Skip navigation
Chat Apply Now Request Info Call Now

Group Type Differences and the Dimensions of Group Cohesion

Group cohesion has four dimensions that assess how individuals feel about their role in a group socially and their role in accomplishing the group’s task (Carron et al., 2002). Arrow et al. (2000) found that groups form differently based on the forces which drive group formation. Externally driven groups generally have a task focus, while internally driven groups typically focus on the group members’ needs. Previous researchers have treated both types of groups as equivalent in their group cohesion studies (CaseyCampbell & Martens, 2009). The literature review also suggested that group tenure may play a part in group cohesion. Using an adapted version of Carron et al.’s (2002) Group Environment Questionnaire, 257 adults based in the United States shared their views about a group to which they belonged. I conducted an ANCOVA with group type as the dependent variable and group tenure as the covariate for each of Carron et al.’s (2002) four group cohesion dimensions. The results found group type did not affect the levels of Carron et al.’s group cohesion dimensions.

Keywords: group environment questionnaire, work group, club, social group

Introduction

Organizational researchers frequently study group cohesiveness. Carron et al. (2002) conceptualized group cohesion as a multi-dimensional construct, which led individuals to be attracted to groups (p. 10). Carron et al. (2002) found that group cohesion works at the individual level, with group members feeling both a social and task pull (p. 10). However, Carron et al. did not explain why different people felt attached to groups across each dimension. Arrow et al. (2008) theorized that different types of groups emerged from various forces acting on them. Those forces manifest themselves in a group’s focus on a task and personal needs. While all groups exhibit group cohesion in both task and social dimensions, Arrow et al.’s work suggested different group types may experience the dimensions of group cohesion in different ways. Conducting a quantitative study to determine if group type affects Carron et al.’s dimensions of group cohesion could inform future group cohesion research and the potential need to account for group type as researchers examine group cohesion.

Research Problem

Research on group cohesion is hindered by a lack of a standardized conceptualization of group cohesion.  Many researchers developed their own definitions and measures of group cohesiveness, leading to inconsistent application across research and context. Specifically, researchers have found that group cohesion exists in social and work settings (e.g., Caperchione et al., 2011; Durneac, 2012) but have failed to distinguish if the difference in settings affects group cohesion.  Instead, research has treated different types of groups as equivalent. This leads to confusion about whether different studies examine the same aspects of group cohesion and limits contextual analysis.  Hence, the research problem is: Are the experiences of group cohesion distinguishable across different types of groups? 

Literature Review

High group cohesion is a vital facet of group success, but group cohesion lacks a broadly accepted definition (Carless & De Paola, 2000, p. 71; Drescher et al., 2002, p. 663). Lewin’s (1943) field theory led early researchers to describe group cohesion as a uni-dimensional construct consisting of “the total field of forces that act on members to remain in the group” (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 230). Other uni-dimensional group cohesion definitions include Spink and Carron’s (1994) definition of group cohesion as a group member’s “potential to remain in, or leave, the group” (as cited in Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 238). Carron et al. (1998) defined group cohesion as “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (p. 213). Casey-Campbell & Martens (2009) defined cohesion as “the group members’ inclinations to forge social bonds, resulting in the group sticking together and remaining united” (p. 223). 

Later conceptual models shifted to treat group cohesion as a multi-dimensional construct. Carron and Brawley (2012) found that group cohesion operates with two distinct components: group integration and individual (p. 727). The group integration component is “the individual’s perceptions about what the group believes about its closeness, similarity, and bonding as a whole and the degree of unification of the group field” (p. 727). The individual component measures the group member’s desire to remain in the group and how they feel about belonging to the group (p. 727). Groups that more effectively meet the needs of their members have higher group cohesion (p. 727). As researchers who study group cohesion came from many backgrounds, they sometimes failed to consider how other disciplines conceptualize group cohesion (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 224). These varied backgrounds provide a potential explanation for the lack of a consensus on a standard conceptualization of group cohesion (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 224).

The disparate definitions of group cohesion limit researchers’ ability to study group cohesion across contexts. However, there are similar themes across the conceptualizations of group cohesion. First, a force acts on the group. The force may arise from an internal actor, or the force may come from an external actor (Carron et al., 1998, p. 213; Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 230). Second, the force holds individuals together for a purpose (Carron et al., 1998, p. 213; Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 223). However, the different definitions highlight differences in group cohesion’s operationalized conceptualizations. Researchers disagree on whether group cohesion’s forces act on the individuals within the group or the group as a whole (Keyton, 2000, p. 390). Some argue that the forces act only on the individual, and others claim it acts only on the group (Carron et al., 2002, p. 10). Other researchers argue that group cohesion’s forces act on both the individual and the group (Carron et al., 2002, p. 10).

Effects of Group Cohesion

Group cohesion is a “critical attribute” of group success (Abuke et al., 2014, p. 149). While researchers conceptualize group cohesion differently, most found it to have a positive effect on groups. Increased group cohesion led to increased group performance (Durneac, 2012, p. 38). Group members’ alignment with group objectives also comes from group cohesion (Cartwright & Zander, 1968, as cited in Abuke et al., 2014, p. 150). Group cohesion also leads to group members conforming to the group’s norms (Durneac, 2012, p. 33). Group cohesion’s task and social dimensions independently positively correlated with group performance (Casey-Campbell and Martens, 2009, p. 241). Casey-Campbell and Martens’ (2009) meta-analysis found significant group cohesion levels led to increased perceptions of a group’s effectiveness and increased task commitment (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 227). Increased group cohesion also led to lower work-related stress levels and reduced absenteeism (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 226). 

Antecedents of Group Cohesion

Conceptualizing group cohesion as a field of forces led researchers to focus on its outcomes rather than its antecedents (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 225). Similar to the multiple definitions of group cohesion, there is no consensus on group cohesion’s antecedents. Casey-Campbell and Martens’ (2009) meta-analysis found that one major challenge in understanding group cohesion’s antecedents was separating the definition of group cohesion from its antecedents (p. 225). Some identified antecedents of group cohesion include an individual’s intention to remain and interpersonal ties (Cartwright, 1968; Lott & Lott, 1965). Group identification and group homogeneity also appear to be antecedents of group cohesion (Hogg, 1992; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). 

Dimensions of Group Cohesion

While early theorists did not reach an agreement, a consensus emerged with later researchers that group cohesion is a multi-dimensional construct (Carless & De Paola, 2000, p. 72). However, researchers still tend to find that the dimensions of group cohesion align with their definition of group cohesion. For example, a researcher who viewed group cohesion as a measure of an individual’s attraction to a group found an individual’s level of attraction to the group was a significant factor in that group’s cohesiveness (Carless & De Paola, 2000, p. 73). Researchers focusing on the group as a whole found the group’s collective feelings lead to group cohesiveness (Carron et al., 2002., pp. 9-10). Additionally, interpersonal cohesion and task cohesion appears in many theorists’ group cohesion constructs (Abuke et al., 2014, p. 150).

Carron et al.’s (2002) definition of group cohesion incorporates many of the themes other researchers found. Carron et al.’s (2002) model conceptualized group cohesion as a group property measurable by the perceptions of the group’s members (p. 9). Individuals observe the group’s properties and use those observations to make decisions about the group and their desire to belong to the group (p. 9). They also examine the group’s structure and dynamics as a whole (p. 9). The group members then process their observations into social and task dimensions (p. 10). 

Carron et al. (2002) also developed a validated psychometric instrument, the Group Environment Questionnaire. Carron et al.’s (2002) Group Environment Questionnaire conceptualized group cohesion as a four-construct model (p. 10). They found group integration-task addresses how individual team members felt about how the group bonded as a whole around the group’s task. Group integration-social examined how individuals felt about how the group connected as a whole socially. Individual attractions to the group-task were the individual’s feelings about her involvement in the group’s “task, productivity, and goals and objectives” (p. 10). Individual attractions to the group-social were the individual’s feelings about her level of “personal acceptance” and interactions with the group (p. 10). 

Group Cohesion Differences by Type of Group

Arrow et al. (2000) developed a typology that classified group formation based on whether internal or external factors drove the group’s formation. In groups with external drivers, such as work groups, the “primary issue” is conforming to the external actor’s demands (p. 66). For groups created by internal factors, the “primary issue” is how members “coordinate and integrate their own goals, intentions, and expectations” (p. 67). Even so, according to Durneac (2012), a group should promote both the group’s task and the development of the group’s members (p. 34). 

Arrow et al. (2000) defined affective integration as the emotional ties which bring people together (p. 71). Groups with internal formation drivers lead to groups with affective integration (Arrow et al., 2000, p. 71). These groups will develop shared values and suppress minority views (Arrow et al., 2008, p. 71). Ultimately those groups become part of their individual members’ “social identity” (Arrow et al., 2000, p. 72). Arrow et al.’s (2000) typology defines these groups as clubs since their primary purpose is meeting their members’ needs (p. 79). When the group meets the members’ needs, they remain in the group. When the group does not meet the members’ needs, the members leave the group. The projects accomplished by clubs serve as vehicles to meet the members’ needs (Arrow et al., 2008, p. 85). 

Externally driven group formation focuses on assembling an appropriate mix of group members to accomplish the group’s tasks (Arrow et al., 2008, p. 72). In task-oriented groups, which specific individual accomplishes the task is not important, as long as they possess the appropriate skills and training to do the tasks (Arrow et al., 2008, p. 73). Arrow et al.’s (2000) typology defines these groups as work groups since their primary purpose is “completing collective projects” (p. 79). 

Group members remain in groups that accomplish their reason for belonging to the group (Lawler et al., 2001, pp. 618-620). Members of task-oriented groups will remain in the group if the group is accomplishing the task, even if they do not feel strong social bonds with the other group members (Arrow et al., 2000, pp. 82-85; Lawler et al., 2001, p. 619). Similarly, a social group or club member will remain in the group if it meets their social needs (Lawler et al., 2001, p. 619). Work groups still need to provide some social support, and social groups still need to give a sense of task accomplishment, but these aspects are not the driving force behind group membership (Lawler et al., 2001, pp. 620-621). Without all types of groups providing some level of social bond and task accomplishment, the specific group will terminate (Lawler et al., 2001, p. 623). 

Integrating Carron et al.’s and Arrow et al.’s Perspectives

Arrow et al.’s (2000) two types of groups, work group and club, arise from the differences in group formation and group purpose. Both group types meet group members’ task and social needs (Arrow et al., 2000). Clubs prioritize meeting members’ social needs, while work groups prioritize meeting members’ task needs (Arrow et al.). Carron et al.’s (2012) four dimensions of group cohesion differentiate how groups meet members’ task and social needs (p. 10). The four dimensions examine the social and task needs from the group members’ perspectives at the group and individual level (p. 10). Arrow et al.’s differentiation by group type suggests there may be a difference in

Carron et al.’s dimensions of group cohesion based on the type of group: work group or club.

Group Cohesion Changes Over Time

Bostrom et al. (1993, as cited in Steen et al., 2014, p. 252) found that groups’ social aspects increased over time. Arrow et al. (2000) found people in groups that met their needs were unlikely to join new groups (p. 69). When needs are unmet, individuals seek new groups to meet their needs (p. 70). If people remain in groups that meet their needs, it stands to reason group cohesion should increase over time. Some researchers found group cohesion did increase over time. For example, Oh et al. (2018) found group cohesion increased over time in experiential growth groups. Kivlighan et al. (2019) found group cohesion increased in counselor trainees as they trained together (pp. 7071). However, Steen et al. (2014) found group cohesion decreased over time (p. 250). All three of these small sample studies addressed groups that existed for a few months rather than a year or more. Additionally, all the groups studied were externally formed groups whose primary purpose was performing or learning about counseling and are therefore not a generalizable sample. 

Harrison et al. (1998) found work groups with similarities in values and attitudes grew more cohesive over time (pp. 103-104). While their research was a snapshot study, it examined groups where the average tenure was four to five years, suggesting group cohesion may continue increasing beyond one year. Even though the evidence is ambiguous, group cohesion appears to increase over time, as indicated by group cohesion theory.

Theoretical Model

The literature suggests that group cohesion has both task and social dimensions, both of which operate at the individual and group levels (Carron et al., 2002). Based on how a group forms, the groups will primarily focus on task accomplishment or member development (Arrow et al., 2000). These concepts suggest groups may experience the dimensions of group cohesion differently. Groups formed by external forces — work groups — are task focused suggesting the task dimensions of group cohesion should appear more strongly than the social dimensions. Conversely, groups formed by internal forces — clubs — are focused on members’ needs suggesting the social dimensions of group cohesion should appear more strongly than the task dimensions. The literature does not indicate whether a work group or club will have greater group cohesion levels at the individual or group levels. 

Time also plays a factor in group cohesion. Groups that meet their members’ task and social needs retain members and increase in group cohesion. This increased group cohesion showed in both work groups and clubs. This leads to a theoretical model of how group type leads to group cohesion. Arrow et al.’s (2000) conceptualization of group type is the independent variable and each of the four dimensions of Carron et al.’s (2002) group dimension theory are the dependent variables. Group tenure functions as a covariate. 

Research Question

The probable but unestablished relationship between group type and group cohesion leads to the research question (RQ). When using a standard operationalized group cohesion model, does the group cohesion dimension vary by type of group?

Demonstrating whether the group types lead to differences in group cohesion enables researchers to proceed with more focused contextual studies. Previous studies lacked a standard operationalized model for group cohesion and therefore limited generalizability outside the group studied. 

Hypotheses

As Carron et al.’s (2002) definition of group cohesion has four dimensions, it leads to four research hypotheses. Each hypothesis predicts a difference in a dimension of group cohesion based on the type of group. Each hypothesis will also have a corresponding null hypothesis that theorizes no difference in each dimension of group cohesion based on the group type. In all cases, the research hypotheses control for group tenure. The four research hypotheses appear below:

  • RH1: When controlling for group tenure, there is a difference in Group Integration – Task by group type.
  • RH2: When controlling for group tenure, there is a difference in Group Integration – Social by group type.
  • RH3: When controlling for group tenure, there is a difference in Individual Attractions to the Group – Task by group type.
  • RH4: When controlling for group tenure, there is a difference in Individual Attractions to the Group – Social group type.

Method

I conducted a convenience sample of 257 group members located in the United States using the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. 

Instrumentation

The survey respondents completed a modified version of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) developed by Carron et al. (2002) and two demographic questions. The GEQ measures Carron et al.’s four-dimensional model of group cohesion: (a) Group Integration – Task (GI-T), (b) Group Integration – Social (GI-S), (c) Individual Attractions to the Group – Task (ATG-T), and (d) Individual Attractions to the Group – Social (ATG-S) (p. 10). Respondents answered 18 questions concerning their feelings about a group they belong to (p. 17). ATG-S and GI-T each have five items, while ATG-T and GI-S have four items (p. 17). Respondents select along a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 – strongly disagree to 9 – strongly agree (p. 17). 

Carron et al. (2002) found all of the individual dimensions of the GEQ except ATG-S had Cronbach’s alphas equal to or greater than 0.70 (p. 26). ATG-S has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.64 (p. 26). Carron et al. found the GEQ had construct and factor validity (pp. 30 & 35). They also found the GEQ a useful instrument for predicting behaviors that indicate group cohesiveness, i.e., the group remains together (p. 31). Therefore, Carron et al. determined the GEQ is a valid instrument (p. 31). 

Carron et al. (2002) designed and validated the GEQ in a North American sports team context. Therefore, all the items refer to a sports team. Carron and Brawley (2012) argued the GEQ’s conceptual model could apply to other settings if certain assumptions were valid (p. 731). The assumptions for the model include: (a) the group in which cohesiveness is measured must be an actual group and not an aggregate of individuals with a shared characteristic, (b) the group members are interdependent, and (c) consider themselves part of a group (Carron & Brawley, 2012, p. 731). Carron et al. recognized researchers would like to use the GEQ outside the context of North American sports teams and provided guidance on modifying the questionnaire (pp. 3941). Minor wording changes to fit the new context generally returned acceptable results when the context still included North American participants (p. 39). Outside the North American context, the psychometric properties did not hold (p. 39). Carron et al.

recommend researchers wishing to use the GEQ in a new setting “revise the wording on any item that appears to be useful, but contains language, terminology, or a situational reference not characteristic of the group(s) under focus” (pp. 40-41). The revision requires the replacement of references to “sport” and “team” with “group” and words like “game” and “practice” with “events.” For example, “Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance” becomes “Our group is united in trying to reach its goals for performance.” These GEQ modifications are consistent with Carron et al.’s guidance. 

The demographic questions covered the group member’s type of group and length of tenure in the group. These data items were self-reported. Arrow et al.’s (2000) work group and club definitions do not directly correspond to the English language terms’ general usage. For example, Arrow et al. (2000) defined a sports team as a work group because it is externally formed to accomplish a task (p. 85). A pilot study revealed respondents had difficulty selecting the correct group type if they were given Arrows et al.’s two group types. For example, pilot study survey respondents did not know how to correctly select the type of group for religious organizations or self-help groups.

Misclassifying the type of group would be detrimental to the purpose of this study. Instead, the group type demographic question asked the respondent to select from seven different types of groups, with a free text response option if they did not feel their group matched one of the provided options. I mapped the respondents’ selected group type to Arrow et al.’s theoretical model.  The group types from the demographic questions which mapped to work group were: (a) sports team and (b) work or occupational group. The group types from the demographic questions which mapped to club were: (a) community service-oriented group, (b) political or advocacy-oriented group, (c) religious or spiritual group, (d) self-help or self-development group, and (e) social club or group. The open-ended response allowed respondents to enter a free text response for group type. 

Sample

An ANCOVA design is appropriate because the research used one categorical independent variable, with one covariate, and continuous dependent variables. Faul et al. (2007) found that the G*Power 3 statistical package can determine the sample size needed in an ANCOVA design to achieve a statistical power of .95 with a 95% confidence interval. The model has one degree of freedom in the numerator, with two groups, and one covariate. Finding a medium effect required a sample size of 210, see Figure 1 (Butcher et al., 2020).

I conducted the survey using the Amazon Mechanical Turk Platform. The respondent criteria consisted of being located in the United States and having completed one previous task. The Mechanical Turk platform provided a link to the instrument and demographic questions hosted on the Survey Monkey platform. After acknowledging informed consent, the respondents completed the survey. After all the respondents completed the survey, I exported the data into Microsoft Excel to validate the data for completeness and the attention check. One survey was missing two items on a scale and was discarded for incomplete data. Thirty-one surveys failed the attention check and were discarded. Three free-text responses for group type were given. Two of the freetext responses were variations of occupational groups and mapped to work group. The third free text response was family. Arrow et al.’s (2000) theory does not provide clear guidance on considering families as clubs or work groups. This response was discarded for having an unclear group type. Of the 224 remaining valid responses, 99 respondents belonged to clubs, and 125 belonged to work groups. The minimum group tenure was one month and the maximum was 747 months, M = 62.1, SD = 70.2. The next longest tenure was 486 months.

Figure 1

G*Power 3 Inputs and Outputs Showing the Required Sample Size for the Proposed Study

G*Power 3 Inputs and Outputs Showing the Required Sample Size for the Proposed Study.
Note. The figure is a screenshot from G Power version 3.1.9.7 showing how the sample size was determined (Butcher et al., 2020). 

Results

The study addressed how group type affects the different dimensions of Carron et al.’s (2002) model of group cohesion while controlling for tenure. The four group cohesion dimensions, ATG-S, ATG-T, GI-S, and GI-T, are the dependent variables. There was one categorical independent variable: group type. There was one metric covariate: group tenure. A one-way ANCOVA was the appropriate statistical test to examine the four hypotheses. The data were imported into SPSS Version 27 for statistical analysis. Before conducting the ANCOVA, I tested the data for the homogeneity-of-slopes assumption for each dependent variable. For each of the dependent variables, the interaction was group type with group tenure. For ATG-S the interaction was significant, F(2, 220) = 4.68, MSE = 2.18, p = .01, partial η2 = .04. For ATG-T the interaction was not significant, F(2, 220) = 2.18, MSE = 6.01, p = .12 > .05, partial η2 = .02. For GI-S the interaction was not significant, F(2, 220) = 1.60, MSE = 2.62, p = .21 > .05, partial η2 = .01. For GI-T the interaction was significant, F(2, 220) = 6.22, MSE = 1.53, p = .02, partial η2 = .05. Significant interactions mean the relationship between the dependent variable and covariate has significant differences as a function of the independent variable. This means ATG-S and GI-T failed the homogeneity-of-slopes assumption, and an ANCOVA should not be conducted for the dependent variables (Green & Salkand, 2017, p. 155). However, a visual inspection of the covariate was sufficient to establish normality with a positive skew, and an ANCOVA analysis could proceed (M. Bocarnea, personal communication, 29 October 2020). ATG-T and GI-S met the homogeneity-of-slopes assumption, and an ANCOVA was conducted.

For ATG-S, the ANCOVA was significant, F(1, 220) = 6.77, MSE = 2.20, p = .01. However, the relationship between the group type and ATG-S was very weak, with a partial η2 = .03, holding constant the length of the group tenure. Therefore, RH 1 is accepted. This means group type very weakly explained the level of ATG-S, holding group tenure constant. For ATG-T, the ANCOVA was not significant, F(1, 220) = 2.87, MSE = 6.05, p = .09 > .05. Therefore RH 2 was not supported. There was no difference in ATG-T based on group type when holding group tenure constant. For GI-S, the

ANCOVA was not significant, F(1, 220) = 1.59, MSE = 2.64, p = .21 > .05. This means RH 3 was not supported. There was no difference in GI-S based on group type when holding group tenure constant. For GI-T, the ANCOVA was not significant, F(1, 220) = 3.23, MSE = 1.55, p = .07 > .05. Therefore RH 4 was not supported. There was no difference in GI-T based on group type when holding group tenure constant.

