives (McLaren. 2020). Several wellbeing-oriented and holistic metrics. goals. and standards that affirm values more akin to Indigenous values are emerging. including metrics like the Genuine Progress Indicator. OECD's How's Life Index. and the Gross National Happiness Index. None of these alternatives has yet gained the dominance of known-to-be-flawed (Stiglitz et al.. 2018) gross domesticinational product (GDPi GNP). which merely measure economic activity. for good or for ill. yet all take the more holistic. responsibility for the whole. perspective of Indigenous wisdom. Reciprocirv and relationship inform us about what is essentially the sacredness of all life. includ- ing non-human life and other entities (all of which are believed to have spirit in many Indigenous cultures). These concepts taken seriously can usefully inform \"modern\" approaches to the land. agriculture. forests. oceans. and other animals. As noted. many of today's agri-business practices are harmful (pesticides. GMOs. human-made fertilizers. industrial animal husbandry. to name only some of the most obvious). Food production processes today in Western nations tend to emphasize inexpensive. fat. salt. and sugar-laden products at the expense of\"whole\" foods (Moss. 2013). and are non-nutritious at best and harmful at worst. Honoring other creatures and entities. including plant life. provides a very different outlook on \"developed\" world practices that represent exploita- tion of natural resourcesand. along the wayhuman beings (or in the vernacular \"human resources\"). Viewing all of life as sacred makes these practices unconscionable. Collectively. they constitute a dominance strategy (Collien. 2018; Eisler. 2008) that directs resources towards the already powerful and away from the potential for what Eisler (2008) calls a \"caring economics.\" one that reects both responsibility and reciprocity. In terms of management learning. the domi- nance of the managerialist'capitalist ideology reinforces existing dominance structures that have long suppressed the voiceand valuesof Indigenous peoples. avoiding a needed critical stance toward existing theories and practices that maintain this power structure (Collien. 2018). That dominance certainly applies to the exploitation of non- or more-than-human (Barrett et al.. 2017) life and resources with whom human beings are in reiaiionship on a regular basis. This sepa- ration of more-than-human as mute and humans as higher on the animal hierarchy has led to anthropogenic causes of climate change and related socio-ecological dis asters (Barrett et al.. 2017). Think what an \"all are related\" view might do for management learning pertaining to industrial practices. agri-business. mining. fishing. meat production. and numerous other common business practices lauded in the current ideology. Think what it would do for human beings involved in economic production. not to mention the future leaders being educated in business schools to be able to take a relational- or care-based approach to the world about them. Looking through the lenses of relationship and responsibiiirv enables Indigenous and \"colonial\" thinkers to collaboratively move forward more powerful ideas of collective wellbeing (c.f._. Chen and Miller. 2011. discussing Eastern philosophies). For example. many Indigenous peoples\" live in carbon neutral and low carbon ways of life that emphasize sustainable livelihoods and low levels of consumption. Wastefulness is rarely found among indigenous peoples (Dana. 2015). and this wisdom keeps the good ofthe whole firmly in mind (Ramos-Castillo et al.. 2017). a clear steward- ship stance (Block. 1993). For example. ifthe Sami slaughter a reindeer. they ensure that all parts are utilized in a sustainable manner. much as Native Americans did with buffalo. Reciprocin and relationship thus offer sorely needed lessons for biodiversity maintenance and enhancement (Diaz et al.. 2019). something key to principles that give life to socio-economic systems Pie and Waddock 34| (Kuenkel and Waddock. 2019). Because of their relational and reciprocity orientation. Indigenous peoples value biodiversity including signicant carbon stocks (Briggs et al._. 2019). Despite the place- orientation and vast diversity of Indigenous perspectives. many recognize spirit and unseen forces in ways that most Westerners do not (e.g. Tom et al._. 2019). Combined with the idea of redistribution. that is. gifting and sharing for the good of the whole (Huaman. 2019) found in many Indigenous cultures. this sense of relational being recognizes that there is far more to a \"good\" life than the mate- rial and financial gains that dominate the Western and \"developed\" world today. While there are many possible lessons from Indigenous perspectives for management learning. their key leverage (Meadows. 1999) may be in reducing the economic. ecological. and societal issues and moving the world towards ourishing for all by bringing about a new paradigmor mindset change. Mindset change and ultimately the ability to transcend existing mindsets are the most powerful change levers (Meadows. 1999). Perspectives from Indigenous wisdom can push focus away from today's neoliberalism and \"(hu)man\"-dominating-nature mindsets. evident in Western cultures. towards more holistically integrated approaches. We argue for a pivot towards recognizing. collaborating with. integrating. and renewing mindsets by incorporating Indigenous wisdom that has always been with us. This enables. ultimately. ourishing life over long time peri- ods in a heavily-human-populated Earth. Such ideas need to be deeply embedded into management thinking and learningindeed. into a \"new economics\" that is life and relationship-centric rather than market and money-centric. An economics that emphasizes the very values of relationship (or connectedness). responsibility for the whole system. reciprocity. and redistribution (social justice or equity) that Indigenous wisdom provides with the possibility of greater overall wellbeing and ourishing for all. Limitations As with any study. this one has limitations. In particular. our own perspectives as authors are lim- ited by the privilege accorded us as academics in mostly Western settings. writing for a mostly \"colonial\" (or. hopefully. post-c olonial) audience. As non-Indigenous women. we