Discussion

Carron et al. (2002) found group cohesion had four dimensions. The four dimensions addressed how group members felt about their groups, as individuals and the group as a whole, socially, and about the group’s task (Carron et al., 2002, p. 10). Arrow et al.’s (2000) work showed two major types of groups, work groups, and clubs that vary primarily in the way forces act to form the groups (Arrow et al., 2000, pp. 66-67). The two group types develop different foci in their efforts; work groups focus on fulfilling tasks, and clubs focus on the needs of the members (Arrow et al., 2000, pp. 66-67). The literature suggested the way forces organize groups, and the differing foci should affect how the groups experienced group cohesion. However, since R2, R3, and R4 were not supported and the only accepted research hypothesis, R1, accounted for 3% of the difference in ATG-S the results showed this is not the case. In addition, R1 did not meet the homogeneity-of-slopes assumption and would require additional post-hoc analysis to validate if the difference in ATG-S by group type exists. 

While the findings contradict the anticipated results, they provide tangential support for previous researchers’ work to compare group cohesion across contexts (CaseyCampbell & Martins, 2009). The ability to compare group cohesion findings across contexts allows researchers to move forward with greater efficiency as group cohesion theories will not require contextual testing each time. Also, demonstrating group type does not affect group cohesion development suggests a universal process for how group cohesion develops. Many different theories for how group cohesion forms exist (Casey-Campbell & Martins, 2009). Future research may more confidently conduct experimental interventions to examine its development.

Limitations

Any use of the Mechanical Turk platform must acknowledge the potential to gather poor data (Ho et al., 2019). Ho et al. (2019) found pencil and paper and online nonMechanical Turk respondents had lower attention check failure rates or internally contradictory responses than Mechanical Turk respondents. The survey included an attention check, which resulted in 12 percent of responses being excluded from the study. Additionally, some of the retained results showed internal logical inconsistencies. For example, some respondents responded to regularly coded and reverse coded items with similar extreme values, e.g., both regular and reverse coded items scored 7, 8, or 9. While this is potentially a valid response, Carron et al.’s (2002) instrument development and validation process minimize its likelihood. 

Arrow et al.’s (2002) group typology includes three subtypes for each group. Work groups can be formed for projects, specific tasks, or function as long-term teams (p. 83). Clubs can be created for economic, social, or activity reasons (p. 86). These subtypes exhibit task and social variation within their broader group classification. For example, activity clubs should show higher task focus than social clubs (pp. 87-88). The survey sample could have been overweighted with one subtype, which affected the outcome. 

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should perform a confirmatory examination of these results. The confirmatory research should also address this study’s primary limitation and avoid using the Mechanical Turk platform. Achieving similar results with a non-incentivized sample will complement the findings that there is no difference in group cohesion based on the group type. 

Conclusion

The study found three of the four Carron et al.’s (2002) dimensions of group cohesion do not differ by group type. While ATG-S varied by group type, group type only accounted for 3% of group cohesion variation. This suggests group type does not have a large effect on how group cohesion forms or operates in a group.  Researchers can more confidently generalize group cohesion findings across group type.

About the Author

Matthew Thrift is a Ph.D. candidate in Organizational Leadership at Regent University.  He serves as an Assistant Professor at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA. He received his bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the United States Air Force Academy and his master’s degree in Aeronautical Science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. His interests include transformational leadership, small group dynamics, and strategic foresight. He can be contacted at mbthrift@yahoo.com.

References

Abuke, F., Wöber, K., Scott, N., & Baggio, R. (2014). Knowledge sharing in revenue management teams: Antecedents and consequences of group cohesion.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41(1), 149-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.010

Arrow, H., McGrath, J. R., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation. Sage.

Butcher, A., Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Long, A.G. (2020). G*Power (Version 3.1.9.7) [Computer Software].  Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. https://www.psychologie.hhu.de/arbeitsgruppen/allgemeine-psychologie-und-arbeitspsychologie/gpower

Caperchione, C., Mummery, W. K., & Duncan, M. (2011). Investigating the relationship between leader behaviors and group cohesion within women’s walking groups. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14(4), 325-330). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.03.005

Carless, S. A. & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71-88.

Carron, A. V. & Brawley, L. (2012). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 43(6), 726-743. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1046496412468072

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L., & Widmeyer, N. W. (2000). The measurement of cohesiveness in sports groups. In Joan L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement (2nd ed., pp. 213-226). Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Windmeyer, N. W. (2002). The Group Environmental Questionnaire Test Manual. Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Windmeyer, N. W., & Brawley, L. R. (1988). Group cohesion and individual adherence to physical activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(2), 119-126).

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91–109). Harper and Row.

Casey-Campbell, M. & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 11(2), 223-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682370.2008.00239.x

Drescher, S., Burlingame, G., & Fuhriman, A. (2012). Cohesion: An odyssey in empirical understanding. Small Group Research, 43(6), 662-689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412468073

Durneac, C. P. (2012). Group cohesion and performance: A bank analysis. Acta Universitatis Danubius, 8(4), 32-40. 

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.

Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2017). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding the data (8th ed.). Pearson.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Bell. M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion.

Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107.

Ho, H., Browne, B. L., Jurs, B., Flint, E, & McCutcheon, L. E. (2019). How serious is the ‘carelessness’ problem on Mechanical Turk. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(5), 411-449. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13645579.2018.1563966

Hogg, M.A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Keyton, J. (2000). Introduction: The relational side of groups. Small Group Research, 31(4), 387-396.

Kivlighan III, D. M., Adams, M. C., Obrecht, A., Kim, J. Y. C., Ward, B. & Latino, C. A. (2019). Group therapy trainees’ social learning and interpersonal awareness: The role of cohesion in training groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 44(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2018.1561777

Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 616-657. 

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the field at a given time. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292-310. https://doi.org/2048/10.1037/h0062738

Lott, A.J. & Lott, B.E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedents and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64(4), 269–309.

Oh, S., Mitchell, M. D., Bennett, C. M., Finnell, L. R., Saliba, Y., Heard, N. J., Pennock, E., R. (2018). Journal sharing on group cohesion and goal attainment in experiential growth groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 43(3), 206-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2018.1484541

Steen, S., Vasserman-Stokes, E., & Vannatta, R. (2014). Group cohesion in experiential growth groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 39(3), 236-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2014.924343

Van Knippenberg, D. & Schippers, M.C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.

Joseph: Authentic Leadership Forged in the Crucible

Authentic leadership, a relatively new leadership theory, helps fill the need for principled and trustworthy leaders. Issues of integrity, values, and care for others are emphasized, aligning well with biblical foundations for Christian leaders. Of special note is the role of major life events or crucibles, referring to some transformative experience or hardship which tests a person’s limits, but also provides the means of personal growth, empathy, self-knowledge, and deeper reliance upon God. Joseph exemplified authentic leadership in practice and through years of life-changing hardship. Through his own values, self-control, compassion, and sense of purpose, he earned the trust of high officials, and even more importantly, he was found trustworthy by God, who was consistently blessed his leadership. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 5, 2018, Jon Meacham, Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of George H. W. Bush, provided a eulogy at President G. H. W. Bush’s funeral

(Foussianes, 2018, para. 1). He eloquently spoke of President Bush’s character: “His life code, as he said, was: ‘Tell the truth. Don’t blame people. Be strong. Do your best. Try hard. Forgive. Stay the course.’ And that was, and is, the most American of creeds” (Foussianes, 2018, para. 12). 

Such life codes speak of integrity. They speak of those vital internal character qualities of trustworthy leaders. According to Meacham (2015), President Bush might justify political compromise during campaigns, but always aimed to be “principled and selfless once in command” (Meacham, 2015, p. xxv). Meacham continued, “And as president of the United States, Bush was often both” (Meacham, 2015, p. xxv). President Bush’s personal principles were echoed in his prayer, penned by himself, and given at his 1989 inauguration, a prayer befitting any Christian leader’s mindset: “….For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people” (Meacham, 2015, p. 552). For the Christian leader, these values of integrity, humble service, and perseverance are not optional; they reflect God’s plan for leadership (1 Tim. 3:1-12, 2 Tim. 2:15, 22-24, Acts 20:28-31, Mark 10:42-45, Josh. 1:5-7).  

Still a relatively new theory, authentic leadership helps fill the need for such principled leaders (Northouse, 2016, p. 206). Issues of integrity, values, and care for others are emphasized: “Authentic leaders understand their own values, place followers’ needs above their own, and work with followers to align the interests in order to create a greater common good” (Northouse, 2016, pp. 206-207). These traits develop over a lifetime (Northouse, 2016, p. 196). Of special note is the factor of critical life events (Northouse, 2016, p. 205) or crucibles (Bennis & Thomas, 2002a, p.3). A crucible refers to a significant life-changing event or crisis which forces people to examine their own values and ultimately, emerge stronger, more confident in themselves and in their purpose (Bennis & Thomas, 2002a, p. 3). These events can be either positive or negative, simple or crisis-level, but serve as catalysts for change and growth (Northouse, 2016, p. 205). 

President Bush’s life codes would apply to Joseph’s parallel role as a national leader. In the Genesis account, he told the truth. He didn’t blame people. He forgave. He stayed the course, even when it was long and difficult (Gen. 41:28, 45:8-9, 50:1921). Through extreme and lengthy crises, he consistently honored God by his character. Through his trials, God “was with Joseph” (Gen. 39:2, New International Version). This article will explore how the behavior, character, and life events of Joseph exemplify authentic leadership and how authentic leadership informs today’s Christian leaders.  

II. AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP THEORY

Self-Knowledge

A key characteristic of authentic leadership is self-knowledge (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 329). Authentic leaders are aware of their values and beliefs, and this deep understanding helps them stay true to themselves and also communicate their principles and ethics to others (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, pp. 329-330). They strengthen organizations by helping its members “find meaning and connection at work through greater self-awareness; by restoring and building optimism, confidence and hope; by promoting transparent relationships and decision-making that builds trust and commitment among followers; and by fostering inclusive structures and positive ethical climates” (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 331).

Model of Bill George

There are various perspectives on authentic leadership. This article will focus on the approach of Bill George, devised from his own experience in the corporate world and from interviews with over 125 successful leaders (Northouse, 2016, p. 197). In George’s (2003) practical approach to authentic leadership, he identifies five essential elements: values/behavior, self-discipline/consistency, relationships/connectedness, heart/compassion, and purpose/passion (p. 36). These qualities are not sequential; rather, they represent life-long developmental growth (George, 2003, p. 18).  

Values and Behavior. Values and behavior refer to leaders’ innate sense of self:

their character, what they value, and what they believe (George, 2003, p. 20). Value driven leaders “have a clear idea of who they are, where they are going, and what the right thing is to do” (Northouse, 2016, pp. 198-199). According to Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009), authentic leadership encompasses internalized moral perspective, transparency within relationships, self-awareness, and balanced processing (p. 424).

Deeply-held morality is a guiding force (George, 2003, p. 20). 

Self-Discipline and Consistency. As important as values are, self-discipline is necessary in order to convert one’s core values into actual behavior (George, 2003, p. 24). Stress can impede sound judgment, but authentic leaders have learned to stay calm during times of pressure (George, 2003, p. 41). 

Relationships and Connectedness. Authentic leaders are able to establish strong relationships (Northouse, 2016, p. 199). With a genuine tendency toward openness toward others, they share their own stories and take an interest in the stories of others.

Through this exchange, bonds of trust and closeness are formed (2016, p. 199). Leaders build connection and commitment within their teams by their openness, even if the dialogue includes constructive feedback or bad news (George, 2003, pp. 40-41). 

Heart and Compassion. With a heart of compassion, authentic leaders intentionally care for others (Northouse, 2016, p. 200). They open themselves to people’s personal lives and problems and, in turn, team members are inspired to believe in their leader (George, 2003, pp. 39-40). 

Purpose and Passion. Lastly, those who hold a passionate purpose not only know their mission, but are inspired and driven by it (George, 2003, p. 19). Their work deeply matters to them (George, 2003, p. 19). They may grow and learn while working toward someone else’s purpose for a time, but ultimately an authentic leader must discover and commit to her own purpose (George, 2003, p. 19).

III. THE TRANSFORMATIVE POWER OF CRUCIBLE EVENTS 

George (2003) describes the metaphorical crucible as some transformative life event which tests one’s limits but also reveals the self-knowledge about how the person has inwardly changed and grown from the difficulty (p. 27). In the Middle Ages, crucibles – heat-proof vessels used for high-temperature chemical reactions – were used to by alchemists attempting to turn metals into gold (Thomas, 2009, p. 21). Used for leadership contexts, a crucible describes a “transformative experience from which a person extracts his or her ‘gold’: a new or an altered sense of identity” (Thomas, 2009, p. 21). Unlike typical life events which may be stressful but predictable, crucibles incite one to find meaning; they are “more like trials or tests that corner individuals and force them to answer questions about who they are and what is really important to them” (Thomas, 2009, p. 21). Crucible events serve to validate the authentic leader’s values through stress-testing:

It is relatively easy to list your values and to live by them when things are going well. When your success, your career, or even your life hangs in the balance, you learn what is most important, what you are prepared to sacrifice, and what tradeoffs you are willing to make (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007, p. 134).

The term crucible, as used in authentic leadership theory,originated from a study conducted by Warren Bennis and Robert Thomas, and the resultant book, Geeks and Geezers (2002). They intended to explore the influence of eras on leaders using two age groups (people over seventy and people under thirty-five), but the study produced something unexpected (Bennis & Thomas, 2002b). From their findings, they developed a theory to explain how some people can find meaning through times of testing and “emerge, not just stronger, but equipped with the tools he or she needs both to lead and to learn” (Bennis & Thomas, 2002b, p. 4). Their model explains how people find meaning in their difficulties “and how that process of ‘meaning-making’ both galvanizes individuals and gives them their distinctive voice” (Bennis & Thomas, 2002b, p. 3).  

Three Types of Crucible Events

From his work studying nearly 200 crucible-level experiences, Thomas (2009) has categorized them into three types (p. 21). The New Territory category refers to situations in which a person experiences an unexpected turn of events, such as a new position at work or a major change within the family (Thomas, 2009). One must overcome the disorientation and confusion, but gains a new alertness and sensemaking skills (Thomas, 2009, pp. 21-22). The Reversal category describes a disruptive loss of some kind (Thomas, 2009, p. 24). Something that was assumed to be permanent is suddenly lost, or something assumed to be true is revealed as false (Thomas, 2009). A reversal can provide a leader with new and broader understanding of a situation (Thomas, 2009, p. 24). The Suspension category involves a hiatus, sometimes unplanned, in which some set of routine behaviors are removed, possibly by force, and replaced by a heavily structured routine, such as the military or prison, or with no routine (Thomas, 2009, p. 25). Such leaders need to refocus their purpose and strengthen their personal set of beliefs and values (Thomas, 2009, p. 25). All three types involve “a kind of potential energy, that demanded a behavior or maybe an answer that either did not exist previously or went unrecognized” (Thomas, 2009, p. 26). 

The Crucibles of George H. W. Bush

            Incident as a WWII Navy Pilot. Lending credibility to the crucible element of authentic leadership theory are two particular critical life events of President Bush, noted to have impacted him as a leader (Meacham, 2015, pp. 89-95, 147-150). The first occurred during WWII while Bush served as a Navy pilot (Meacham, 2015). In the early morning of September 2, 1944, at the young age of twenty, this young pilot, accompanied by two soldiers, took off on a mission to bomb a radio tower on the Japanese island of Chichi-Jima (Meacham, 2015, p. 89). With the target in view, his plane was hit by enemy fire (Meacham, 2015). As the plane immediately filled with smoke, Bush maintained control of the plane long enough to hit the target, then parachuted to the water below (Meacham, 2015). As a Japanese boat began its approach toward him, Bush, stranded in a tiny raft with no oars, could not help fearing for his life or at least being taken as a prisoner of war. (Meacham, 2015). That threat was removed by a nearby U.S. fighter plane, and, after two hours of waiting, Bush was rescued, but not without the painful realization that his two fellow servicemen had not survived (Meacham, 2015). During those hours, “he sat in the raft in tears” (Meacham, 2015, p. 93).

Bush later reminisced of the event, explaining its impact: “It was transforming. Transforming in the sense that you realize how close death can be. You realize, painstakingly so, the responsibility you had for the life of somebody else” (Meacham, 2015, p. 95). He pondered, “I’ll always wonder, ‘Why me? Why was I spared?’” (Meacham, 2015, p. 105). According to Meacham (2015), Bush “spent the rest of his life striving to prove that he was worthy of being saved when others were doomed” (p. 105).  

Family Loss. President Bush endured an even deeper life-altering event, evident from his own answer to a journalist during the 1980 presidential campaign (Bush, 2014, p. 57). Probing to see if Mr. Bush could relate to average people, the journalist asked him if he had ever lived through a “personal difficulty” (Bush, 2014, p. 57). Staring at the reporter, Bush asked, “Have you ever sat and watched your child die?” (Bush, 2014, p. 57). To the journalist’s answer in the negative, Bush replied, “I did, for six months” (Bush, 2014, p. 57). Just before she turned four years old, the Bush’s daughter Robin died of leukemia (Meacham, 2015). Mrs. Bush recollected on this difficult time: “We awakened night after night in great physical pain – it hurt that much” (Meacham, 2015, p. 148).  

Influence of Crucibles on Leadership. For President Bush, the search for meaning in that loss continued throughout his life (Meacham, 2015). He expressed one particular realization: “It taught me that life is unpredictable and fragile” (Meacham, 2015, p. 150). Visiting Poland during his years as vice president, and thirty-five years after Robin’s death, Bush visited a hospital ward for children with leukemia. Upon meeting one young boy, sick with the same disease which stole his daughter, Bush felt a wave of empathy (Meacham, 2015). Not wanting to be seen crying in front of the many television cameras, he quietly focused on the child: “So I stood there looking at this little guy, tears running down my cheek, but able to talk to him pleasantly… hoping he didn’t see but, if he did, hoping he’d feel that I loved him” (Meacham, 2015, p. xxix).

Empathy gained from heartache is evident.  

The WWII experience at Chichi-Jima also proved to be instrumental in Bush’s later leadership responsibilities (Meacham, 2015, p. 422). In 1981, while serving as the U.S. vice president, Bush faced unexpected pressure after President Reagan was shot, yet Bush was observed to appear surprisingly calm (Meacham, 2015). Meacham observed, “In a way, Bush had been here before. Long ago he had been charged with life-and-death responsibilities on an airborne mission” (Meacham, 2015, p.422). Meacham (2015) records that Bush’s experience near Japan as a twenty-year-old gave him strength to lead now as a middle-aged statesman: “Now, amid uncertainty and doubt, he was determined to do his duty, which, as he saw it, was to lead quietly and with dignity” (p. 422).  

The Crucibles of Joseph

Family Betrayal. In the Bible, Joseph experienced multiple crucible experiences which spanned thirteen years (Gen. 37:2, 41:41). While still just a teenager (Gen. 37:2), his brothers mistreated him terribly; they even considered murder when the opportunity arose (Gen. 37:20). Instead, they threw Joseph in an empty well and then sold him to traders bound for the foreign land of Egypt (Gen. 37:24, 28). Besides the psychological trauma of being helpless and physically trapped in a dark, confining well, he also endured the emotional anguish of family betrayal; after the brothers forced him into the well, they callously sat down to enjoy a meal together (Gen. 37:25). The depth of pain Joseph suffered is revealed in the brothers’ confession years later: “Surely we are being punished because of our brother. We saw how distressed he was when he pleaded with us for his life, but we would not listen” (Gen. 42:21). 

Mistreatment in Egypt. No longer enjoying the status as his father’s favored son, Joseph lived as a slave in Egypt, serving in the home of Potiphar, Pharaoh’s captain of the guard (Gen. 37:36). There, he suffered further demoralization after being falsely accused of sexual misconduct by his master’s wife (Gen. 39:14-18), when in fact, he resisted her advancements out of respect for God and her husband (39:8-10). For this, he was imprisoned (Gen. 39:20). During that time, he cared for two fellow prisoners, Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker (Gen. 40:2-4). After interpreting their troublesome dreams, Joseph pleaded for the cupbearer’s help:  

But when all goes well with you, remember me and show me kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison. I was forcibly carried off from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing to deserve being put in a dungeon (Gen. 40:14-15). 

Joseph’s crucible continued, however, and he was forgotten for two more years (Gen. 40:23).   

According to C. S. Lewis (1952), pride is “the essential vice of mankind, the utmost evil” (p. 121). Lewis continues: “Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind” (Lewis, 1952, p. 122). If pride is the “anti-God” mindset as Lewis asserts, Joseph’s state of mind reveals the opposite. More than his other admirable character traits, Joseph’s humility is deeply connected to his close and reverent relationship with God. From his earliest days in Egypt, it is recorded that “the LORD was with Joseph” (Gen. 39:2) and brought him success in everything (Gen. 39:2-3, 21-23). In the midst of trials and unjust treatment, God consistently elevated Joseph to leadership positions, yet at every opportunity, Joseph humbly credited God when he could have taken credit himself (Gen. 40:8, 41:16, 50:19).

Character Growth through Hardship. Joseph’s admirable character traits, however, developed over time through endurance cultivated by hardship (Rom. 5:3-4). Such endurance gained through suffering can be likened to physical endurance gained through painful exercise (Cloud & Townsend, 2001, p. 206). Muscles are strained past their natural ability, explains Henry Cloud (2001): “After my workout they recreate and rejuvenate and grow back to a higher level of development than before. I tear down to rebuild. And through the process of pain, growth happens” (Cloud & Townsend, 2001, pp. 206-207). Toward the same end, God often “stretches our souls” (Cloud & Townsend, 2001, p. 207). Suffering “can take us to places where one more season of ‘comfort’ cannot” (Cloud & Townsend, 2001, p. 206). In the Joseph account, rising to power so abruptly and in such a drastic reversal could ruin a young leader, but for Joseph, “his sufferings nurtured a meek spirit” (Howell, 2003, p. 24).  

In the biblical epic of Joseph, he is introduced as an immature tattle-tale, blatantly favored by his father, and the source of his brothers’ envy (Gen. 37:2-11). Throughout the thirteen years of brokenness, however, Joseph’s suffering strengthened his ability to humbly depend on God (Gen. 40:8, 41:16, 28), to practice self-control (Gen. 39:9), and to treat others compassionately (Gen. 40:7, 45:4-15). Of particular significance was Joseph’s reverent acknowledgement of God’s specific purpose in his life: 

…because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance (Gen. 45:5b-7).  

IV. JOSEPH’S EXAMPLE OF AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP

In the Genesis account, God repeatedly elevated Joseph as a leader by helping him earn the trust of high government officials: Potiphar (Gen. 39:4), the prison warden (Gen. 39:22-23), and Pharaoh (Gen. 41:39-44). He also earned the trust of the people (Gen. 47:25). In his leadership, Joseph consistently honored God by his character. Throughout these roles, Joseph exemplified all five traits of George’s (2003) model of authentic leadership: values and behavior, self-discipline and consistency, relationships through connectedness, heart of compassion, and passionate purpose (p. 36). 

Values and Behavior

One aspect of Joseph’s integrity often overlooked is his honesty. George (2003) asserts, “Integrity is the one value that is required in every authentic leader. Integrity not just the absence of lying, but telling the whole truth, as painful as it may be” (p. 20). Joseph spoke honestly even when the news was bad. In prison, Joseph revealed the positive fate of the cupbearer and sadly, the imminent death of the baker (Gen. 40:8). To both men, Joseph straightforwardly began his interpretation with the phrase, “This is what it means” (Gen. 40:12, 18). Acting on God’s behalf (40:8), Joseph stated the truth to these two men in a direct manner.  

After two years, the need for painful truth arose again. Joseph was summoned to interpret another set of dreams, this time for Pharaoh himself. Since the Pharaoh was considered a god himself (Walton, 2001, p. 674), Joseph’s honesty put him at risk as he claimed emphatically that the interpretation would come from God: “Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dreams of Pharaoh are one and the same. God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do” (Gen. 41:25). Emphasizing this fact, Joseph repeated it at the close of the interpretation: “It is just as I said to Pharaoh: God has shown Pharaoh what he is about to do” (Gen. 41:28). Joseph’s character trait of honesty exalted God even at Joseph’s own risk.  

Value-guided behavior marked Joseph’s business practices. He had authority to control the entire supply of grain for Egypt and all outlying areas (Gen. 41:54) as well as access to a vast treasury: “Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain…and he brought it to Pharaoh’s palace” (Gen. 47:14). Though he could have secretly yielded to the temptation of extortion, the biblical account indicates he acted with integrity. 

Lastly, Joseph exemplified integrity by honoring his word given to his father concerning his request to be buried in Canaan. Jacob asked for Joseph’s “faithfulness” in this (Gen. 47:29) and Joseph answered, “I will do as you say” (Gen. 47:30). Jacob could rest in Joseph’s promise, and “worshipped as he leaned on the top of his staff” (Gen. 47:31). Joseph buried Jacob as requested, keeping his word (Gen. 50:6-7).  

Self-Discipline and Consistency

While in Egypt, Joseph had opportunity to relinquish self-control in at least four areas: sexual sin, revenge, self-advancement, and extortion. In each area of temptation, he refused to yield. 

Opportunity for Sexual Sin. Potiphar’s wife took notice of young, handsome Joseph (Gen. 39:6-7) and made sexual advances toward him. Her direct and brazen demands continued “day after day” (39:10). In that situation, most people would have been caught off guard by such boldness but not Joseph. Swindoll (1998) notes, “Without hesitation and being absolutely secure in himself and his God, he responded with equal boldness” (p. 27). Twice in the passage, it is recorded, “Joseph refused” (Gen 39:8, 10). He refused her demands and refused “even to be with her” (39:10). 

George (2003) asserts that the strength gained from enduring a crucible can provide the discipline for success later in life (p. 27). The opposite holds true as well: “Without the wisdom of the crucible, [untested people] cannot cope and are prone to do bizarre things on their way to self-destruction” (George, 2003, p. 29). Joseph’s testing strengthened his self-discipline and, unlike his brother Judah with Tamar (Gen 38:1518), enabled him to withstand strong temptation and stay true to God.

Opportunity for Revenge. In a total reversal of prior events, Joseph became the “governor of the land” (Gen. 42:6) and his brothers were vulnerable before him. They needed food, and they had been living in bondage to their guilt (Gen. 42:21-22, 28). After more than twenty years, Joseph encountered his brothers (Gen. 42:7). At this point, Joseph displayed self-disciplined emotions. Seeing his brothers, fierce memories and emotions would have naturally arisen internally with no advantage of forewarning. During these interactions, he held power to retaliate. At their second arrival, they even feared, “He wants to attack us and overpower us seize us as slaves” (Gen. 43:18). Yet, Joseph’s self-control stabilized him. 

Two mistakes were possible. He could have taken quick, reactionary revenge, overstepping God’s place of judgment. He also could have unwisely rushed to reveal himself before knowing if their hearts had changed. Joseph did neither. Instead he tested them while retaining his anonymity. It was not until the brothers had proved themselves as repentant that Joseph “could no longer control himself before all his attendants” (Gen. 45:1). His intense emotional display at his revelation was a natural, human response of love and relief. 

By this time, Joseph had already faced prior opportunities for revenge. After being freed from prison and appointed second-in-command (Gen. 41:40), Joseph could have summoned the cupbearer who had so easily forgotten him, costing him two more full years of undeserved imprisonment (Gen. 40:14, 23, 41:1). He could have also invoked revenge on Potiphar and his wife. Instead, Joseph allowed these past crucibles to strengthen his character as well as to soften his heart. 

As opposed to living a life of bitterness born of his mistreatment, Joseph chose gratitude to God, evident in the names chosen for his sons born to him in Egypt (Schaeffer, 1974, p. 100). Joseph named his first son Manasseh, possibly from a Hebrew root meaning “to forget”(NIV note): “Joseph named his firstborn Manasseh and said, ‘It is because God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father’s household’” (Gen. 41:51). Joseph named his second son Ephraim, which sounds like the Hebrew for “twice fruitful” (NIV note). Joseph explained, “It is because God has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering” (Gen. 41:52). With these names, Joseph expressed thankfulness to God for his goodness, for removing the sting of pain from his memory, and replacing it with daily reminders, in the names of his boys, of God’s active work in his life (Swindoll, 1998, p. 82). Though in a position of authority and power, Joseph took no revenge. Instead, he acknowledged God’s reality in all of life. Even when surrounded by injustice and others’ wickedness, he gave God glory (Schaeffer, 1974, p. 100).  

Opportunity for Self-Advancement. Pharaoh had a need for a dream interpreter and Joseph, still imprisoned, had the ability to fill this need (Gen. 41:8-14). At their initial meeting, Joseph’s first recorded response was, “I cannot do it” (Gen. 41:16). Only after that admission did he affirm that God would provide the interpretation. He pointed Pharaoh to the living God for the answer to his problem. Joseph’s character traits of humility and honesty worked together in this moment as Joseph’s interpretation “was at one and the same time a refutation of Pharaoh and his worldview and an undeniable confirmation of the truth of Joseph’s” (Arnold, 1998, p. 153). Egyptian kings were considered divine, with power to meet people’s needs (Arnold, 1998, p. 153). Joseph countered this belief, showing Pharaoh that God alone had that power and he cared enough to give Pharaoh forewarning before he took action (Arnold, 1998, p. 153).   

After issuing the prophetic bad news, Joseph recommended that Pharaoh find a “discerning and wise man” (Gen. 41:33) to handle the impending food shortage. At no point did Joseph say, “I’d like the job. I’ve interpreted your dreams; I deserve the position” (Swindoll, 1998, p. 64). Instead, he showed restraint: “Refusing to manipulate the moment or drop hints, he simply stood there and waited. Somehow in the loneliness of his recent years, abandoned and forgotten in prison, he had learned to let the Lord have his way, in his time, for his purposes” (Swindoll, 1998, p. 65). 

Opportunity for Extortion. In one day, Joseph experienced a drastic rise to power. After being a slave or prisoner for thirteen years, he was put “in charge of the whole land of Egypt” (Gen. 41:41), was dressed in fine clothes and jewelry, and was paraded throughout the streets in a chariot while people deferentially proclaimed, “Make way” (Gen. 41:42-43). Of particular significance was the signet ring which Pharaoh removed from his own finger and placed on Joseph’s (Gen. 41:42). This ring was “the platinum charge card of the day” (Swindoll, 1998, p. 66). Yet with access to all of Egypt’s food supply and finances, he proved himself a disciplined leader, focused on transcendent aims of caring for others rather than on temporal monetary gain for himself (Gen. 41:4749). Again, suffering can be credited with the development of Joseph’s self-control, this time with handling large-scale monetary resources: “Suffering provides an opportunity to develop a long-term perspective that is not rooted in our temporal surroundings. Through this change in perspective, we are able to endure that which is unpleasant or painful at the time” (Kisling, 2008, p. 144). 

Relationships through Connectedness, and Heart of Compassion

During his imprisonment, Joseph’s sense of compassion and connectedness was evident in his interactions with the king’s cupbearer and baker, imprisoned like himself, and assigned to his supervision (Gen. 40:1-15). After their disturbing dreams, Joseph sensitively noticed the cupbearer and baker, and “saw that they were dejected” (Gen 40:6). These two men, along with Joseph, had previously held important positions but were now in prison. The author uses repetition to emphasize this fact: “each of the two men—the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were being held in prison…” (Gen. 40:5) and again, “So [Joseph] asked Pharaoh’s officials who were in custody with him…” (Gen. 40:6). Looking dejected would not be so out of the ordinary considering these factors. Joseph was empathetic enough to discern that something was different about them that morning. As a caring leader, connected to those under his care, he did not ignore the issue, but asked them, “Why are your faces so sad today?” (Gen. 40:7). 

Another scene depicting Joseph’s compassion and connection as a leader is that of his steward’s kind words and behavior toward Joseph’s brothers (Gen. 43:16-25). On their second journey to Egypt, Joseph’s brothers were terrified as they were escorted to Joseph’s home by the house steward (Gen. 43:16-18). They fearfully assumed, “We were brought here because of the silver that was put back into our sacks the first time. He wants to attack us and overpower us and seize us as slaves and take our donkeys” (Gen. 43:18).  

Even in Joseph’s absence, and despite Egyptians’ low view of Hebrews (Gen. 43:32), the steward spoke to the brothers with kindness and comfort in their time of distress: “‘It’s all right,’ he said, ‘Don’t be afraid’” (Gen. 43:23). The steward provided them with refreshing water to wash their feet (Gen. 43:24). The brothers had feared slavery as well as losing their donkeys, but the steward even cared for their animals: he “provided fodder for their donkeys” (Gen. 43:24). For these acts of kindness, there is no indication that they were the result of Joseph’s orders. Rather, it appears that Joseph’s subordinates had learned grace and compassion from him. Not only did this steward obey Joseph’s orders, but he treated these undeserving (and Hebrew) men graciously even in Joseph’s absence.

A third example of Joseph’s compassion concerned the forgiveness granted his brothers (Gen. 45:1-24). With clear evidence that his brothers’ hearts had changed, Joseph revealed his identity (Gen. 45:3). His brothers were naturally shocked and terrified (Gen. 45:3). Love, however, ruled the moment. Joseph called them tenderly, “Come close to me” (Gen. 45:4). The reader can almost hear his voice soften. Acknowledging their feelings, he immediately tried to put their minds at ease: “Don’t be distressed…. Don’t be angry with yourselves” (Gen. 45:5). Three times he repeated the fact that “God sent me” (Gen. 45:5, 7, 8). Twice repeated was his explanation that God sent him ahead of them “to save lives” (Gen. 45:5), and then, narrowing the focus to his brothers, “to save your lives” (Gen. 45:7). Joseph compassionately released his brothers from all guilt. A wall of hostility, over twenty years old, dissolved and connection was made. They wept, kissed, and “afterward, his brothers talked with him” (Gen. 45:15), probably the first sincere conversation they ever enjoyed.

Passionate Purpose

Joseph’s clear and passionate purpose is discovered through the story’s climactic point. Joseph reveals the truth to his brothers, specifically replacing their actions with God’s: “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt…. [tell my father] this is what your son Joseph says: God has made me lord of all Egypt” (Gen. 45:8-9, emphasis added). Howell (2003) believes Joseph’s resiliency, his willingness to forgive, and his faithfulness in stewardship stemmed from “his profound belief in a God who was working through him to accomplish the deliverance of the chosen family” (p. 26). 

V. AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP

Authentic leaders are driven by noble motivations: they want to serve people, they are more concerned about empowering others than in power or personal status, and they are moved by compassion as much as by skill or knowledge (George, 2003, p. 12). Integrity is valued (George, 2003, p. 20). Foundational to George’s (2003) model is the concept of being true to who one was created to be (p. 12). The authentic leader does not bend to pressure from others even if it means standing alone (George, 2003, p. 12).  

Since these motivations – serving, empowering, caring, doing what is right, and standing firm – align with biblical instruction for leaders, authentic leadership theory can be used to enhance Christian leadership. Jesus taught his leadership trainees to humbly serve others (John 13:14-15). According to Paul, gifts of spiritual leadership are given “to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12-13). Jesus’ prayerful call for Christian leaders was motivated by compassion: When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). Paul exhorted Christian workers to stand firm: “Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Values and Behavior in Christian Leadership

 Integrity is mandatory for authentic leadership (George, 2003, p. 20). Authentic leaders are guided by the “true north” (George, 2003, p. 20) of their moral compass, giving them a strong sense of right and wrong (p. 20). For the Christian leader, integrity is the ongoing result of the Holy Spirit’s work of transformation (Rom. 12:2). 

Honesty is a prime component of integrity. More than a moral virtue, honesty is deeply spiritual. God cannot lie (Num. 23:19). Jesus is “the Truth” (John 14:6), while Satan is deemed the “father of lies” (John 8:44). Honesty is a mark of those belonging to the body of Christ, reflected in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, “Each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body” (Eph. 4:25). To the Corinthian church, Paul wrote of the pursuit of truth and the rejection of falsehood: “We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 4:2).

In a study covering six time periods between 1987 and 2017, researchers Kouzes and Posner (2017) found that the character trait most desired in leaders from willing followers was honesty. This trait topped all others by a large margin: a range of 83 – 89% compared to only 58 – 69% for the next highest quality (Kouzes & Posner, 2017, p. 30). The study showed that people desired to know for certain that the person they follow was worthy of their trust; a person’s own reputation is at risk when following someone untrustworthy (Kouzes & Posner, 2017, p. 32). 

Mirroring the biblical importance given to integrity and honesty, DeVries’ (2018) model of “TNT” leadership (“Three Nightmare Traits”) indicated that leader dishonesty stood as the first of these dangerous traits. Dishonesty was found to encourage “unethical organizational culture with low trust, low satisfaction, and high turnover” (DeVries, 2018, p. 4). In contrast, honesty was the focus of Joseph’s testing of his brothers for signs of contrition and repentance. Five times the phrase “honest men” is used, emphasizing the importance of this trait in evaluating character (Gen. 42:11, 19, 31, 33-34).

In ministry and work settings, embellishing the truth or leaving out certain details in communication can have disastrous results. Trust is lost. According to Blackaby and Blackaby (2011), “When people see their leaders stretching the truth, they lose confidence in them. Followers cannot expect their leaders to be perfect, but they want them to be honest” (p. 164). Even when leaders have great and worthwhile ideas, dishonesty will hinder the loyalty of their followers needed to carry it through (Blackaby & Blackaby, 2011, p. 165). Similarly, leaders must practice care when making promises lest it become impossible to keep them (Lawson, 2009, p. 40). In contrast, “when a leader is always honest, followers quickly learn to trust and respect the leader” (Lawson, 2009,  p. 40). 

Self-discipline and Consistency in Christian Leadership 

  In his pastoral epistle to Titus, Paul emphasized self-control as criteria for leadership: “He must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined” (Titus 1:7-8). Paul continues, his words resembling Joseph’s own choice to say “No” when encountering opportunities for sin: “For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age” (Titus 2:11-12). The Holy Spirit holds the key to the human battle for self-control: 

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do (Gal. 5:16-17).

            George (2003) notes that stress is a deterrent to self-control: “To be authentic, leaders must behave with consistency and self-discipline, not letting stress get in the way of their judgment” (p. 41). This insight aligns with Jesus’ own example of making rest and retreat a priority, for himself and for his team (Luke 5:16, Mark 6:31).  

Relational Connectedness and Compassion in Christian Leadership

Joseph compassionately took notice of his fellow prisoners’ sadness, and rather than ignoring it, he acted (Gen. 40:6-8). Connection was made. According to Cloud  (2013) regarding team leadership, “The first requirement to build trust is to connect through understanding the other person. People do not trust us when we understand them. They trust us when they understand that we understand them” (p. 173).  

In all groups of people, including Christian teams, disagreements, conflicts, and even anger are unavoidable. Authentic leadership calls for compassion and mutual trust gained through open, intimate connections (George, 2003, p. 39). Authentic leaders share their life experiences as opposed to shutting themselves off from others. Such compassionate connections help people believe in and follow leaders (George, 2003, p. 40). Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesians is pertinent: “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Eph. 4:31-32). 

Forgiveness was a prominent theme in Joseph’s story. His son Manasseh was named to reflect God’s role in helping Joseph relinquish heartache over his family: “It is because God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father’s household” (Gen. 41:51). His sons’ births were a point of celebration for God’s blessing and the ability to relinquish the pain and betrayal he suffered (Howell, 2003, p. 24). Joseph offered unconditional forgiveness to his brothers while also refusing to be victimized by past mistreatment (Howell, 2003, pp. 24-25). 

Passionate Purpose and Christian Leadership

Finding purpose, according to George (2003), stems from understanding one’s own passions and motivations (p. 19). George asserts that the most essential quality of a leader is to “be your own person, authentic in every regard” (p.12). Effective leaders maintain their autonomy and are not easily swayed to the whims of others regardless of outside pressure (p. 12). They stay true to their own purpose: “There is no way you can adopt someone else’s purpose and still be an authentic leader… The purpose for your leadership must be uniquely yours” (p. 19). George cautions that leadership experts tend to focus on characteristics to be emulated, a trend which results in only a persona of a leader, the actual opposite of authentic leadership (p. 11). 

Similarly, Kouzes and Posner (2017) encourage leaders to self-reflect about their own passions and “deepest feelings” (p. 104) and then clearly communicate them (p. 104). This inspires others to join them in the process, to “walk alongside their leaders… to dream with them, invent with them, and be involved in creating their futures” (Kouzes & Posner, 2017, p. 107). People want to work for more than money; they want purpose (Kouzes and Posner, 2017). Similar emphasis is urged by Hartwig and Bird (2015) who assert that all efforts put forth by a team hinge on purpose (p. 116). Purpose is “the invisible leader of exceptional teams” (Hartwig & Bird, 2015, p. 116). 

Though a general undertone for conformity can exist in Christian ministry circles,

Christian leaders can be authentic; they can be themselves. A passionate purpose – for Christian leaders, worldwide Kingdom-building (Matt 28:18-20) – serves as the focusing agent. From their research on authentic leadership and ministerial effectiveness, Puls, Ludden, and Freemyer (2014) find that “when leaders and followers enthusiastically and trustingly gather around one organization’s cause or mission, exciting ministry opportunities abound” (p. 66). 

Value of Crucibles for Christian Leaders

For leaders, hardship provides powerful lessons “about adapting and growing, about discovering new ways to engage or enroll others in a shared pursuit, and about recognizing the right thing to do and summoning the courage to do it” (Thomas, 2009, p. 22). The lessons from hardship and suffering are evident in Scripture. Paul was a leader who understood the transforming power of suffering:

But we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us (Rom. 5:3-5). 

Understanding of Personal Identity. Rather than a skill to be learned, authenticity comes about through God’s own means to transform a leader’s heart through experiences of life, including hardship: 

God works in our lives to mold and strengthen us, to prepare us to be his leaders. [Some experiences] are excruciatingly painful… He orchestrates our experiences as challenges to mold our heart, to jar us out of our comfort zones, to shake up our complacency, to make us look inward, deep into our heart, until some crisis shows who we have become (Seidel, 2008, p. 180). 

In crucible-type experiences, one’s limits are tested (George, 2003). It is in such times of testing, however, that people often discover a deep purpose, including who they are and who they want to become: “Having survived, you will know that indeed you can take on any challenge and come out of it a better person for the experience (George, 2003, p. 27). It is through difficult experiences that a Christian leader learns to depend on Christ, including the need to develop one’s own sense of secure authentic identity (Seidel, 2008, p. 181).

Compassion through an Understanding of Limitations. In their research on lessons of experience for the Center for Creative Leadership, Moxley and Pulley (2003) found, to their surprise, that participating leaders named hardship as the most significant factor to their leadership development (p. 14). Hardships provided “lessons about self-knowledge, sensitivity, control, and flexibility” (Moxley & Pulley, 2003, p. 14). Through hardship, leaders learn that they have limits (Moxley & Pulley, 2003, p. 15). As leaders come to recognize their own limitation in controlling events, they also compassionately understand the limited control others hold (Moxley & Pulley, 2003, p.

15). 

For the Christian leader, the realization of limitation can draw her to God and his sufficiency. Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians concerning this same connection: 

We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead (2 Cor. 1:8-9).  

The corporate context of Paul’s message provides a fitting model for Christian leadership teams. Paul and Timothy (2 Cor. 1:1) experienced this crucible together: “we despaired of life itself” (2 Cor. 1:8, italics added). In the troubles of their ministry work however, they found connection with each other and together, they learned to depend on God: “But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God” (2 Cor.

1:9).  

Balanced Family Life. From their research, Moxley and Pulley (2003) assert that hardship helps move people toward an improved balance between work and family (p. 15). Facing a difficult trial tends to clarify what actually matters thereby helping to set priorities (Moxley & Pulley, 2003, p. 15). This focus aligns with Paul’s admonition to Timothy regarding the Christian leader’s imperative to maintain a healthy, balanced family life (1 Tim. 3:2-5, 12). 

Refusal of Victimization. When one encounters a crucible of life or leadership, something “far beyond our ability to endure” (2 Cor. 1:8), the Christian leader can allow the situation to deepen his faith and his self-understanding, and strengthen his character. A key factor is the refusal of victimization (Thomas, 2009, p. 24). Leaders find meaning, strength, and purpose in adversity where non-leaders will feel powerless and victimized (Thomas, 2009, p. 24). A Christian leader himself who dealt with tragedy, George (2003) reveals an understanding of God’s grace in times of pain and loss: “I could have easily become bitter, depressed, and even lost my faith. In times of personal crisis, the grace of God and the power of faith can provide the basis for healing” (p. 32). 