can only try our best to reect what we have learned from Indigenous peoples and. hopefully. give \"voice\" in new complimentary collaborative ways. As with all authors. we have blind spots and sometimes it is hard for us to get out of our own ways with respect to those blind spots. We could potentially have misrepresented. appropriated and commodified Indigenous wisdom. from the point of view of some readers. even though we have very consciously sought to present complimentary. decolonized collaborative ways for management learning. Essentializing is another area that some individuals may take umbrage with. however. we have eschewed binary opposites to allow space for dialogue. Further we have tried to be extremely careful not to reinforce normative whiteness. Western-centrism. or discursive violences. Our study is positioned as a small step to understand and invoke the centering of Indigenous wisdom into management thought and learning. Conclusion In this article. we have sought to invoke Indigenous wisdom for a new framing of management thinking and learning. Western. positivist. and mechanistic perspectives expressed in neoliberal capitalism still dominate the \"developed\" world today. including the embedded idea that human beings\" are separate from and dominant over nature. Undoubtedly. there will be many moves to return the system to \"business as usual' in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. however. there is also an inherent opportunity in this crisis and the attendant economic shut-down to cope better with the unfortunate outcomes alluded to earlier. Numerous observers argue that today's dominant 342 Management Learning 52(3) values, embodied in the tenets of neoliberalism, are systematically destroying our planet's capacity to support human beings (and other living creatures). Indigenous wisdom includes knowledge, know-how, skills, values and practices that are devel- oped, sustained and passed on from generation to generation within a community, often forming part of its cultural or spiritual identity. Such wisdom has enabled many Indigenous peoples to maintain their values, culture, and approaches to a sustainable world, even in a context of colonization, oppress sion, being devalued, and other significant threats. Our contribution is to pivot towards Indigenous wisdom with its holistic emphasis on relationships, reciprocity, redistribution and responsibility. We have suggested that this pivot can create revitalization frameworks that bridge Indigenous and non- Indigenous knowledges and ideologies, give voice to many more peoples, and engage them in col- laborative efforts, which move beyond censorship pertaining to Indigenous peoples. South African tax lawyer and wise elder Natie Engelbrecht, who grew up in the Kalahari Desert, related a core lesson that we draw from in exploring Indigenous values (personal communication). The shamans in his village told him when they stopped running on the African veldt (or open land- scape): "Sometimes you have to stop so your soul can catch up to you." We would all do well to remember that lesson, particularly as the world struggles to recover from the "standing still" imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is an opportunity to shift management and economic thought so that it far better deals with the current and impending disasters to humanity posed by growing inequality, climate change, and species extinction (to name only a couple of civilization-threaten- ing problems). We who work with management learning and thinking have much to learn. Acknowledgements With gratitude and love to our sons who gift us with their presence; with grateful hearts to Indigenous peoples of our fragile earth; thanks to Jamie MacDonald associate editor of Management Learning for steering our manuscript through the writing and reviewing process; we are also appreciative of the anonymous reviewers for their meticulous and exhaustive comments. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iD Edwina Pio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3296-618X References Banerjee SB (2003) Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and reinvention of nature. Organization Studies 24(1): 153-180. Banerjee SB and Linstead S (2004) Masking subversion: neoclolonial embeddedness in anthropological accounts of indigenous management. Human Relations 57(2): 221-247. Banerjee S and Tedmanson D (2010) Grass burning under our feet: indigenous enterprise development in a political economy of whiteness. Management Learning 41(2): 147-165. Barrett MJ, Harmin M, Maracle B, et al. (2017) Shifting relations with the more-than-human: six threshold concepts for transformative sustainability learning. Environmental Education Research 23(1): 131-143. Bell Smith ELJ and Nkomo S (2001) Our Separate Ways: Black and White Women and The Struggle for Professional Identity. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Berkes F (2008) Sacred Ecology. New York: Routledge. Bell E and Bridgman T (2017) Why management learning matters. Management Learning 48(1): 3-6. Bell E and Bridgman T (2018) Expecting the unexpected in management learning. Management Learning 49(1): 3-7. Block P (1993) Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Pio and Waddock 343 Briggs L, Stedman R and Krasny M (2019) Place attachment and social-ecological system sustainability examined through the voices of indigenous Guatemalan women. Sustainability Science 14: 655-667. Brokenleg M (1999) Native American perspectives on generosity. Reclaiming Children and Youth 8(2): 66-68. Burm S and Burleigh D (2017) Non-indigenous women teaching indigenous education: a duoethnographic exploration of untold stories. Journal of Educational Research and Practice 26(2): 34-46. Burns HL (2015) Transformative sustainability pedagogy: learning from ecological systems and indigenous wisdom. Journal of Transformative Education 13(3): 259-276. Cajete G (2015) That place that Indian people talk about. In: Spiller C and Wolfgramm R (eds) Indigenous Spiritualties at Work: Transforming the Spirit of Enterprise. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 259-272. Chen MJ and Miller D (2011) The relational perspective as a business mindset: managerial implications for east and west. Academy of Management Perspectives 25(3): 6-18. Collien I (2018) C