VI. CONCLUSION

Authentic leadership offers a framework of elements beneficial to Christian leaders. These elements include values, compassion, relationships, self-discipline, and purpose (George, 2003, p. 36). Above all is integrity, the basis of trust (George, 2003, p. 20). These elements align well with biblical mandates for leaders such as the pursuit of righteousness, love, self-control, and God’s purpose of making disciples. Of special prominence in authentic leadership theory are crucibles, life-transforming events, usually of extreme difficulty, which test a person’s limits but can be the means of character formation, new insights about oneself, and for the Christian, a deeper relationship with God. The account of Joseph well illustrates a picture of an authentic leader. Joseph was a leader committed to God and a life of integrity, but one who also allowed crucible events to mold him into an exemplary leader God used greatly. 

For the Christian leader, authentic leadership provides Christian leaders license for self-discovery and self-expression. Rather than simply adopt the latest ministry trend, the authentic Christian leader is more apt to creatively and prayerfully formulate his own methods and personal objectives, as befitting his own context. 

The freedom of authenticity, however, is bounded by the biblical call to righteousness and self-control. Holding to the emphasis on values and behavior, the authentic Christian leader has “renounced secret and shameful ways” (2 Cor. 4:2a) and has committed his personal and professional life to “everyone’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 4:2b). 

Authentic leadership’s emphasis on compassion and connectedness helps the Christian leader balance ministerial authority with love: “Authority without compassion leads to harsh authoritarianism. Compassion without authority leads to social chaos” (Laniak, 2006, p. 247). Jesus’ leadership example portrays a mutual relationship of love and connection between a leader and followers. Jesus cared for disciples and also looked to them for his own emotional support (Mark 6:31-32, Matt. 26:37-38). 

Lastly, authentic leadership offers wisdom and encouragement for life’s unexpected crucible events. Those heart-wrenching experiences can be viewed through models such as Joseph’s. Self-control is strengthened. Compassion and empathy are deepened. Human limitations are humbly understood and forgiveness is more easily offered. Finally, a commitment to God during difficult circumstances can open one’s spiritual eyes to His otherwise unseen purpose, just as Joseph realized: “…but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Gen. 50:20).

About the Author 

Melody Smith is currently a doctoral candidate in Liberty University’s Ed.D. in Christian Leadership program. She holds an M.Div. degree from Liberty University, a B.S. in Bible from the University of Valley Forge, and is an ordained Assemblies of God minister. She serves as an associate pastor at Harvest Ridge Church, in St. John, Indiana. 

Email address: pastormelody2@gmail.com 

VII. REFERENCES

Arnold, B. T. (1998). Encountering the book of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. Retrieved from https:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036& context=managementfacpub

Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002a). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 80, 62-68. Retrieved from https://www.contracostalocalgovt academy.com/uploads /3/8/1/3/38138031/hbr-crucibles_of_leadership.pdf

Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002b). Geeks and geezers: How era, values, and defining moments shape leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Blackaby, H., & Blackaby, R. (2011). Spiritual leadership: Moving people on to God’s agenda (Rev. ed.). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group. 

Bush, G. W. (2014). 41: A portrait of my father. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. 

Cloud, H. (2013). Boundaries for leaders: Results, relationships, and being ridiculously in charge [Kindle version]. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

Cloud, H., & Townsend, J. (2001). How people grow: What the Bible reveals about personal growth [Kindle version]. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 

deVries, R. E. (2018). Three nightmare traits in leaders. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 871. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00871

Foussianes, C. (2018, December). George H. W. Bush’s state funeral Is held at the Washington National Cathedral. Town and Country [Digital edition]. Retrieved from https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a25412042/jonmeacham-george-hw-bush-funeral-eulogy-transcript/

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering Your Authentic Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 129–138. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth& AN=23691179&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hartwig, R. T., & Bird, W. (2015). Teams that thrive: Five disciplines of collaborative church leadership [Kindle version]. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 

Howell, D. N., Jr. (2003). Servants of the Servant: A biblical theology of leadership. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers. 

Kisling, R. (2008). Character and spiritual formation. In P. Pettit (Ed.), Foundations for spiritual foundation: A community approach to becoming like Christ (pp. 143161). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. 

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (6th ed.) [Kindle version]. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Laniak, T. S. (2006). Shepherds after my own heart: Pastoral traditions and leadership in the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. 

Lawson, D. (2009). Transforming initiatives: leadership ethics from the sermon on the mount. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 3(1), 29-46. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ docview/755473827?accountid=12085

Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Meacham, J. (2015). Destiny and power: The American odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush (Large print ed.). New York, NY: Random House. 

Moxley, R. S., & Pulley, M. L. (2003). Tough going: Learning from experience the hard way. Leadership in Action, 23(2), 14–18. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu /10.1002/lia.1015

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Puls, T. R., Ludden, L. L., & Freemyer, J. (2014). Authentic leadership and its relationship to ministerial effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 8(1), 55-75. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https: //search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1754574026?

accountid=12085

Schaeffer, F. A. (1974). No little people [Kindle version]. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Seidel, A. (2008). Leadership and spiritual formation. In P. Pettit (Ed.), Foundations for spiritual foundation: A community approach to becoming like Christ (pp. 177194). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. 

Swindoll, C. R. (1998). Joseph: A man of integrity and forgiveness [Kindle version]. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 

Thomas, R. J. (2009). The leadership lessons of crucible experiences. The Journal of Business Strategy, 30(1), 21-26. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/ insight/content/doi/10.1108/02756660910926939/full/pdf?title=the-leadershiplessons-of-crucible-experiences

Walton, J. H. (2001). The NIV application commentary, Genesis: From biblical text…to   contemporary life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.          

Leadership Economics

Abstract

The idea of economies, when considered in the broadest sense, involves systems.  That is the context in which this article contemplates leadership. Leadership Economics (LEh) identifies and defines the dynamics that comprise the leadership economy and shows how those elements contribute to, and interact toward, the accomplishment of organizational outcomes. Scholarly research of the economy’s fundamentals supports Leadership Economics’ concept and serves as the basis for understanding it. Additionally, Christian theological evaluation supplements the discussion regarding the practical application of Leadership Economics, lending further substance to this model.

The intent of Leadership Economics is not to add another definition to the leadership ideal or to propose new leadership principles. Rather, the goal of Leadership Economics is to delineate leadership’s means. Leadership Economics deals with how: how leaders move organizations from definitions and principles to outcomes.

The idea of Leadership Economics is positioned in the middle of the leadership continuum. That is, between the definitions of what leadership is on the one hand, and what leadership hopes to accomplish on the other. Most of what is written about leadership relate to either the definition of leadership or what leadership works to achieve.

The discussion this work invites the reader to consider seeks to prompt additional study and exploration into the functioning of the leadership dynamic, the very real territory that exists between definitions and outcomes. In a word, Leadership Economics is about: HOW; how do  leaders really lead? How do leadership principles function, allowing leaders to better understand and practiced those dynamics, contributing to more effective organizational performance?

Hypothesis

The essence of Leadership Economics lies in the belief that particular, identifiable, constant realities exist within the leadership reality that, when pursued and applied in a systematic fashion, will result in the ability to lead in ways that help achieve desired outcomes. These realities are specific, definable operants recognizable within the leader/follower dynamic. The functionalities suggested here are not recent insights or new discoveries. Rather, they are known elements of the leadership paradigm. Leaders and followers who intentionally and purposefully work together within the functioning of the economy that is defined by these dynamics, can, with reliability, expect to achieve the desired ends.

At the core of Leadership Economics is the relationship between the leader and follower[s]; relationships are, and must be, at the core of any leadership effort. Once relationships are established, trust is the next consideration. After trust comes influence.  The final piece of the leadership economy is humility. These four attributes, functioning successively as prescribed, are the essence of Leadership Economics.

This theory holds that relationships, trust, influence, and humility comprise the foundational building blocks upon which leadership is built and operates. Additionally, each of these elements can be defined and understood in its own right and, as such, lends itself to a systematic, dependent, and corresponding approach to exercising effective leadership.

The attributes that comprise the Leadership Economics model can be known and the sequential construct this theory suggests can be both understood and applied. It is to that end that this work seeks to initiate discussion.

Economics

The use of economics as a backdrop to the Leadership Economics ideal results, in part, from Canadian economist Jim Stanford’s suggestion that economics has to do with how things work, how organizations work. Interestingly, some to the earliest studies of economic concepts date back to the mid-1800s and, as the Robert Schiller, distinguished Yale professor of economics shares, dealt with the “study of human behavior”. Consequently, Stanford argues that an understanding of economics principally attempts to define, evaluate and predict “interactions and relationships between people”. It is with this perspective in view that the idea of economics is applied to the leadership model under consideration in this article.

The evaluation of economics involves understanding people, their behaviors, and the influences that contribute to a system in question. Floyd Bond, quoting Lew Wagner in a discussion about the study and instruction of economic principles, wrote that economics is about “those concepts and relationships which serve to organize and tie together” the functionalities that define an economy. Economics then has as its focus the relationships, and choices that work to influence and define those relationships, more so than any particular outcome that might be desired.

Relationships

Relationships are foundational to leadership; they are central to all leadership realities. At its heart, the idea of relationships anticipates a form of association, that is, a connection between things. In the case of leadership, that connection deals largely with the leader and the follower(s). Everything about leadership rises and falls on the effort those involved invest in relationships.

Ed Weymes, Associate Dean at The University of Waikato in New Zealand, holds that, when discussing leadership and the importance of relationships, “one cannot occur without the other.” Weymes goes on to argue that the challenge of leadership lies in the effort to establish relationships.

Relationships are not just foundational to the principles of leadership, relationships are where leadership starts. Mark McCaslin, former Assistant Professor at the University of Idaho, calls relationships “the energy that fuels leadership”. Simply put, no matter the application, leadership absolutely begins with relationships.

Given that leadership starts with relationships, understanding them is essential for leaders. Stefan Klaussner, Visiting Professor at the European University Viadrina in Germany, contends that relationships are definable. The point is that they do not exist in simple linear terms, but rather function in a fluid state. An understanding of the nuances of relationship and their complexities is critical to those who lead. The reader’s attention is drawn to this fact in order to highlight the critical nature of relationships within the Leadership Economics theory.

Finally, when considering relationships, it bears mentioning that they are not a one-way enterprise, the responsibility solely of the leader, but rather require two-way effort. Jane Howell and Boas Shamir, writing in the Academy of Management Review, note that the onus regarding relationships within the leadership continuum lies with all parties involved, not just the leader. It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that leadership simply cannot exist in a vacuum absent relationships. Relationships are where the leadership economy begins, but successful leadership requires more than relational effectiveness.

Trust

David Elrod, former finance director with Microsoft, speaking about leadership argues that trust is an essential quality of leadership. Furthermore, with the Leadership Economics model in mind, it is interesting to note that Chughtai, Byrne, and Flood write in the Journal of Business Ethics that the realization of trust is dependent on relationships. In the most direct terms, trust cannot be realized outside of relationships. The evidence on this point is clear.

The Oxford English Dictionary, when defining trust, holds that by its very nature trust anticipates the reliance, confidence or faith in some quality or attribute of another. Clearly, this speaks to the centrality relationships play in the establishment of trust.

Trust is something that is realized and only achieved over time according to Xiaojun Lu of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China. Indeed, Meister, Green, and Galford in their book  The Trusted Advisor, advance the idea that, generally, the longer relationships exists the more beneficial they can be in contributing to trust. Time, however, is not the only contributor to the fostering of trust in relationships. Chughtai, Byrne, and Flood suggest that trust is a subjective function that can vary widely in both qualitative and quantitative terms.

In addition to time, various scholars, to include those already mentioned in this article, assert that things like proximity, consistency and the reciprocating nature of relationships, to mention just a few, are all attributes that have an impact on trust. In other words, trust does not just happen. It is a function of numerous complex and diverse elements all rooted, in one way or another, in relationships. Klaussner, referenced earlier, plainly states that relationships and trust exist in a symbiotic relationship. Interestingly, in and of themselves it is not these two functions that move organizations. For that, there is a subsequent, integral dynamic within the leadership economy necessary for organizations to realize targeted outcomes.

Influence

Northouse, in his hallmark textbook entitled simply Leadership, writes that influence is the essential element of leadership, “without influence, leadership does not exist.” Finnish organizational consultant Kalle Siira posits that influence is the most central dynamic that must be accomplished for leadership to be considered effective. Truly, the idea of influence is, in one way or another, essential to most leadership definitions and leadership cannot happen without influence.

Sadly, it is here, with influence, that most leaders start their effort to lead. That unfortunate reality is at the core of many leadership failures. While influence is what is needed, it should not be what leaders seek. Influence is not some commodity to be acquired, simply bought off the shelves of the nearest supermarket. Rather, as Kacmar Carlson and Harris wrote in the Journal of Social Psychology, a leader’s conduct with respect to “personal actions and interpersonal relationships” is what drives his or her ability to influence an organization. Interestingly, leaders who are attentive with respect to constructing environments that attend to relational realities motivate or influence followers, according to Wong and Cummings, nursing professors in Canada.

It is this consideration, that although influence is central to the realization of leadership, it should not be the aim of leadership. This perspective is foundational to the Leadership Economics’ argument. Dorothy Gaiter, President of Alabama-based Gaiter Electrodiagnostic Technology, writes plainly that “when people trust their leaders, they will follow”. Such trust, according to authors Maister, Green and Galford result from relationships. So, it is healthy relationships that ought to be the focus of leaders. In doing so, trust can be cultivated, and influence effected.

Humility

In the strictest sense, what has been presented to this point in this article is true and applicable with respect to the practice of leadership. That said, it is believed, and research strongly suggests, that there is an additional element, applied by leaders in concert with relationships, trust, and influence that materially bears on leadership’s effectiveness. That attribute is humility.

True humility’s most powerful consideration, from a leadership perspective, is its focus on the good of the organization rather than self, according to professors Morris, Brotheridge, and Urbanski. These scholars go on to state that when leaders appreciate the contributions of others, seeking to serve them and encouraging their involvement, the benefits of humility to the organization are better understood and realized. Indeed, van Dierendonck and Patterson, writing in the Journal of Business Ethics offer a pointed thought: humility and leadership are conjoined realties.

The impact of humility on leadership is profound, perhaps exponential. Consider for a moment the thoughts of Jim Collins, author of the much-heralded book Good to Great. Collins’ research highlighted humility and professional will as unique attributes of “Level 5” leaders who lead their 11 respective companies to unparalleled heights compared to the other 500 companies a part of Collins’ study.

Another proponent of humility as a fundamental leadership attribute is the late, great

UCLA basketball coach John Wooden. Wooden held that he had one simple focus as a coach, “do everything possible to help . . . our team”. He was absolutely determined to accomplish one thing as a coach, teaching and developing his players.  Interestingly, absent from his considerations is any concern for winning. This is an approach entirely antithetical to most current coaching practices. The same is true about most part leadership practices employed by the majority of coaches and leaders today.

The academic research certainly supports the thesis that there is a sequential, dependent reality that defines how leadership works. In fact, the work associated with this effort has resulted in the development of a mathematical statement intended to express how leadership functions:

{[((+/-RL) + (+/-RF)) = T] = I}h

The R, T, I, and h represented in this equation relate to relationships, trust, influence, and humility respectively. The L and F reference the leader and the follower(s). Essentially then, as the relationship between the leader and follower(s) goes, so goes the trust between them and consequentially influence. Accordingly, consistent with mathematical principles, humility’s weight on the statement effects all elements exponentially.

Christian Worldview

There is a question that remains. Is this thinking treated favorably when considered from a Christian worldview perspective? Thankfully Scripture is replete with leadership examples affording an opportunity for such an evaluation.

When considering relationships as a core piece of the leadership practice one finds numerous supporting references. Joshua served alongside Moses 40 years before assuming the responsibility of leading Israel. Additionally, Elijah’s tutelage of Elisha is defined by a word Easton’s Bible Dictionary characterizes as one “adopt[ing] him as a son and invest[ing]” in his training. Then there is Paul’s work with Timothy, who Paul, writing in Philippians and 1 Corinthians, refers to as a “true child” and “beloved and faithful child”. Perhaps, when considering the leadership perspective, there is no more compelling example than Christ Jesus’ work with His disciples. He spent three years working with a truly rag-tag group who, after  Christ’s leadership, willingly abandoned their lives, following Him to death, marking the world indelibly with His gospel message for eternity.

In each example, the work started with relationships. Over time those relationships served to cultivate trust between the parties, and that trust resulted in the realization of influence. In each case, those leaders conducted themselves with humility throughout their efforts. Indeed, there is no greater example of the kind of humility that the Christian worldview contemplates than that exercised by Jesus, giving His life in the conduct of His work with the disciples and the fulfillment of God’s will and plan for mankind.

Conclusion

The work undertaken in this article sought to contribute specifically to the notion of how leadership works.  Leadership Economics is a theoretical perspective intent on provoking conversation around the real-life practice and application of leadership.

It is believed that there is a dependent, associative reality existing between relationships, trust, influence, and humility in their respective contribution to the leadership dynamic. 

Scholarly content, as well as Christian worldview considerations, both support the concepts held in this article.

Understanding how leadership is accomplished is paramount to the effective realization of desired organizational outcomes.  Leadership Economics works to explain and lend clarity to the perennial leadership questions of: “How”?

About the Author

Robert P. Schiefer is an entrepreneur, leadership coach, mentor, and public speaker. He is the franchise owner of a Chick-fil-A restaurant located in Niceville, FL. Robb has spent more than 25 years leading teams in either senior leadership roles or as the owner of businesses. Robb is a graduate of Liberty University, graduating Summa Cum Laude, with a Bachelor of Science degree in Religion.  Robb also holds a Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership degree from

Regent University. The effort toward his Master’s degree resulted in Robb’s development of the Leadership Economics© concept.

About Regent

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university with more than 11,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University is ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 13 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2025).

About the School of Business & Leadership

The School of Business & Leadership is a Gold Winner – Best Business School and Best MBA Program by Coastal Virginia Magazine. The school also has earned a top-five ranking by U.S. News & World Report for its online MBA and online graduate business (non-MBA) programs. The school offers both online and on-campus degrees including Master of Business Administration, M.S. in Accounting (Tax or Financial Reporting & Assurance), M.S. in Business Analytics, M.A. in Organizational Leadership, Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, and Doctor of Strategic Leadership.

Identifying Primary Characteristics of Servant Leadership: Delphi Study

The purpose of this study was to more clearly define servant leadership by identifying primary characteristics of the phenomenon through a Delphi study. Greenleaf (1977) stated that servant leadership “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (p. 13). Greenleaf clearly stated that in servant leadership, service comes before leadership. Because a servant leader serves first, we designated those characteristics of a servant as the primary characteristics of servant leadership. In order to serve first, a servant leader must first exhibit the primary characteristics and then aspire to lead. Over 100 characteristics of servant leadership have been identified in the literature (Sendjaya, 2003, p. 4). We conducted a Delphi study with scholars in the field of servant leadership and, after three rounds, 12 characteristics were identified as primary characteristics of servant leadership. These characteristics include valuing people, humility, listening, trust, caring, integrity, service, empowering, serving others’ needs before their own, collaboration, love/unconditional love, and learning.  

Many find it hard to accept the phenomenon of servant leadership because they do not understand how a servant can be a leader and how a leader can be a servant; that is, it seems to be an oxymoron (Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 145; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 57; Wong & Page, 2003, p. 2).  However, Kiechel (1995) suggested that the two words should not be thought of as an oxymoron “but rather as a sort of Zen koan, a juxtaposition of apparent opposites meant to startle the seeker after wisdom into new insight” (p. 122). This new insight is that the leader exists to serve those whom he or she leads (Kiechel, 1995, p. 122). Some servant leaders take Kiechel’s idea further, understanding leading and serving as synonymous.  Max De Pree (1992) stated, “above all, leadership is a position of servanthood. Leadership is also a position of debt; it is a forfeiture of rights” (p. 220). 

Defining Servant Leadership

In 2002, Sendjaya and Sarros stated that only anecdotal evidence exists “to support a commitment to an understanding of servant leadership. . . . One reason for the scarcity of research on servant leadership is that the very notion of ‘servant as leader’ is an oxymoron” (p. 57). In 2010, Winston stated that we still “lack a unified accepted theory of servant leadership” (p. 186). In the same year, Van Dierendonck observed, “despite its introduction four decades ago and empirical studies that started more than 10 years ago (Laub, 1999), there is still no consensus about a definition and theoretical framework of servant leadership” (p. 2). 

In the same article that Greenleaf (1977) coined the term servant leadership, he gave a broad definition and stated how to best measure the phenomenon:   

The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant—first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 13) 

Since Greenleaf defined servant leadership in somewhat vague terms, scholars have been trying to find a more precise definition. Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999) stated, “if anecdotal evidence exists, then the next step in advancing the research stream is to define the major variables” (p. 51).  The first to publish his attempt to more precisely define servant leadership by identifying characteristics of the phenomenon was J. W. Graham.  In 1991, Graham identified humility, relational power, autonomy, moral development of followers, and emulation of leaders’ service orientation as characteristics of servant leadership. In 1992, De Pree listed 12 characteristics of leadership in which he included integrity; vulnerability; discernment; awareness of the human spirit; courage in relationships; sense of humor; intellectual energy and curiosity; respect of the future, regard for the present, understanding of the past; predictability; breadth; comfort with ambiguity; and presence. Although De Pree did not specifically state that he was listing characteristics of servant leadership, he understood leadership to be a position of servanthood (p. 220). 

In 1995, Spears published a list of 10 critical characteristics of servant leadership based on Greenleaf’s writings with the disclaimer that they were “by no means exhaustive. However, these characteristics communicate the power and promise this concept offers to those who are open to its invitation and challenge” (p. 7). Spears’ 10 characteristics included listening, empathy, healing, persuasion, awareness, foresight, conceptualizing, commitment to growth, stewardship, and community. Spears’ list remains to this day the most respected and referred to list of servant leadership characteristics. According to Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Spears’ work provided “the closest representation of an articulated framework for what characterizes servant leadership” (p. 302).

In 1999, Spears stated that servant leadership is “open to considerable interpretation and values judgment” and therefore attempts should not be made “to define servant leadership as a ‘fixed or complicated set of requirements’” (Spears as cited in Polleys, 2002, p. 124).  He argued that “the danger . . . is that it could become so narrowly defined as to close the door on a wider audience of people who do embrace the broadest definition of servant leadership—namely, Greenleaf’s ‘test’” (Spears as cited in Polleys, 2002, p. 124).

Many other scholars have identified additional attributes of servant leadership. In 1998, Buchen associated four characteristics with servant leadership: capacity for reciprocity, preoccupation with future, relationship building, and self-identity. In 1999, Farling et al. identified five components from the literature on servant leadership. They referred to vision and service as behavioral components and influence, credibility, and trust as relational components. Barburo and Wheeler (2006) stated that the work of Farling et al. was unclear how it differentiated from “better-understood leadership theories such as transformational leadership” (p. 302).  Also in 1999, Laub listed six characteristics of servant leadership: building community, developing people, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, sharing leadership, and valuing people (p. 3). 

In 2000, Russell identified “at least 20 distinguishable attributes of servant leadership” (p. 12) in the literature of which he classified nine as functional. He claimed that there was not enough literature on servant leadership at the time to “identify with specificity the attributes of servant leaders” but there was “enough consistency in the literature to make it possible to discern characteristics that should exist among servant leaders” (Russell, 2000, p. 12). Russell’s (2000) functional attributes consisted of vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. Russell (2000) stated, “the functional attributes are the operative characteristics of servant leadership. They are identifiable characteristics that actuate leadership responsibilities” (p. 12). Russell and Stone (2002) stated that the functional attributes “determine the form and effectiveness of servant leadership” (p. 153). 

Russell (2000) also identified an additional 11 characteristics that he called accompanying attributes. He defined accompanying attributes as “companion or supplemental characteristics of servant leaders” (p. 6). “The accompanying attributes supplement and augment functional attributes.  They are not secondary in nature; rather, they are complementary and in some areas, prerequisites to effective servant leadership” (Russell, 2000, p. 7). Russell and Stone (2002) stated that accompanying attributes “affect the level and intensity of the functional attributes” (p. 153). These consist of communication, credibility, competence, stewardship, visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching, and delegation (Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 147).  

In 2002, Barbuto and Wheeler identified 11 potential dimensions of servant leadership adding “calling” (p. 303) to Spears’ (1995) original 10.  In her 2003 dissertation, Kathleen Patterson identified seven constructs of servant leadership that included love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service.  In the same year, Sendjaya (2003) classified 101 characteristics into six dimensions and 22 subdimensions (p. 4). 

In 2006, Barbuto and Wheeler declared that “a more precise clarification of the servant leadership construct is necessary” (p. 301).  Their research produced five servant leadership “factors” (p. 300): altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom, and organizational stewardship. In 2007, Irving and Longbotham listed four characteristics of servant leadership that included engaging in honest self-evaluation, fostering collaboration, providing accountability, and supporting and resourcing (p. 105).   

Primary Characteristics

Contrary to efforts of other researchers to better define servant leadership by listing additional characteristics, we identified characteristics already existing in the literature as primary to servant leadership. Many aspects of servant leadership identified in the literature are not exclusive to servant leadership but rather are essential to all forms of effective leadership.  However, a number of characteristics are only applicable to servant leadership. Greenleaf (1977) stated that servant leadership “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.  Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (p. 13).  Greenleaf clearly stated that in servant leadership, service comes before leadership.  This aspect is exclusive to servant leadership.  Servant leadership is the only form of leadership that places service as its first priority. Because a servant leader serves first, we designated those characteristics of a servant as primary characteristics of servant leadership.  In other words, servant leaders must first meet the criteria of a servant before they can meet the criteria of a servant leader, which is consistent with  Greenleaf’s writing that put service before leadership (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 60). 

Greenleaf (1997) wrote that a servant leader is to serve first and then by “conscious choice” (p. 13) aspire to lead. 

The motivational element of servant leadership (i.e., to serve first) portrays a fundamental presupposition which distinguishes the concept from other leadership thoughts.  This presupposition forms the mental model of the servant leader, that is the “I serve” as opposed to “I lead” mentality.  The primary reason why leaders exist is to serve first, not to lead first. (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 60)  

Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) went on to claim that “the servant leader operates on the assumption that ‘I am the leader, therefore I serve’ rather than ‘I am the leader, therefore I lead’” (p. 60); however, Sendjaya and Sarros missed the point that the servant leader must serve before leading.  Their explanation is much more suitable for what Greenleaf called the leader first rather than the servant first who is a natural servant. For the servant first, it is not his or her leadership that leads him or her to serve but rather he or she serves and then makes a conscious decision to lead. De Pree (1992), former CEO of Herman Miller, gave the following example of service preceding leadership:

I arrived at the local tennis club just after the high school students had vacated  the locker room.  Like chickens, they had not bothered to pick up after themselves. Without thinking too much about it, I gathered up all their towels and put them in the hamper.  A friend of mine quietly watched me do this and then asked me a question that I’ve pondered many times over the years.  “Do you pick up towels because you’re the president of the company?  Or are you the president because you pick up the towels?” (p. 218)

The servant leader’s answer should be, “I am the president because I pick up the towels.” De Pree responded by stating that picking up the towels (i.e., service) qualifies him to accept leadership (p. 219). Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) dissected De Pree’s example.

While both premises imply a linear relationship between the act of service and the position of the leader, they stand squarely opposite to each other in terms of cause and effect.  The first premise “I serve because I am the leader” signifies the act of altruism.  Both Jesus’ [sic] and Greenleaf’s delineation of servant leadership put the emphasis on the acts of service, as opposed to the act of leading.  As the leader-teacher of his followers and disciples, Jesus deliberately declares to them, “I am among you as one who serves” (NIV Bible, Luke 22:27).  Greenleaf (1977) posits that the servant leader “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (p. 13). At its core, the nature of the servant leadership is serving, not leading (De Pree, 1989).  It is through the act of serving that the leaders lead other people to be what they are capable of becoming. (p. 60)

Primary characteristics of servant leadership are characteristics of being a servant. Some characteristics of servant leadership that could be identified as primary include altruism, empathy, humility, service, spirituality, and stewardship.

Purpose and Significance

There is a lack of a clear definition of servant leadership.  The purpose of this study was to more clearly define servant leadership by identifying primary characteristics.  This study is unlike previous studies on the characteristics of servant leadership because the purpose was not to define new characteristics but to identify characteristics pertaining to service from the already existing list of characteristics identified in the literature.  Greenleaf (1977) stated that servant leadership “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (p. 13). Greenleaf clearly stated that in servant leadership, service comes before leadership. Because a servant leader serves first, those characteristics pertaining to service are designated as the primary characteristics of a servant leader.  In other words, servant leaders must first meet the criteria of a servant before they can meet the criteria of a servant leader.  

Methodology

The efforts made to more narrowly define Greenleaf’s (1977) definition of servant leadership have resulted in an even vaguer definition than the original. In this section, we explain how we identified primary characteristics of servant leadership through a Delphi study.

A Delphi study is a series of questionnaires distributed to a preselected group of experts in multiple iterations or rounds to collect data (Adler & Ziglio, 1996, p. 9; Hsu & Sandford, 2007, p. 1).  Participants for this study were identified based on their scholarship in identifying characteristics of servant leadership as seen in their publication record (cf. Gordon, 1994, p. 6).  The questionnaires sent to the participants were designed to elicit individual responses and to enable the scholars to refine their views in subsequent rounds as they compared their responses with the responses of the group coupled with controlled feedback (Adler & Ziglio, 1996, p. 9). In each round the participants anonymously completed the questionnaire provided.  Once the questionnaires were returned, they were analyzed and the information used to prepare the next questionnaire. The new questionnaire coupled with controlled feedback was then sent to the participants (Gordon, 1994, p. 3; Ludwig, 1994, p. 55). This process continued until consensus was reached (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007, p. 2).  Consensus for this study was defined as at least 70% of all participants rating individual characteristics with a 3 or higher on a 4-point Likert-type scale and with the median at 3.25 or higher (cf. Hsu & Sandford, 2007, p. 4).  The philosophy of consensus building in the Delphi technique is that expert consensus is believed to more likely be accurate than an individual forecast (Gordon, 1994, p. 10).  

Winston (2010) stated, “in-depth interviews and focus groups of critical incidents and phenomena might be helpful” (p. 183) in researching servant leadership. The risk of using focus groups is that the conversation may result in group think or be dominated by a limited number of people thereby not allowing everyone to participate (Winston, 2010, p. 185). The Delphi method is a good solution to these problems because participants acknowledge their peers’ opinions and must appreciate their peers’ responses in order to achieve consensus. Through anonymity, the Delphi technique encourages participants to express their opinion without fear of what others might think. All participants’ opinions are considered equal, and participants influence each other through their responses.  The Delphi technique is the best way to identify primary characteristics of servant leadership because it can produce an expert consensus, which is appropriate for the current stage of the phenomenon.

Results

In the first round of the Delphi study, 60 characteristics were identified by 10 participants.  The number of characteristics was reduced to 27 by eliminating those characteristics that were only identified by one participant. During the second and third rounds, participants rated the 27 characteristics on a 4-point Likert scale. The Delphi study was concluded after the third round after consensus was reached on 12 items identified as primary characteristics of servant leadership. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) was found to be significant for the second, p < .05, at .249, and third rounds, p < .01, at .361. This shows that participants moved closer to consensus between rounds two and three.  All 12 characteristics have means of at least 3.14 or higher, and all have modes of 4 (see Table 1). These items are listed in Table 1. 

Table 1: Primary Characteristics                    

CharacteristicsMean RankPrecentage rated 3 or 4MeanMedianMode
1          Value people21.071004.0044
2          Humility20.071003.8644
3          Listening19.931003.8644
4          Trust18.931003.7144
5          Caring18.291003.7144
6          Integrity17.86863.5744
7          Service17.07713.4344
8          Empowering16.71863.1444
9 Serve others’ needs before their own16.14713.1444
10        Collaboration16.00863.4344

11 Love, unconditional love 15.71 86 3.29 4 4 12 Learning 15.64 71 3.29 4 4

The definitions provided for these characteristics by the participants of the study are listed in Table 2. 

Characteristic Explanation
1 Value people Servant leaders truly value people for who they are, not just for what
they give to the organization. Servant leaders are first and foremost
committed to people, particularly their followers.
2 Humility Servant leaders do not promote themselves, they promote others . . .
putting others first. They are truly humble, not humble as an act.
Servant leaders understand it is not about them—things happen
through others; exemplary servant leaders know they cannot do it
alone.
3 Listening Listens receptively—nonjudgmentally. Are willing to listen because
they truly want to learn from others; to understand
follower/associates, they have to listen deeply. Seek first to
understand. Like discernment enables one to know when or where
service is needed.
4 Trust Servant leaders give trust to others. They are willing to take risks to
serve others well. Servant leaders are trusted because they are
authentic and dependable.
5 Caring Servant leaders truly have the people and the purpose in their heart in
the people and the purpose. They display a kindness toward others
and a concern for others. As the term implies, they are there to serve
others and not to be served by others. Servant leaders care more for
the people than for the organization.
6 Integrity Servant leaders are honest, credible, and can be trusted. They don’t
cut corners, they allow dependability and trust—something you can
count on. Integrity is knowing what your values are, developing a set
of shared values with the people you serve, and then remaining true
to those values. This provides clarity and drives commitment. Servant
leaders need to be first in ensuring that their behaviors are consistent
with their values and with the shared values they develop with others.
This includes the categories of engaging in honest self-evaluation,
inner consciousness, and spirituality.
7 Service The servant leader is servant first.
8 Empowering Servant leaders empower others and expect accountability.
9 Serve others’
needs before
their own
Servant leaders serve others before self. This is foundational to what
it means to be a servant leader. Put others’ interests before our own.
Focht & Ponton / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 51
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 9 Iss. 1, 2015
© 2015 School of Business & Leadership, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
10 Collaboration Servant leaders reject the need for competition and pitting people
against each other. They bring people together. Because servant
leadership is about pursuing a higher purpose for the good of the
whole and because leadership is by definition a collaborative process
(it requires collaboration between leaders and followers), skilled
collaboration is an essential characteristic of a servant leader. This
includes categories of accountability, awareness, building
community, courage in relationships, empathy, and listening. Servant
leaders do not go it alone; they work together with others in
collaborative endeavors that serve the needs of followers and their
organization.
11 Love,
unconditional
love
Unconditional love is a strong phrase with Christian overtones, so it
might be better to call it something else, such as acceptance or
appreciation, but it is a radical and powerful starting point for servant
leadership because it becomes the primary motivator for the way you
treat other people. If you start with a posture of unconditional love
(believing that every person is as worthy and valuable as you are and
committing to dealing with them in the most loving way possible in
every circumstance), it transforms how you treat them and how you
understand your higher purpose. This category includes acceptance,
acknowledging, appreciation of others, equality, trust, and
vulnerability. The ultimate motive to serve.
12 Learning This includes learning from those below them in the organization.
Servant leaders are learners. They truly want to learn from others.
They know that they do not know it all so they are willing to learn
from all directions in the organization. Great leaders never rest when
it comes to learning about future trends and opportunities, the
perspectives of their multiple internal and external stakeholders, the
emergence of new ideas and technologies related to their business,
and the art and science of leadership itself. Learning is the master
skill that leads to growth, personally, relationally, organizationally,
and in broader society. This includes comfort with ambiguity and
intellectual energy and curiosity

Valuing People

Valuing people was the only characteristic that all of the participants strongly agreed is a primary characteristic.  In the first round, valuing people was only identified by two participants, but reached the highest level of consensus among the other characteristics by the end of the third round.  Laub (1999), who also conducted a Delphi study, listed valuing people as the first of six characteristics defining servant leadership.  He stated that valuing people means believing in them, serving others’ needs before one’s own, and listening (p. 83). Valuing people is also very similar to love and caring.  One participant defined love as “the primary motivator for the way you treat other people,” which is a definition that could very easily apply to valuing people or caring. Both valuing people and caring were defined by participants of the study as putting people before the organization.  Despite the similarities between these characteristics as observed by the participants, the participants rated them differently. As evident by the high level of consensus reached for this item in this study and its prominence in previous studies, valuing people is clearly a primary characteristic of servant leadership. 

Humility

This study identified humility as a primary characteristic of servant leadership with all of the participants either agreeing or strongly agreeing.  In fact, all the participants strongly agreed except for one who merely agreed that humility was a primary characteristic. After the first round, humility was identified as a primary characteristic by 7 out of 10 participants, more than any other characteristic. By the end of the third round, humility achieved the second highest rating of consensus among the characteristics. One participant in this study stated that humility is “about serving others and gaining satisfaction from the service.” Likewise, Sendjaya (2008) stated that humility drives servant leaders (p. 410).  Another participant in this study maintained that humility is “a prerequisite for serving others.”

In the literature, humility has been identified as critical to leadership styles other than servant leadership such as Collin’s (2001) Level Five Leadership (p. 36).  Irving and Longbotham (2007) found humility to be a foundational dimension of servant leadership (p. 107). Sandage and Wiens (2001) argued that humility leads servant leaders to consider the needs of others above their own (p. 206). The high level of consensus in this study along with the overwhelming evidence in the literature clearly distinguishes humility as a primary aspect of servant leadership and applies to the service aspect of servant leadership. 

Listening

One hundred percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that listening is a primary characteristic.  All the participants strongly agreed except for one who agreed.  Listening was identified by five participants after the first round—the second highest behind humility. After the third round, it had the third highest level of consensus.  The participants in this study stated, “to serve requires understanding others which needs listening.”  In servant leadership, listening is a vital part of serving others. 

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) stated that listening helps all styles of effective leadership (p. 319). Larry Spears was quoted as saying that if leaders will listen first, this would be the “ultimate accomplishment in the discipline of servant leadership” (as cited in Senge, 1995, p. 229).  Spears (1995) listed listening as the first of 10 critical characteristics of servant leadership (p. 4).  

Trust

One hundred percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that trust is a primary characteristic.  All the participants strongly agreed except for two who agreed.  Trust was identified by three participants in the first round. After the second round, trust and integrity were found to be very similar; however, they were not combined because they did not receive the same rating by all the participants. The two characteristics are identified separately in the literature. Russell and Stone (2002) differentiated between trust and integrity, stating that “integrity reflects adherence to an overall moral code” (p. 148).  Northouse (2007) stated that integrity inspires trust (p. 20). 

In the literature, trust is essential to all forms of leadership (Covey, 1991, p. 170; Martin, 1998, p. 41; Maxwell, 1998, p. 58; Melrose, 1995) and especially to servant leadership (Farling et al., 1999, p. 60; Greenleaf, 1977, p. 25; Russell, 2000, p. 83; Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 148; Story, 2002).  Patterson (2003) defined trust for servant leaders as “a belief in the unseen potential of the followers, believing they can accomplish goals” (p. 22). Such a definition highlights the service aspect of trust. One participant in this study stated, “without trust service will not happen.” 

Caring

One hundred percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that caring is a primary characteristic. In fact, all the participants strongly agreed except for two who agreed.  Caring was identified by only two participants in the first round. One participant in this study defined caring as displaying “a kindness toward others and a concern for others.” Another participant stated, “servant leaders care more for the people than for the organization.” Dennis (2004) and Lopez (1995) both argued that servant leaders genuinely care for their followers. Crom (1998) stated that servant leaders should truly care about their team members as people, make them feel important, and show genuine interest in their lives (p. 6). Irving and Longbotham (2007) referred to this type of care as love. Although love and caring have been found to be very similar in the literature, they were not combined because participants in this study scored them differently. In order for servant leaders to serve others’ highest priority needs, they first need to care for them.  

Integrity

Eighty-six percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that integrity is a primary characteristic.  Integrity was identified by three participants during the first round and was ranked sixth out of 27 according to mean rank after the second and third rounds.  Integrity has been called an integral part of good leadership and considered to be one of the best qualities for “real leaders” (Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 148).  It has been called the underlining principle of servant leadership (Hennessy et al., 1995, p. 167). De Pree (1992) referred to integrity as the “linchpin of leadership . . . lose integrity and a leader will suddenly find herself [sic] in a directionless organization going nowhere” (p. 220).  In addition, De Pree listed integrity first on his list of 12 characteristics for becoming a successful servant leader (p. 220).  In this study, one participant defined integrity as “knowing what your values are, developing a set of shared values with the people you serve, and then remaining true to those values.” Another participant in this study commented that “without integrity service means nothing.”  In the literature, integrity is essential to leadership.  The participants in this study took that definition a step further, stating that in servant leadership service is meaningless without integrity. 

Service

Seventy-one percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that service is a primary characteristic.  Service was identified by three participants during the first round.  It was rated second according to mean rank after the second round, but after the third round it was rated seventh. It is not surprising that consensus was reached for service in a study whose purpose was to identify characteristics of servant leadership that apply to service. The only definition provided by the participants for service during this study was that “the servant-leader is servant first.” The definition for service in the literature is also lacking. Many observe that for the servant leader, serving comes first (De Pree, 1997; Farling et al., 1999, p. 64; Greenleaf, 1977; Patterson, 2003, p. 25; Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 149; Sendjaya, 2003, p. 4), but few attempt to actually explain or define the characteristic. The characteristic of service needs to be defined so that it can be differentiated from the more global construct of service represented by all 12 characteristics.

Empowering

Eighty-six percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that empowering is a primary characteristic. Empowerment has been called the “central element in excellent leadership” (Russell, 2000, pp. 21, 84; Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 152). Others have called empowerment the most important characteristic of servant leadership (Patterson, 2003, p. 23). Greenleaf has even been referred to as the father of the empowerment movement (Buchen, 1998, p. 129). Without the sharing of power, there cannot be servant leadership. Patterson (2003) stated, “empowering people, with the best interest of those served in mind, is at the heart of servant leadership” (p. 23). Empowerment for the servant leader involves effective listening, making people feel significant, putting an emphasis on teamwork, valuing love and equality, entrusting workers with authority and responsibility, and allowing them to experiment and be creative without fear (Russell, 2000, p. 7; Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 7; Sendjaya, 2003, p. 4).  Servant leaders empower their followers by serving them. 

Serving Others’ Needs Before Their Own

Seventy-one percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that serving others’ needs before their own is a primary characteristic. This is one of the most relevant characteristics to the service aspect of servant leadership.  Laub (1999) argued that servant leaders value their people by serving other’s needs before their own. Although this characteristic shares similarities with service and valuing people, the participants in this study ranked them differently. Evident by the results of this study and previous studies, serving others’ needs before their own is clearly a primary characteristic of servant leadership. 

Collaboration

Eighty-six percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that collaboration is a primary characteristic.  Collaboration was identified by three participants in the first round. Sendjaya (2003) maintained that collaboration means involving others in planning the actions that need to be taken (p. 4). Irving and Longbotham (2007) stated that the servant leader’s role of nurturing “a collaborative work environment is essential in effective team leadership” (p. 108).  One participant in this study commented that collaboration in servant leadership is not concerned with “the good of the whole but the good of the follower(s).” Such a definition of collaboration clearly applies to the service aspect of servant leadership and therefore is considered to be a primary characteristic as serving the highest priority needs of the followers is essential to Greenleaf’s (1977) original definition. 

Love/Unconditional Love

Eighty-six percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that love is a primary characteristic.  In the first round, two participants identified love as a primary characteristic and one listed unconditional love.  These two characteristics were combined for the purposes of this study. Participants stated that “focusing on, valuing, and serving followers flows from love” and

“love is at the peak of wanting to serve,” affirming the results of this study that

love/unconditional love is a primary characteristic to servant leadership. “Swindoll (1981) stated that servanthood and true love work hand in hand” (as cited in Dennis, 2004, p. 3).  The results from this study and the literature agree that love and service are closely related. 

Learning

Seventy-one percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that learning is a primary characteristic. One of the participants commented that “great leaders never rest when it comes to learning.” The participants in this study understood learning to require humility. They defined learning to include “learning from those below them in the organization.” They wrote that servant leaders “know that they don’t know it all so they are willing to learn from all directions in the organization.” One participant stated that learning is “related to growth and modeling the way for others to grow and maximize potential.” Therefore, by learning, the leader is serving his or her followers by showing them a way in which they can grow. Perhaps this is the idea that one participant had in mind when he defined learning as “an important goal for all involved in service.”  

Of the 12 primary characteristics identified by the group of servant leadership scholars that participated in this study, some may not seem to apply to service; however, after a closer examination of how these characteristics are defined and applied within the field of servant leadership, it is clear through the results of this study and the literature that they are primary characteristics of servant leadership. 

Limitations

            The Delphi method is not without its limitations.  Limitations that occurred during this study include the number of characteristics included in the study, combining similar characteristics, response rate, lack of clarity about the use of the term primary, and completeness.

Number of characteristics included in the study. It was decided to limit the number of characteristics identified in Round 1 by only including characteristics that were identified by more than one participant.  This narrowed the number of characteristics to be used in the Round 2 questionnaire from 60 to 27. It is unlikely that participants would achieve consensus on 60 characteristics.  Schmidt (1997) mentioned that researchers may make efforts to reduce the number of items if there are much more than 20 items (p. 769).  It is possible that higher consensus and a higher response rate could have been achieved if fewer than 20 characteristics were listed in the study. We considered limiting the number of characteristics further by only including those characteristics identified by more than two participants.  This would have resulted with a list of only nine characteristics and would have not included important characteristics such as valuing people, which after Round 3 had the highest rating of consensus for being a primary characteristic as well as other characteristics that after three rounds were identified as primary characteristics: caring, empowering, learning and serving others’ needs before their own.

Combining similar characteristics. One of the responsibilities of the researcher conducting a Delphi study is to combine similar characteristics after the first round (cf. Schmidt, 1997, p. 769).  In this study, there were several characteristics that were similar such as valuing people, caring and love, and integrity and trust.  However, it was difficult to combine these characteristics even when participants commented about their similarity because these same participants ranked these characteristics differently. 

Response rate. The response rates for the three rounds of this study are listed in Table 3. 

Table 3: Number and Percentage of Responses for Each Round

RoundNumber sentNumber returnedResponse rate
Round 1361028%
Round 211873%
Round 38788%

The Round 1 questionnaire was sent to 36 scholars, and only 10 returned the questionnaire thereby agreeing to participate in the study. There is no way of knowing what percentage of the identified scholars received the invitation and chose not to participate and what percentage, if any, did not receive the invitation at all. Only five identified scholars responded that they would not be able to participate in the study.  Schmidt (1997) stated that a low response rate for the initial call for participants “might indicate that potential participants do not consider the ranking exercise relevant or important” (p. 772).  Only one of the five participants who responded stated that he would not participate in the study because he does not “believe that there is any definitive list of servant-leadership characteristics” (personal communication, April 15, 2011).  The other four explained that they would not be able to participate in the study because of busy schedules.

The response rate for Rounds 2 and 3 was relatively high at 73% and 88%, respectively.  Participants in these rounds indicated their interest in the study. 

Lack of clarity about the use of the term primary. At the beginning of this study, some of the participants in this study seemed to misunderstand the use of the term “primary.”  Primary, as used in this study, was clearly defined to refer to those characteristics that apply to service. It seems that some participants either did not understand this definition or chose to ignore it.  One participant explained that he did not agree with the definition of primary used for this study to refer to characteristics of servant leadership applying to service and stated that he would identify characteristics according to his definition of primary.  This participant did not continue after Round 1 as the definition of primary characteristics was made clearer in Rounds 2 and 3. 

Completeness.  Participants should be encouraged to fully complete the questionnaire by scoring every item.  In this study, two participants failed to score all the items in both Round 2 and 3 questionnaires.  Complete questionnaires are needed to calculate Kendall’s W; therefore, the mode of the group’s responses for the items not marked was used to fill in the blanks (cf.

Dalkey & Helmer, 1963, p. 459). 

Because participant selection is so critical to the results of a Delphi study, the first suggestion is that this study be repeated with a different group of scholars. Selecting scholars in servant leadership with a background or publishing record in service is suggested.

Participants in this study commented on the importance of identifying characteristics that are unique to servant leadership.  If there are characteristics unique to servant leadership, they should be found within this list of primary characteristics. It is the service aspects of servant leadership that distinguish it from other leadership styles. Therefore, should a researcher want to continue with this line of study, he or she should ask participants with scholarship in service to identify characteristics unique to servant leadership from the 12 primary characteristics identified in this study. 

Conclusion

            Over 100 characteristics of servant leadership have been identified in the literature (Sendjaya, 2003, p. 4). Efforts have been made to keep the definition of servant leadership ambiguous and therefore applicable to a wide audience (Polleys, 2002, p. 124). In his 2005 keynote address at the International Servant Leadership Conference, Peter Block addressed the conference attendees: “You’ve held on to the spirit of servant-leadership, you’ve kept it vague and undefinable. . . . People can come back every year to figure out what the hell it is” (p. 55). 

This study has taken an important step to better define the concept of servant leadership. This was achieved not by adding new characteristics to the already vast list of characteristics of servant leadership but by identifying characteristics within that list that are primary to servant leadership—characteristics that are not merely more important, but characteristics that must manifest themselves before the other characteristics. Greenleaf (1977) stated that a servant leader must serve first and then make a conscious choice to aspire to lead. The characteristics that have been labeled as primary are characteristics that pertain to the service aspect of servant leadership.  

Through this study, a group of scholars in servant leadership, who were selected based on their publication record of identifying characteristics of servant leadership, identified 12 primary characteristics. These characteristics include valuing people, humility, listening, trust, caring, integrity, service, empowering, serving others’ needs before their own, collaboration, love/unconditional love, and learning.  These characteristics must manifest themselves before any other characteristics because in order to serve first a servant leader must first exhibit these characteristics and then aspire to lead.  

In addition, the identification of these 12 characteristics has practical applications for aspiring and established servant leaders. These characteristics can be used by potential servant leaders to make sure that they are serving first by fulfilling the primary characteristics of servant leadership before they aspire to lead. Established servant leaders can also use these characteristics to ensure that they are serving those whom they lead. 

Identifying the primary characteristics of servant leadership will also help the academic community focus on the more important characteristics of servant leadership; that is, those characteristics that distinguish servant leadership from other leadership theories by describing the service aspect of servant leadership. Of the more than 100 characteristics of servant leadership identified in the literature, most relate to the leadership aspect of the phenomenon.

There is nothing wrong with characteristics of servant leadership that describe leadership aspects of the phenomenon as it is these characteristics that put the leadership in servant leadership; however, these characteristics do not differentiate servant leadership from other leadership theories. Only the primary characteristics of servant leadership—that is, those that apply to service—can distinguish servant leadership from other leadership theories. 

About the Authors

Adam Focht is the national director of Precept Ministries International in Israel. He holds an Ed.D. in Higher Education Administration from Regent University. 

Email: adampfocht@gmail.com

Michael K. Ponton is a professor of education at Regent University. Professor Ponton holds the Ed.D. in Higher Education Administration from The George Washington University. His research interests include adult learning, autonomous learning, human agency, and social cognitive theory. 

Email: michpon@regent.edu 

References

Adler, M. & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle. The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health.  London, England: Jessica Kingsley. 

Alley, G. (1999). The Messiah son of Joseph in Sefer Zerubbavel: Messianic death and resurrection as a Jewish-Christian polemic. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Comparative Religions, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. 

Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2002). Becoming a servant leader: Do you have what it takes? Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Nebraska Cooperative Extension. (NebGuide G021481-A)

Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300-326.

Blanchard, K. (1995). Servant leadership. Executive Excellence, 12(10), 12.

Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2005). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest leadership role model of all time. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.  

Blanchard, K., & Miller, M. (2007). The secret: What great leaders know—and do. San Fransisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler. 

Block, P. (2005). Servant-leadership: Creating an alternative future. Keynote address, 2005 International Servant-Leadership Conference, Indianapolis, IN. International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 2, 55-79. 

Brody, D. (1995). First among equals: A corporate executive’s vision and the reemerging philosophy of trustees as servant-leaders. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 129-132). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Buchen, I. (1998). Servant Leadership: A model for future faculty and future institutions. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 125-134.  

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Contee-Borders, A. (2003). A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3069348)

Covey, S. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Covey, S. (1994). Serving the one. Executive Excellence, 11(9), 3-4. 

Crom, M. (1998). The leader as servant. Training, 35(7), 6. 

Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467. 

De Pree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York, NY: Dell.

Dennis, R. (2004). Servant leadership theory: Development of the Servant Leadership

Assessment Instrument (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3133544) 

Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 49-72.

Frick, D. (1995). Pyramids, circles, and gardens: Stories of implementing servant-leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 257-281). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727.

Gordon, T. J. (1994). The Delphi method: Futures research methodology. 

            Washington, DC: AC/UNU Millennium Project. 

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-19.

Greenleaf, R. (1977). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. (1980). Servant: Retrospect and prospect. In L. Spears (Ed.), The power of servant leadership (pp. 17-60). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. 

Greenleaf, R. (1995). Claiming servant-leadership as your heritage. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 17-21). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Greenleaf, R. (1996). Seeker and servant: Reflections on religious leadership: The private writings of Robert K. Greenleaf. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grundman, W. (1985). Megas. In G. Kittel (Ed.), G. Bromiley (Trans.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (pp. 529-544). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 

Hennessy, J., Killian, J., & Robins, S. (1995). Managing toward the millennium. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servantleadership (pp. 161-168). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Hesse, H. (1956). Journey to the East. London, England: Owen.

Hicks, D. A. (2002). Spiritual and religious diversity in the workplace. Implications or leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 379-396.

Hsu, C. C., & Sanford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 1-8. 

Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the Organizational Leadership Assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98-113. 

Kiechel, W. (1995). The leader as servant. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 121-125). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Developing the Servant Organization Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9921922) 

Lopez, I. (1995). Becoming a servant-leader: The personal development path. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 149-160). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Martin, M. M. (1998). Trust leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 41-49.

Maxwell, J. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 

McCollum, J. (1995). Managing toward the millennium. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 161-168). New York, NY:  John Wiley and Sons.

McReynolds, P. (1999). Word study Greek-English New Testament. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House.

Melrose, K. (1995). Making the grass greener on your side. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.  Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An   example, design considerations, and applications. Information and   Management, 42, 15-29. 

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3082719) 

Polleys, M. S. (2002). One university’s response to the anti-leadership vaccine: Developing servant leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 117-130.

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issue and      analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353-375.

Russell, R. (2000). Exploring the values and attributes of servant leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9999498)

Russell, R., & Stone, A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3/4), 145-157. 

Sandage, S., &. Wiens, T. W. (2001). Contextualizing models of humility and forgiveness: A reply to Gassin. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29(3), 201-219.

Sarayrah, Y. (2004). Servant leadership in the Bedouin-Arab culture. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 58-79.

Schmidt, R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28, 763-774. 

Sendjaya, S. (2003). Development and validation of Servant Leadership Behavior Scale. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/Sendjaya.pdf 

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9, 47-64.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.

Senge, P. (1995). Robert Greenleaf’s legacy: A new foundation for twenty-first century institutions. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 217-240). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate   research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21. 

Spears, L. (1995). Tracing the growing impact of servant leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.), Insights on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 

Story, M. (2002). A breakfast briefing that unscrambled Auckland’s road-jam: Leadership is about collaboration and making connections. New Zealand Management, 49(9), 39-50. 

Strong, J. (n.d.). Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 

Van Dierendonck, D. (2010). Servant leadership: A Review and synthesis. Journal of Management. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206310380462

Vanourek, R. (1995). Servant-Leadership and the future. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on servant leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 298-307). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Vine, W. E. (1981). Vine’s expository dictionary of biblical words. Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible. 

Winston, B. E. (2010). The place for qualitative research methods in the study of servant leadership. In D. Van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research (pp. 180-191). New York, NY: PalgraveMacMillian. 

Wong, P., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and the revised servant leadership profile. Presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA.

Yousuf, M. I. (2007a). The Delphi technique. E

Introducing Strategic Thinking into a Non-profit Organization to Develop Alternative Income Streams

Non-profit organizations are sobering to the reality that traditional streams of incomes, like grants and government contracts, are drying up due to the tenuous American economy and the over-crowding of other non-profits in similar niche markets. These factors influence non-profit leader, as they determine to discontinue or maintain vital social programs. Non-profit organizations do not have to experience the stress of fighting for a scintilla of awarded funds if they develop businesses that can earn them income. For many years, non-profits have been balancing the regulations of a 501c3 label while earning income through creative business structures and agreements. Organizations that do it correctly find financial success and sustain their organizations independent of grants. Non-profits that are seeking to establish businesses need to ensure that everyone in their organization and on their board of directors are strategic thinkers so they can provide maximum value. Strategic thinkers contribute to the development of creative sustainable ideas that give the organization a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage, in these economic times, is what the doctor ordered for non-profits to sustain their programs. 

Why Most Non-profits Struggle Financially

According to the Nonprofit Finance Fund (2009), non-profit organizations are struggling to maintain the level of service they have historically provided to their clients. Nonprofits are forced to take a second look at the capacity of their operations to determine how many clients they can service. Below are statistics provided by the Nonprofit Finance Fund 2009 survey that tells the troubling financial story of many non-profit organizations. 

  • 12% expect to operate above break even
  • 16% have enough funds to cover operating expenses for 2009 & 2010
  • 31% do not have enough operating cash to cover one to three months of expenses
  • 52% expect the recession to have long-term or permanent effects on their financial health
  • 93% of life line essentials services organizations anticipate an increase in demand (with no increase in resources)

These statistics speak to the importance for non-profit organizations to re-evaluate their financial management practices to ensure their clients are receiving the services they need. Many nonprofits are feeling pressure from their boards and constituents to follow the growing trend of acting like for-profit organizations by generating alternative income, becoming partners in business ventures, and directly managing profit-generating entities. Non-profits that do not embrace this trend will continue to struggle in maintaining their basic operational needs in an climate where philanthropic giving is declining (Ahmed, 2006). 

Non-profits must evaluate their current financial planning practices to ensure a culture of efficiency and accountability governs the management of scarce resources (Tyler, 2006). Overcommitting resources beyond its capability is a recipe for disaster and reduces the likelihood of any organization achieving its goals. Overcommitting of resources is a result of organizations failing to complete a financial feasibility analysis of its strategic plan or forecasting financial plans in a silo (Calandro & Flynn, 2007). Non-profit organizations must corral strategic thinkers at all levels of the organization to capture the best ideas that will lead to the implementation of supplemental income to support its programming. 

What Is Strategic Thinking?

Strategic thinking is the process of collecting, interpreting, generating, and evaluating information and ideas to shape organizational sustainability and competitive advantages (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). Organizations use strategic thinking to ensure the longevity of their operation, while others use it to become or remain number one in their market. This same logic can be applied to non-profit organizations. Unlike for-profit organizations, non-profit organizations, for the most part, are dependent upon predetermined streams of income, like grants, to sustain their programs and services. Non-profit organizations compete with other non-profits for these limited funds, which can restrict their organizational life cycle and opportunity for growth. This competitive environment forces non-profits to work hard to become market leaders for the services and programs they provide. Few non-profit organizations have alternative streams of income to supplement or support long-term operations in the absence of grant funding. To accommodate for this loss, non-profit organizations must think strategically to develop alternative income streams to guarantee the longevity of their programs and to ensure their clients will continue to receive the services they need. 

Successful strategic thinkers have a holistic view of their business and remain intelligently opportunistic about their ability to solve problems in the future (Liedtka, 1998). Strategic thinking results in a strong planning process that scrutinizes every idea and leads to the implementation of a sound strategy. The implementation of a sound strategy allows an organization to continuously monitor the performance and alignment of all business groups and subsidiaries (Micheli, Mura, & Agliati, 2011, cites Dossi & Patelli, 2008). Performance management allows leaders to make strategic business decisions that are in the interest of organizational sustainability. If a business group or subsidiary is not performing to the standards that are expected of them, a decision can be made to remove them, provide training or support, add additional resources, or replace the leadership team. 

Strategic thinkers are in constant pursuit of innovative ideas that will create a sustainable future for their organization (Graetz, 2002). Non-profit leaders should replace outdated practices that are not relevant in today’s economy and cause inefficiency and replace them with sustainable practices. This will require them to be creative and utilize their professional and personal experiences to develop solutions that answer the question, ‘How can we sustain our business?’ (Graetz, 2002). 

Why Strategic Thinking is Important

Strategic thinking leads to decisions that have lasting effects (Harrison, 1995). Strategic thinking is vital to the sustainability of an organization and often contributes to the redevelopment or tweaking of an organization’s mission statement, goals, objectives, and strategies (Nieboer, 2011). Tweaks and changes to this vital information potentially impact the way an organization is branded and perceived by customers and all stakeholders.  

Good strategic thinking leads to sound strategic planning. Strategic planning has historical footing in military planning (Carter, 1999), and has been proven to enhance an organization’s performance (Schraeder, 2002). Strategic planning provides strategies on how to implement the ideas that were produced from the strategic-thinking process. A strategy is a pattern of purposes and policies that define the approach an organization will take to accomplish a goal (Carter, 1999).  The output of strategic planning is a strategic plan. A strategic plan is generally a longterm plan that details all of the tasks that need to be completed to achieve a set of goals. A strategic plan is continuously evaluated and controlled to ensure it remains relevant to achieving the goals of the organization (Kraus, Harms & Schwarz, 2006). 

Why Non-profit Organizations Rarely Use Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning

Non-profit organizations are designed to meet the social needs of their constituents. Leaders of these organizations are challenged with meeting the needs of their constituency on an unsecured, shoestring budget. Satisfying the funding requirements of funders and walking the fine line of financial efficiency while achieving their mission (McMurray, Pirola-Merlo, Sarros, & Islam, 2010) creates an organizational environment that is concerned with implementing survival tactics, which is the antithesis of strategic planning. 

 Non-profit organizations are expected to solve their social mission with the resources that are made available to them; however, there are low expectations of them to develop a plan on how to manage those resources to fulfill their mission (Thach & Thompson, 2007). Downgraded expectations affect the performance of non-profits. Most non-profit cultures are influenced by the assumption that a non-profit is not a business and should not have strategic goals. In addition, these low expectations are supported by the idea that non-profits do not have a profit-generating interest and should not worry about planning the same way as a for-profit organization. Regardless of an organization’s IRS label, strategic planning is relevant to all organizations because it captures a vision of the organization and is managed by the goals and objectives that influence day-to-day operations (Harrison, 1995, cites Goodstein, Pfeiffer, & Nolan, 1986).  The absence of a plan leaves non-profit organizations handicapped and inflexible, unable to accommodate dynamic operational needs. The intense focus on social solutions is the engine that drives non-profit operations. Unfortunately, this lends itself to convenience planning and results in an uncoordinated effort towards strategic planning (Sharp & Brock, 2010).  

The strategic planning process can lead to the tweaking or changing of the mission of the organization and obstruct the continuity of an organizational culture (Sharp & Brock, 2010).

Sharp and Block’s research also discovered it is difficult for a non-profit’s workers to deal with change and ultimately resist the strategic planning process. Although the goal for non-profits is to make social investments, the return on the investment is measured by how an organization executes their strategic plan (Kelly & Lewis, 2009). Many non-profit organizations prefer to engage in convenience planning than strategic planning to avoid changing their culture. They later learn the likelihood of being successful is diminished by not having a strategic plan (Kraus, Harms, & Schwarz, 2006). 

Most non-profit organizations employ organizational structures that create communication roadblocks between management and staff. Communication builds a bridge between the strategy of an organization and its implementation. The research findings of Carrière, Bourque, and Bonaccio (2007) suggest failure to communicate results in low job satisfaction and minimum use of strategic plans (Žnidaršič, Penger & Dimovski, 2010). Effective communication links employee performance to the strategic plan. This holds staff accountable for their performance and contribution to the mission of the organization. Non-profit organizations are in need of as many resources they can acquire and avoid strategic planning to maintain employee and volunteer interest.  

Implementing Strategic Thinking Within an Organization

Business Coaching

Business coaching is known to help clients set and achieve measurable performance goals, think through major decisions, solve problems, and assist clients with a host of additional challenges which can complicate an individual’s ability to produce desired results (King & Eaton, 1999). Coaching differs from training because it provides anomalous attention to the professional needs of each client. The systemic approach to coaching highlights the value coaching places on engaging clients in the process of clearly identifying their challenges and developing action plans that outlines a path to success (Giglio, Diamante, & Urban, 1998). In addition, coaching is essential to developing a culture of self-leaders and strategic thinkers. Research suggests coaches are effective in working with clients throughout their employment life cycle, which can result in significant improvements in retention, engagement, productivity, and performance among clients, their direct reports, and surrogate coaches (Rock & Donde, 2008). 

A Self-Leadership Culture

The engine of a business is the worker that provides skills and services. Similarly, workers are the reasons why organizational cultures persist and why organizational cultures are also susceptible to change. Implementing a new culture, organizational structure, or strategic plan requires leaders to engage and empower their staff to take ownership of the process. The success of an organization is contingent on the psychological contract, which details shared expectations of job responsibilities between the follower and the leader (Lucas & Kline, 2008). The culture and success of an organization is closely linked to its management and the quality of leadership (Mohanty & Yadav, 1996). Non-profit organizations have to make an honest assessment of the management style and quality of leadership within their organization’s structure and determine if the current leadership team is fit to lead the organization in this new direction. 

Self-leaders value the behaviors they exhibit, how they reward themselves for their performance, and the constructive thoughts that sustain self-analysis (Houghton & Neck, 2002). Self-leaders hold themselves accountable for accomplishing goals related to the organizational strategy. To the self-leader, the goals of the organization are important and are kept in the forefront of a selfleaders mind. In particular, self-leaders are constructive thinkers and concerned about motivating themselves. Jeffery Houghton and Christopher Neck (2002) suggest in their research that constructive thinkers talk themselves through difficult challenges as a means to remaining inspired and motivated until a resolution is identified. As leaders and followers self-talk through their individual challenges, they remind themselves to remain aligned according to their predefined roles and responsibilities. A self-leadership culture sustains strategic thinking within an organization. 

Strategic Thinkers at All Levels

Non-profits are a threat to each other because of limited grant funding and large of number of applications. Non-profits need to develop their staff to become strategic thinkers within the context of their job responsibilities to shift from total grant dependency to self-sufficiency in order to remain competitive and sustainable (Alpander & Lee, 1995). Strategic thinking is the process of collecting, interpreting, generating, and evaluating information and ideas to shape an organization’s sustainable competitive advantage (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). All employees can become strategic thinkers if they are taught how to apply it to their jobs. Below are recommendations on how to teach staffers to become strategic thinkers (Bonn, 2001). 

  • Match employees with assignments that make use of their expertise and abilities
  • Give employees autonomy in how they approach their work
  • Provide the necessary resources
  • Establish supportive work-teams
  • Provide performance recognition  
  • Create a climate where the whole organization supports creative efforts

Bonn (2001) provides additional thoughts on how to implement strategic thinking within an organization. 

Show staff how to leverage their past experiences as evidence of their ability to think strategically. Life circumstances, such as turning around a failed business, job loss, or a demotion, are experiences that serve as the backdrop of the development of strategic thinkers. These diverse experiences provide alternative insights on how to solve current organizational problems. It also develops staff into strong pillars for establishing a strategic thinking culture within the organization. Their support and their experiences will encourage others to see the value of strategic thinking.  

Develop a think tank for staff to provide ideas that focus on competitive sustainability. This group should meet regularly to discuss their ideas and collaborate on the ones that show the greatest promise. A commitment from senior leaders to review these ideas strengthens the cohesion of the group. This type of support encourages further development of concepts that have the potential of generate pioneering new products, services, and businesses.  

The think tank should have basic rules for establishing strategic thinking (Bonn, 2001). Some rules include the following:

Eliminate the “we do not have time” syndrome. People make time for what they deem important. They invest their time if they believe they will receive a return on their investment. Strong leadership makes time investments worth the while of team members because they show individual consideration for the skills and asset each team member provides to the efforts of the team.  

Encourage team members to explore their ideas and tactics and bring them before the team for examination. Ideas that do not receive feedback tend to loose out on being refined and cannot be tested for organizational adoption. Feedback brings the best out of all team members, which ultimately benefits the organization.  

Encourage team members to explore their ideas and tactics and bring them before the team for examination. Ideas that do not receive feedback tend to lose out on being refined and cannot be tested for organizational adoption. Feedback brings the best out of all team members, which ultimately benefits the organization.  

Team members must be prepared to seriously listen to each other. Staff can be cynical towards others, thinking their own ideas are automatically better than others. People tend not to take advantage of the assessment of others and as a result, stunt their own growth. A team that listens to each other learns each other’s strengths and builds commodity around their collected strengths.  

Treat team members as colleagues. Everyone that is a part of the strategic thinking team should be able to depend on their teammates to challenge their ideas and actively participate in their development as a strategic thinker.  

Pass on recommendations to senior leaders for consideration. People become frustrated when they invest themselves in their work and receive no feedback from senior leaders. Strategic thinkers, above anything, need encouragement from those that make final decisions within the organization. If you, as a leader, take the time to put together a think tank of strategic thinkers, be sure the ideas from this group will have an audience with the decision makers of the organization.  

Pursuing Profits as a Non-profit

Non-profit organizations are confronted with depleting budgets. A continual decrease in available grants is forcing non-profits to fiercely compete for available funds. These tough times provide an opportunity for non-profits to re-evaluate their business practices, save money, increase efficiency, and increase cash flow. This also forces non-profits to discuss how they should generate income. Non-profits must now consider mixed revenue streams to support their operations. Organizations with accessible resources are likely to move forward with for-profit aspirations and reduce their financial and programmatic risks. Koljatic and Silvan (2010) cite Midttun (2008) as saying the corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a component of business strategy that can facilitate conflict management and strengthen business decisions. The social goals of a non-profit organization provide insight into the appropriate investments they should make to maintain the integrity of their mission. 

William Foster and Jeffrey Bradach (2005) believe non-profit organizations are at a disadvantage when they decide generate income because of the following reasons:

  • Conflicting priorities – Non-profit organizations are created to solve problems. Extending themselves outside of their social mission to manage a business is often outside of their area of expertise.  
  • Lack of business perspective – Non-profit organizations misjudge the costs of doing business and end up losing larger amounts of money than their for-profit counterparts.  
  • Reliance on indirect customers – Non-profits are used to serving a non-paying client base. Converting these clients to paying customers is highly unlikely; however, non-profit organizations become totally fixated on trying to convert these clients and misappropriate their resources toward the wrong client base.  
  • Philanthropic capital and the escalation of commitment – Like some for-profit businesses, some non-profits continue to invest their money in failing projects and do not know when to cut their losses. They increase their financial commitment to make the project work at the risk of losing more capital.  

Non-profit organizations should be selective and strategic about how they can realistically create additional income streams. In his article, “Eight Basic Principles for Nonprofit Entrepreneurs, ” Jerr Boschee (2001) provide guidelines non-profit leaders should use to ensure they are pursuing the right business opportunities to sustain their non-profit organization: 

Earned income is paramount because money from philanthropic organization limited. Depending on these resources as a sole source of income can severely cripple the independence of a nonprofit organization.  

Non-profit organizations struggle with being all things to all people. If an organization does not have the resources or qualifications to serve their current client base, get out of that business, even if that business is dear to your heart.  

Revenue streams can come from various means. Instead of starting a new business from scratch, survey your current program offerings to your clients and determine if you are able to offer those services for a fee to a different client base. This consolidates the time spent on developing new income streams and utilizes current income streams.  

As stated above, unrelated business activities can become a threat to your bottom line and your resources. In addition, if these businesses do not affirm your mission statement and help you achieve your social mission, it is not worth your time or effort.  

Be patient and do not run out of money. Cash flow is so important to sustaining any type of business. Social entrepreneurs are known for underestimating the amount of money and time needed to make a business venture successful. A typical business does not realize significant profits until its seventh year of existence. By the sixth year, the nature of the business would have changed from its original function.  

Recognize the differences between innovators, entrepreneurs, and professional managers. Knowing the difference between these roles in an organization helps determine what job function people should operate in, to contribute maximum value on behalf of the organization. If people are not in the right position, they become liabilities to the organization and its business interests.  

The non-profit culture gets in the way of making sound business decisions. The culture of most non-profit organizations prevents them from doing the following critical tasks to ensure its success.  

  • Taking the type of risk that will grow the business.  
  • Relinquishing control of everything to allow the organization to be agile and flexible.  
  • Becoming customer-focused.  
  • Price more aggressively – Nonprofits are generally happy with pricing their products at a price that will cover their cost while for-profit organizations builds a 50% gross profit margin in their products to have a 3% – 5% net profit margin at the end of the year. Pricing aggressively ensures a non-profit will experience longevity and sustainability.  

Hybrid Organizations

Hybrid non-profits are non-profit organizations that have a relationship with for-profit entities via a contract agreement or subsidiary arrangement. These agreements are established to sustain the operations of a non-profit (Bromberger, 2011). These arrangements have challenges and benefits. To determine if this structure is appropriate for your non-profit, below are some basic tips to consider as you are making your decision. 

If a non-profit organization enters into an agreement with a for-profit organization or creates a for-profit entity, both organizations must have legally independent and different boards. The non-profit board may have controlling interest of the for-profit but the board of the for-profit must make independent decisions that will benefit the interest of the for-profit.  

Various contract types can be used to document the relationship between the for-profit and the non-profit. This agreement can detail the exchange of funds and services between the two entities and reflect the business direction each entity is going in. These contracts must be negotiated at arm’s length, meaning there needs to be an assessment of the benefits of the contract for both entities before the agreement is final.  

The non-profit is to receive fair value and compensation for its ownership interest, the services it provides, and the products it sells while under contract with the for-profit entity. This goes back to the point that non-profits generally do not handle business well because they feel guilty about making a profit and managing a business. Like other persons or entities that own stock in a business, non-profits need to be compensated for the value of their holdings.  

Payments made from the for-profit organization to the non-profit are not considered tax deductible and cannot be used as a means to leverage the status of the non-profit. All payments are considered taxable and must be treated as such.  

All transactions should be fully documented, reviewed, and approved by both boards.  

Pursuing this option may result in an increase in overhead costs and complex board structures, but all of these issues can be resolved.  

Taxes must be paid on income generated by unrelated activity to the 501c3 label. File the 990 tax form according the schedule guidelines of the IRS.  

Avoid conflicts of interests.  As much as possible, separate the two boards. 

About the Author

William Clark’s career is committed to empowering and strengthening homeless and low-income families to become more conscious of their potential to be self-leaders and advising family service organizations to help them leverage their current resources to help families create and sustain self-leadership. Since 2008, he has served over 2400 homeless and disadvantaged families through family development workshops and advocacy for affordable housing. For over ten years, he has provided leadership development and coaching, strategic planning, and service design and delivery support to public and private organizations in the healthcare, public housing, and faith-based markets. He is a trainer, mentor, and coach to current and emerging leaders in various organizations. 

William is the founder of the Family Leadership & Empowerment Institute (FLEI). FLEI appeals to individual desires to change and teaches life management skills to homeless families to sustain self-sufficiency. He is currently a Doctor of Strategic Leadership student at Regent University. He holds degrees in Leadership Development and Information Technology from Penn State University. He is a sought-after preacher, speaker, and lecturer. He resides in Philadelphia with his family. Questions or comments regarding this article may be directed to the author at: clark. william@gmail.com. 

References

Ahmed, S. (2005). Desired competencies and job duties of non-profit CEOs in relation to the current challenges: Through the lens of CEOs’ job advertisements. Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 913-928. 

Alpander, G., & Lee, C. (1995).  Culture, strategy and teamwork: The keys to organizational change. Journal of Management Development, 14(8), 4-18. 

Ananymous. (2009). How good management can make you lean, but not mean: Non-profits need more than just vision to prosper. Strategic Direction, 25(8), 17-19. 

Bonn, I. (2001). Developing strategic thinking as a core competency. Management Decision, 39(1), 63-71. 

Boschee, J. (2001). Eight basic principles for non-profit entrepreneurs. Nonprofit World, 19(4), 15-18. 

Bromberger, A. R. (2011). A new type of hybrid. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(2), 4953. 

Calandro, J., & Flynn, R. (2007). On financial strategy. Business Strategy Series, 8(6), 409-417. 

Carrière, J., Bourque, C., & Bonaccio, S. (2007). The role of communication satisfaction as a mediator between an organization’s internal communication systems and two job outcomes: Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Ottawa, Ontario: ASAC. 

Carter, H. (1999). Strategic planning reborn. Work Study, 48(2), 46-48. 

Daft, R. (2006). Organization theory and design (9th ed. ). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern. 

Dennis, R. & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600-615. 

Foster, W. & Bradach, J. (2005). Should non-profits seek profits? Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 92-100. 

Giglio, L., Diamante, T., & Urban, J. (1998). Coaching a leader: leveraging change at the top. Journal of Management Development, 17(2), 93-105. 

Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: towards understanding the complementarities. Management Decision, 40(5), 456-462. 

Harrison, E. (1995). Strategic planning maturities. Management Decision, 33(2), 48-55. 

Houghton, J, & Neck, C. (2002). The revised self-leadership questionnaire. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 672-691. 

Hughes, R. L., & Beatty, K. C. (2005). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Kelly, D., & Lewis, A. (2009). Human service sector non-profit organization’s social impact. Business Strategy Series, 10(6), 2009. 

King, P. & Eaton, J. (1999). Coaching for results. Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(4), 145-151

Koljatic, M., & Silva, M. (2010). Differences in the impact assessment of social initiatives carried out by private firms and civil society organizations: Evidence from IberoAmerica. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(3), 374-385. 

Kraus, S., Harms, R., & Schwarz, E. (2006). Strategic planning in smaller enterprises – New empirical findings. Management Research News, 29(6), 334-344. 

Liedtka, J. M. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy & Leadership, 26(4), 30-35. 

Lucas, C., & Kline, T. (2008). Understanding the influence of organizational culture and group dynamics on organizational change and learning. The Learning Organization, 15(3), 277287. 

McMurray, A., Pirola-Merlo, A., Sarros, J., & Islam, M. (2010). Leaders, climate, psychological capital, commitment, and wellbeing in a non-profit organization. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(5), 436-457. 

Micheli, P., Mura, M., & Agliati, M. (2011). Exploring the roles of performance measurement systems in strategy implementation: The case of a highly diversified group of firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(10), 1115-1139. 

Mohanty, R., & Yadav, O. (1996). Understanding the fundamentals for managing change. Work Study, 45(7), 5-8. 

Nieboer, N. (2011). Strategic planning process models: A step further. Property Management, 29(4), 371-382. 

Nonprofit Finance Fund. (26 March 2009). Summary report: Nonprofit survey results.  Retrieved from http://non-profitfinancefund. org/files/docs/2010/2009SurveySummary.pdf.  

Rock, D., & Donde, R. (2008). Driving organizational change with internal coaching programs: Part one. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40(1), 10-18. 

Schraeder, M. (2004). Organizational assessment in the midst of tumultuous change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 332-348. 

Sharp, Z., & Brock, D. (2010). Strategic invasion: response of the voluntary non-profit to strategic processes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18(3), 321-339. 

Thach, E., & Thompson, K. (2007). Trading places: Examining leadership competencies between for-profit vs. public and non-profit leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(4), 356-375. 

Tyler, M. (2005). Benchmarking in the non-profit sector in Australia. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(3), 219-235. 

Žnidaršič, J., Penger, S., & Dimovski, V. (2011). Should I stay or should I go: The role of communication in striving to retain older employees. Journal of Management Development, 15(4), 1-12. 

Coaching with the Myers Briggs Type Indicator: A Valuable Tool for Client Self-Awareness

This paper explores the importance of client self- and other-awareness as a means for success in self determination with a coaching relationship. Within the context of the Gestalt and Person-Centered coaching psychologies, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is presented as one tool that provides clients with information and insights necessary to deepen self- and other-awareness. A case study is presented in which the MBTI was utilized as the primary means for deepening client self-awareness and demonstrating the usefulness of the MBTI to support clients in being their own experts and finding their own solutions to achieving their goals, optimizing their potential and capabilities.

The Importance of Client Self-Awareness in Coaching

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “aware” as “feeling, experiencing, or noticing something (such as a sound, sensation, or emotion). The definition of self awareness brings greater focus:  “an awareness of one’s own personality or individuality.”

Awareness is a key factor in effective coaching (Whitmore, 2009; ICF). “Unlike eyesight or hearing, in which the norm is good, the norm of our everyday awareness is rather poor” (p. 34). To more fully explore the importance of client self-awareness in coaching, two coaching psychology approaches that have been chosen: Gestalt and Person-Centered.

Gestalt coaching psychology includes the concept of the whole person and awareness-raising to bring about new self-understanding (Allan & Whybrow, 2008). The aim is to help the client explore the world around them in a way that broadens their choices and maximizes their ability to use their capabilities. The coach is to bring authenticity to the relationship, to center the relationship on the client as a whole person, and to focus on awareness-raising for the client (Allan & Whybrow, 2008).

Person-Centered coaching psychology also seeks to establish an authentic, accepting relationship with the client to provide a type of “social environment” in which the client knows they will not be judged or pushed to action (Joseph & Bryant-Jefferies, 2008). The authentic relationship and social environment are created because Person-Centered coaching holds that the client has within him/herself the answers needed to achieve goals and function optimally (Joseph and BryantJefferies, 2008; Stoltzfus, 2005). Thus in person-centered coaching the coach operates with an attitude of affirmation, empathic understanding, and expectation that the client is their own best expert. 

In both of these coaching psychologies, there is great emphasis on self-awareness. In Gestalt, self-awareness deepens self-responsibility which frees the client to “become fully themselves, engaging with life to their full potential” (Allan & Whybrow, 2008, p. 137). When applied to coaching, developing greater self-awareness in the client provides the client with a greater set of possible behaviors from which to choose, thus enhancing and deepening the client’s capabilities for relationships and actions (Allan & Whybrow, 2008). 

Person-centered coaching psychology includes the creation of “an authentic and emotionally literate relationship [where] people are able to drop their defenses and get to know themselves better, and feel free to make new choices in life” (Joseph & Bryant-Jefferies, 2008: 216). When applied to coaching, this means that the work of the coach is to create the empathetic, unconditionally accepting “social environment” that frees the client from feeling judged or pushed and therefore opens the client to the awareness that allows the client to see new behaviors or actions as beneficial and possible (Joseph & Bryant-Jefferies, 2008; Stoltzfus, 2005).

Encouraging Client Self-Awareness

Now that the basis for the importance of client self-awareness has been established, let us turn to the topic of how the coach enables the client to attain greater self-awareness. There are a number of tools available to coaches that target client self-awareness through different perspectives. Some of the most common tools for developing client self-awareness include those listed in the table below.

Table 1

Sampling of Common Tools for Self-Awareness

ToolTargeted Area of Self-Awareness
MBTIHelps individuals to identify, from self-report of easily recognized reactions, the basic preferences of people in regard to perception and judgment, so that the effects of each preference, singly and in combination, can be established by research and put into practical use. Summarized from https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx
FIRO-BThe Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation focuses on interpersonal relationships, helping individuals understand their own
ToolTargeted Area of Self-Awareness
 relationship needs and how those needs influence their behavior. Summarized from https://www.cpp.com/products/firo-b/index.aspx
Strong Interest InventoryFocuses on career development by assisting individuals in alignment of interests and skills, career renewal and re-decision, and career development. Summarized from https://www.cpp.com/products/strong/index.aspx
Conflict Dynamics ProfileProvides individuals with ways to improve self-awareness of what triggers conflict as well as how they respond to conflict.   Summarized from http://conflictdynamics.org/products/conflictdynamics.php
DiSCDiSC is one of several personality assessments based on the work of William Marston. The assessment focuses the effect emotions have on motivation and behavior. Summarized from http://www.thediscpersonalitytest.com/?view=LearnAboutDiSC
StrengthsFinderSeeks to help individuals identify their strengths, the natural talents that may otherwise go untapped. Provides strategies for how individuals can build and apply their strengths. Summarized from http://strengths.gallup.com/110440/AboutStrengthsFinder-2.aspx
EQThere are a number of emotional intelligence (EQ) assessments, including EQ-i 2.0, MSCEIT. These tests help individuals to assess how intelligently they use their emotions and provide guidance for developing greater balance in the use of emotions. Summarized from http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/msceit.html
Hartman Value ProfileSeeks to expose an individual’s values as a means to exposing the individual’s personality. Summarized from http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/about/hartman-valueprofile/
Table 1. Created by author using references noted within.

In my coaching practice, I use a number of these tools with some regularity but I use the MBTI with nearly every client I coach.  

What is the MBTI?

The MBTI is an instrument that helps individuals to identify the consistent and enduring patterns of how they use their brains. Based on the work of psychologist Carl Jung, the strength of the MBTI is that it provides a coherent approach to expecting different personalities in different people without having to expect complete uniqueness of personality (Myers & Myers, 1995). These personality differences are grouped into patterns that represent “observable differences in mental functioning” (Myers & Myers, 1995, p. 1). These patterns are termed type preferences.  Type preferences “can be understood as opposite but related ways of using our minds, with the opposites being two halves that make up a whole” (Martin, 2010, p. 1).

There are four preference scales that make up the MBTI.

Table 2

Description of MBTI Preference Scales

MBTI Preference ScaleScale Description
Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I)How do you direct your energy and attention?
Sensing (S) or Intuition (N)How do you prefer to take in information?
Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)How do you prefer to make decisions?
Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)How do you orient to the outer world?
Table 2 (Martin, 2010, p. 2)

The MBTI is typically completed as an online self-assessment, where the client chooses between opposite but related ways of how they use their mind (Martin, 2010). Based on the client’s reported preferences, each client is assigned one of 16 MBTI Types and a profile of the client is produced that describes the identified MBTI Type.

Why Use the MBTI?

The MBTI has a number of benefits for the coach-client relationship when the goal is to develop client self-awareness. From a coaching perspective, the greatest benefit is the self- and other- awareness that is gained when using the MBTI. When Jung created his theory of Psychological Types, he created it as an “aid to self-understanding” (Myers & Myers, 1995, p. 24). Katherine Myers and her daughter, Isabel Myers Briggs, worked to extend the application of Jung’s work beyond self-understanding of how individuals use their minds to the practical implications of those preferences on everyday interactions such as communication, decision-making, and relationships (Myers & Myers, 1995).

Myers et al. (2009) state that the MBTI “seeks to identify a respondent’s status on either one or the other of two opposite personality categories, both of which are regarded as neutral in relation to emotional health, intellectual functioning, and psychological adaptation” (p. 5). Thus the MBTI is focusing on individuals with normal psyche and draws no value judgments about “good” or “bad” personality preferences.

The MBTI also does not seek to measure how little or how much (e.g., deficits or abundance) of personality preferences an individual has. Instead, MBTI measures how clearly a respondent prefers that personality trait, reflecting the level of confidence the coach and client can place on the respondent’s results (Myers et al., 2009). 

Also, the MBTI is a self-report instrument. This means that an essential part of coaching using the MBTI is to explore the tool with the client and perform an in-the-moment self-assessment before giving the client the generated report. This allows the client to verify the reported results and thereby gain confidence in their own expertise about their preferences. Myers et al. (2009) have determined that “MBTI results to do not ‘tell’ a person who she or he is. Rather, individual respondents are viewed as experts who are best qualified to judge the accuracy of the type descriptions that result from their self-report” (p. 5).

A final benefit of using the MBTI is its accessibility. Based on my coaching experience, the four preference scales are simply presented within the different materials available and clients have little difficulty in understanding the scales.  Because the MBTI is neither predictive nor prescriptive, clients feel open to reading the overview descriptions of their self-verified type and frequently agree that the description matches their preferences.

This self-verified agreement is a hallmark of the MBTI. Using the most current version of the MBTI complete form (known as Form M), research has demonstrated a 76.3% rate of agreement between respondent’s reported type and verified type (Krause & Thompson, 2008).  This high degree of agreement increases client confidence in the MBTI, aiding the process of deepening self-awareness (Myers et al., 2009). 

Using the MBTI in Coaching

When the MBTI is used within a coaching relationship, clients are enabled to expand and deepen their self-awareness (Myers & Myers, 1995; Hirsch & Kise, 2011; Passmore et al., 2007), which moves clients forward in the achievement of goals / the optimization of their potential. 

According to Consulting Psychology Press, the MBTI is useful in many different applications, including team development, leadership development, interpersonal skills development, conflict management, executive and line manager coaching, stress management, and career transition and planning. Myers and Myers (1995) developed specific guidance for using the type preferences identified through the MBTI to apply to topics including marriage, early learning, learning styles, and occupation.

As a result of the broad application potential of the MBTI, coaches can use the MBTI to deepen self-awareness in their clients. They can also use the MBTI to deepen clients’ other-awareness, focusing on how others differences may impact the client’s effectiveness in communication, conflict, leadership, and team building (Kroeger et al., 2002).  

Kroeger et al. (2002) argue for the development of MBTI-based insights that enable clients to “turn the main differences among us into powerful tools instead of divisive intrusions” (p. 4). Gaining greater self- and other-awareness through the MBTI allows clients to constructively and objectively view actions others take as a celebration of differences rather than perceiving those differences as “bad” or “insulting” (Kroger et al., 2002).

Practice

I will now describe the practice of deepening self- and other awareness using the MBTI within a coaching relationship through a case study from my own coaching experience. Within the coaching relationships that I establish, there are several key tenets:

  • The client, guided and informed by the Holy Spirit, is their own best expert.
  • Awareness raising is necessary to broaden the client’s self-understanding and to provide the client with understanding of the differences in others’ preferences that will influence interpersonal interactions and relationships.
  • Deeper knowledge of self will aid and support the client’s ability to define and achieve specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely goals.

Many of my clients are seeking answers or improvement in the areas of:

  • Leadership
  • Communication 
  • Career
  • Conflict management
  • Followership
  • Inter-personal, professional relationships
  • Managing difficult employees

In the type of coaching I do, where the client is guided by the Holy Spirit and self- and otherawareness, it is critical to have an excellent tool to help the client deepen self- and otherawareness. I’ve found the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to be that tool. 

Case Study

At “Beth’s” first coaching session, she was reeling from the shock of confronting views others’ held of her that conflicted sharply with her own self-understanding. As the Administrative Pastor of a large Pennsylvania church congregation, Beth’s duties were far-flung, involving oversight of the cleaning staff, management of the insurance policies of the church, creating and maintaining the church website, as well as running the church coffee café every Sunday, among other responsibilities. Her focus on doing all things with excellence and her forthright manner of dealing with others had caused members of the church staff to tell her she was “mean,” a perfectionist who was not willing to work with others as a team. The criticism and difficulties in staff interactions had reached such a significant level that Beth stated her goal for the coaching relationship was to determine whether to leave the ministry and return to her former career as a real estate broker.

Beth did not see herself as mean, perfectionistic, unwilling to work with a team, or too forthright. When she described herself, Beth used words like dedicated, a strong leader, effective, and someone who gets things done. Beth felt that often other staff members seemed to be capable only of envisioning and could never get the needed details defined and organized. Beth felt her true benefit to the church and its staff was her ability to be an organized thinker who got the details done well.

To begin the journey of self-awareness, Beth agreed to take the MBTI. Her self-verified type preferences included extraverted thinking with sensing, ESTJ. Characterized by Hirsch and Kise (2011) as the “Take-Charge Leader,” Beth learned that her preferences included “providing direction and focus to project and people, working toward goal completion” (Hirsch & Kise, 2011, p. 26). 

As Beth began to deepen her self-awareness by exploring her MBTI preferences, she gained insight into the communication styles that caused others on staff to label her as “mean” and a perfectionist. She also found that her preferences for providing structure and direction, establishing policies and procedures, and finding the flaws and seeking to correct them contributed to the staff’s perceptions of perfectionism.  

Beth began to understand at a sensory level that she was different from the rest of the staff in terms of preferences. Deeper exploration helped Beth grasp the details of her sense of “being different.” Through research I provided, Beth learned that her SJ preferences in the general US population were represented in approximately 42% of the population (Martin, 2010) but were only 29% within researched clergy populations (Oswald & Kroeger, 2002). Even more startling, the majority preference type found among clergy was actually NF at 42% (Oswald & Kroeger, 2002), a preference represented in just 16% of the US population (Martin, 2010). 

The MBTI types that use intuition for data gathering and make values-based decisions prefer a very different set of approaches from Beth’s. Typically NFs prefer abstract communications, finding patterns and relationships between ideas rather than looking for facts and details as SJs prefer (Kiersey, 1998).  Relationships and harmony within those relationships are central to the NFs interactions with others (Kroeger et al., 2002). The SJs focus on “telling it like it is” in a forthright manner easily causes the NF offense. The approach to leadership is also vastly different between NFs and SJs. The NF prefers collaboration and bringing others into their goals through their passion and vision, while the SJ prefers to lead from a position of authority where compliance is required and commitment is expected (Kroeger et al., 2002).

Having this information helped Beth confirm her sense that she was “different” in her MBTI preferences than those typically found among clergy. Beth’s deepened self-awareness and her new other-awareness caused her to realize that she needed to more fully examine her own preferences and how those preferences manifested in her behavior and interactions with others.

The outcome of this examination was deepened self-awareness of Beth’s preferences and how those preferences, in large part, differed significantly from most of the other clergy and staff at her church. As a result, Beth determined to use a more balanced approach to her communication, leadership, and decision making. 

While there were times of challenge and difficulty for Beth in modifying her behavior to be more inclusive of the preferences of other people with other MBTI types, the work brought great results. Beth not only stayed in ministry, she was able to work with others on staff to reallocate her responsibilities, passing ownership of some programs to other clergy as well as working with staff members and volunteers to redesign and loosen procedures to accommodate others’ preferences for communication and interaction.

Conclusion

Self-awareness is a key component of the coaching relationship (Whitmore, 2009; ICF) that enables clients to see themselves more broadly and opens up opportunities for new actions and behaviors. For clients to reach new insights and deepen self-awareness, some type of selfexamination or assessment is necessary. The MBTI helps coaches facilitate clients’ efforts to deepen self-awareness and broaden their perspectives. As this is accomplished, clients are able to define and achieve goals related to many different areas including communication, leadership, team building, career development, stress management, and relationships.

About the Author

Dr. Kay M. Bower, PMP, is the owner and principal consultant of Koinonia Coaching and Consulting, LLC, through which she serves individuals, small businesses and ministries that desire to achieve God’s purposes with excellence through individual and team coaching, custom workshops, and interactive educational experiences. Through Koinonia Coaching and Consulting, Kay has served individuals and teams as a coach, a consultant, a trainer and a speaker. In addition, Kay has 30 years of experience working in for-profit organizations in many different roles. Kay has successfully held positions as an individual contributor, team member, team lead, project manager, group manager and director. Kay is also a published author, with articles in journals and online magazines such as Leadership Advance Online, Leading Today, the Journal of Practical Consulting, the Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, and the Journal of Strategic Leadership. Inquiries regarding this article may be addressed to: kay@koinoniacoaching.com.

References

Allan, J., & Whybrow, A. (2008). Gestalt coaching. In S. Palmer and A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of Coaching Psychology (133-59). New York: Routledge.

Aware. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/aware

Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT) and Otto Kroeger Associates (OKA). (2007). Using type in coaching. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.

Core Competencies. (n.d.). In International Coach Federation (ICF). Retrieved from http://coachfederation.org/credential/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=2206&navItemNumber= 576

Hirsch, S. K., & Kise, J. A. G. (2011). Introduction to type and coaching (2nd Ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

Joseph, S., & Bryant-Jefferies, R. (2008). Person-centered coaching psychology. In S. Palmer and A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of Coaching Psychology (133-59). New York: Routledge.

Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II: Temperament, character, intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

Krause, N. A., & Thompson, R. C. (2008). The efficacy of electronic administration and interpretation of personality measures. Poster presented at the 2008 convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA, August 14-17, 2008. 

Kroeger, O., Thuesen, J. M., & Rutledge, H. (2002). Type talk at work: How the 16 personality types determine your success on the job. Revised Edition. New York: Dell Trade Paperback.

Martin, C. R. (2010). Looking at type the fundamentals: Using psychological type to understand and appreciate ourselves and others. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. 

MBTI Data Sheet. (n.d.). In CPP online. Retrieved from https://www.cpp.com/pdfs/MBTI_Product_Data_Sheet.pdf

Myers, I. Briggs, McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (2009). MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Instrument (3rd Ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

Myers, I. Briggs, & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Mountain View. CA: CPP, Inc.

Oswald, R. M., & Kroeger, O. (1988). Personality type and religious leadership.  The Alban Institute, Inc.

Passmore, J., Rawle-Cope, M., Gibbes, C., & Holloway, M. (2007) MBTI types and executive coaching. The Coaching Psychologist, 2(2), p. 5-13.

Self-Awareness. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/self-awareness

Stoltzfus, T. (2005). Leadership coaching: The disciplines, skills and heart of a Christian coach. Virginia Beach, VA: Tony Stoltzfus.

Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for performance: Growing human potential and purpose (4th Ed.). Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

About Regent

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university with more than 11,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University is ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 13 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2025).

About the School of Business & Leadership

The School of Business & Leadership is a Gold Winner – Best Business School and Best MBA Program by Coastal Virginia Magazine. The school also has earned a top-five ranking by U.S. News & World Report for its online MBA and online graduate business (non-MBA) programs. The school offers both online and on-campus degrees including Master of Business Administration, M.S. in Accounting (Tax or Financial Reporting & Assurance), M.S. in Business Analytics, M.A. in Organizational Leadership, Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, and Doctor of Strategic Leadership.

Integrity Matters

Integrity is a concept oftentimes referenced in organizational studies, but not well understood as a theoretical construct. This paper aims to remedy this shortcoming by honing in on a conception of integrity grounded in the writings of moral philosophy. In order to accomplish this, competing definitions of integrity will be vetted. The concept of integrity will be critically distinguished from those of virtue, character and honesty. Integrity will next be explored as consistency across contexts, coherence between values and action, stability over time, permanence across roles, and union of ethical perspectives. Finally, the notion of organizational integrity will be assessed and suggestions for operationalization of the integrity construct offered.

What is integrity…and what is it not? In common usage, integrity has a myriad of meanings. This has been reflected in much of the organizational research that purports to examine the antecedents and outcomes associated with integrity. When integrity has been defined within such investigations, it has most often been the case that definition(s) are grounded not in moral philosophy but rather based upon prior construct operationalizations. This approach has had the deficit of both perpetuating as well as magnifying a-theoretical conceptualizations of integrity. The current treatise means to remedy this shortcoming.

In commencing this exploration into the matter of integrity, it is prudent to provide both a well-grounded definition of the construct as well as to differentiate integrity from constructs with which it is often confounded.

Integrity Defined

Palanski and Yammarino (2007) noted the study of integrity “suffers from significant problems,” among them being “too many definitions and too little theory” (p. 171). Perhaps it would be best to begin with the most succinct conceptions of integrity offered in the literature. Citing the writing of Bernard Williams, Harcourt (1998) concurred that “integrity means “a…person sticking by what that person regards as ethically necessary or worthwhile'” (p. 189). While it is not entirely certain what “sticking by” might mean, it can reasonably be inferred thatreference is being made to coherence of one sort or another—either between values over time or between values and behavior. 

Not a few writers extend the notion of integrity beyond the human community, in some instances even referencing the integrity of objects: “integrity refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The suggestion offered here is that the meanings of things are legitimately carried over when the concept of integrity is applied to people.

Furrow (2005) offered a unique perspective on integrity, seeing it as “the extent to which our various commitments form a harmonious, intact whole” (p. 136). Coherence from this view is between the variety of obligations one has embraced and the consistency each has with the other(s). This author extended his development of the concept of integrity by noting that to have integrity “…is to be capable of living an integrated narrative” (Furrow, p. 141). The theme of one‘s life narrative, and the coherence of the story one tells regarding one‘s commitments, is a theme to which Furrow often returns.

Musschenga (2001) delineated the concepts of integrity found in ordinary language along the two axes of formal-material and local-global. “Formal‘ refers to coherence between values and behavior; “global‘ refers to consistency across contexts, roles, and time. Given this matrix, three concepts of integrity can be elucidated: “the formal concept of personal integrity, and the material concepts of local and moral integrity” (Musschenga, p. 219).[i] Perhaps the most useful distinction offered by Musschenga is between personal integrity—”found more in academic literature than in ordinary language”—and moral integrity, which he considers the “most conventional and perhaps central one” (p. 222).

TABLE 1. Personal v Moral Integrity (Musschenga, 2001, p. 222)

 LocalGlobal
Formal personal integrity
      Material(critical) role integrity:   professional integrity   occupational integrity   civic integrity   political integrity   managerial integrity   etc.(critical) social moral integrity

In this conceptualization, both personal integrity (formal-global) and moral integrity (material-global) require the agent to exercise consistency between values and behavior. What differentiates personal integrity from moral integrity is that agents exhibiting moral integrity are ones whose selves “are constituted by socially-shared moral identity-conferring commitments” (Musschenga, 2001, p. 223); to put it more straightforwardly, there is coherence between the individual agent‘s conception of the good and the socially-constructed conception of the good. 

Unsophisticated conceptions of integrity imagine that you either have integrity or you do not. More refined conceptions, such as that of Williston (2006), suggest that “agents can act with integrity to a greater or lesser degree” (p. 566). The agent acting at all times in accordance with core commitments and the agent acting at no time in accordance with core commitments are equally implausible archetypes. However, Williston noted that our appraisal of an agent‘s behavior is accomplished on the basis of an “assessment of just how close to the ideal, or far from the non-ideal, he is in acting the way he does” (p. 566). Williston further suggested an observer might assess an agent as lacking in integrity merely because the agent believes this his action is wrong, but performs it anyway; presumably this judgment of blameworthiness is made independent of whether or not the agent‘s behavior coheres with the observer‘s values.

One could hardly outline a definition of integrity without referencing Aristotle. Puka (2005) well summarized the Aristotelian view of integrity as “the spring of excellence in living” (pp. 24-25). What it means to be a person of integrity is “full integration of our admirable traits and abilities into an admirably functioning virtue system” (Puka, pp. 24-25). These admirable traits and abilities become a matter of habit, honed through practice; they require good judgment, both in choice of activity as well as in the execution of activity; and they are exercised tactfully and in spite of difficult social context(s). As Puka stated, integrity “put[s] the art in living, in relating to others, and in being an exemplary type of person” (pp. 24-25).

What we know of integrity so far is that it requires coherence among a set of moral values, with this set of moral values having consistency with a set of social values, and that integrity further requires congruence between an agent’s behavior and this set of moral/social values over time and across social context(s). In order to test the adequacy of this definition of integrity, it is useful to contrast integrity with a variety of other constructs with which it is oftentimes confused.

Integrity differentiated from virtue

Is integrity one among a set of virtues? More than a few writers, including Palanski & Yammarino (2007), have suggested so (p. 172). Additionally, Furrow (2005) discussed three virtues—care, integrity, and practical wisdom—in his treatise on ethics. But before considering whether integrity is merely a virtue, it is worth considering what is meant by virtue in the first place.

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguished moral virtues—which have to do with feeling, choosing, and acting well—from intellectual virtues—a kind of wisdom acquired by teaching. We are here concerned with, if a virtue at all, the moral virtue of integrity. A further useful distinction for an inquiry into integrity is Aristotle‘s description of virtues as being the point of moderation between two extremes, or vices. For example, courage is the middle between one extreme of deficiency (cowardice) and the other extreme of excess (recklessness). A balanced diet is the middle between one extreme of deficiency (anorexia) and the other extreme of excess (gluttony). Intimacy is the middle between one extreme of deficiency (celibacy) and the other extreme of excess (sexual addiction). But if integrity is to be considered a virtue, one must wonder: what is the deficiency and what is the excess associated with integrity? If integrity references the coherence between values and behavior, certainly one might conclude the deficiency of integrity is hypocrisy—the lack of coherence between belief and action. But what is the excess of integrity—what could be concluded to be the vice associated with having too much integrity? If Aristotle is correct, and virtues exist as the midpoint between two vices, we must conclude integrity is not a virtue at all.

Teehan (1995) suggested that virtue ethics consists of three major points. The first of these argues that virtue theories are a response to the narrow quality of more “traditional‘ ethical theories, such as those of deontology and utilitarianism. His concern here is that narrow ethical theories—which are based on evaluation of behaviors as opposed to nurturing of virtue—fail to capture the full significance of the moral experience. The second point elaborates the first by noting that virtue theories shift the emphasis from “act-appraisal to agent, or character, appraisal” (Teehan, pp. 841-42). The third point is that virtue theories contain a theory or discussion of “virtues proper to a moral agent” (Teehan, pp. 841-42). Virtue ethics move us from the question “How ought I to act?‘ (…with integrity) to the question “What kind of person ought I to be?‘ (…a person of integrity). But even though integrity moves us from appraising acts to appraising character, this is not to conclude integrity is fully encapsulated within virtue theory. Integrity means more than this, for central to integrity is the notion of coherence. 

One of the preeminent writers on virtue theory is MacIntyre, who introduced a teleological emphasis into the discussion of virtue theory. MacIntyre noted that virtues are coherent social activities which “seek to realize goods internal to the activity…[t]he virtues enable us to achieve these goods” (as cited in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Virtue Ethics, p. 3). What is this end, or telos, toward which virtue directs us? “[T]he good of a whole human life…the virtue of integrity or constancy” (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Virtue Ethics, p. 3). And this is in part what distinguishes integrity from other virtues, such as honesty: there is a strong sense in which integritydemands a whole-life orientation, rather than a focus on any specific and presumably self-sufficient virtue. Or as Solomon (1999) put it, “[i]ntegrity is not itself a virtue so much as it is a synthesis of the virtues, working together to form a coherent whole…integrity is that sense of cohesion such that one is not torn apart by conflicts” (p. 38). This latter notion is consistent with the definition of integrity outlined in the introduction to this treatise. 

Musschenga (2001) largely side-stepped the debate over whether integrity is one among many virtues by noting, consistent with an Aristotelian approach, that the “…philosophical doctrine of the unity of virtues…tells us that someone cannot be said truly to possess a virtue when he does not have all the other virtues” (p. 225). To the extent this is true, integrity stands as something separate and distinct from the other virtues—as the ultimate among a set of penultimate virtues.

Integrity differentiated from character

Is integrity one among many positive character traits? As with the discussion of virtue, it is worth considering what is meant by character in the first instance, as well as how character might be differentiated from integrity. The first thing to note is that dispositions of character are commonly held to play a significant role in the explanation of action (Moriau, 2005). The converse, of course, also holds: observation of action(s) is held to provide insight into the character of a person. 

The literature notes a decided difference between dispositions of character as explaining action and dispositions of character as providing reasons for action. One might explain stealing a loaf of bread by stating the act was nothing more than spontaneous thrill-seeking taken without regard to consequences, but such an explanation is hardly an appeal to reason; reason might justify the same act by appealing to this action as the only available means by which to provide dependent children a meal for the day. Moreau (2005) observed that, beyond “revealing…regularity of behavior” (pp. 274-77), observers tend to appeal to a person‘s character as a means of establishing some reasonable explanation for an agent‘s behavior. However, the agent herself may not make such an appeal. There seems in such attributionmaking an assumption of coherence between character and action; in deciding why a particular course of action was chosen, an observer infers a reasonable—perhaps even causal—connection between the observed action and the surmised character trait that would give rise to such action. Moreau (2005) further argued that dispositions of character are connected to “goods‘ important to an individual‘s sense of self:

“They [dispositions of character] point to the agent‘s purpose, and sometimes, to the ends for the sake of which the agent is pursuing that purpose. To explain someone‘s action by appealing to her jealousy is to say that part of her purpose was to eliminate or lessen another person‘s advantage over her; to explain someone‘s action by appealing to her generosity is to say, among other things, that she adopted a certain purpose out of concern for another person. Because these character traits point to the person‘s purpose or end, they seem to help us understand her behavior from the point of view that she occupied, at the time of acting.” (pp. 274-77)

But let us return to the question of whether or not integrity is merely one among many character traits. If this were the case, reference to an actor‘s integrity would mean nothing more or less than similar reference to an actor‘s jealousy or reference to an actor‘s generosity. But the definition of integrity herein constructed reveals that integrity is fundamentally different than either of these two—or any other—character traits. Observation of a person‘s generosity does not directly allow for assessment of whether or not there is congruence between the full constellation of an agent‘s character traits, or whether or not there is coherence between the agent‘s dispositions of character and the agent‘s actions, or whether there is stability in the agent‘s character and/or behavior over time. Integrity, on the other hand, does allow for assessment of such congruence and stability. To say of an agent that she is a person of integrity is to say something fundamentally different than that she is a jealous person or a generous person. In short, integrity is not a disposition of character in the same way that jealousy and generosity are; the latter are micro conceptions of morality, whereas integrity is a macro formulation.

Integrity differentiated from honesty

Is honesty a synonym for integrity? In reading the organizational behavior literature, and particularly the empirical research on what is described therein as integrity, one might conclude the answer is “yes.‘ Palanski & Yammarino (2007) cited Rieke & Guastello (1995) as noting that measurement of integrity within the field of psychology “attempt[s] to assess an employee‘s overall honesty or predict an employee‘s likelihood of stealing from his or her employer” (p. 172). Such is not the case in the ethics literature: 

“[a]…valuable distinction in ethics comes from moral exemplar literature (see Oliner and Oliner 1988; Colby and Damon 1992; Puka 1993)…Gandhi distinguished sharplybetween honesty and integrity, as did Aristotle in his Ethics…[f]or Gandhi, integrity meant living one‘s life as an open book…[i]t meant conducting a long series of experiments in better living that others could analyze, learn from, and criticize.” (Puka, 2005, p. 24) 

Such experiments often fail. Integrity does not demand success, but it does demand that theattempt be made to dedicate “our whole lives to our betterment in dealing with others” (Puka, 2005, p. 24). If an unintended consequence of this effort is that someone is hurt in the process, then apology and compensation are in order—but nothing more, so long as care has been taken to avoid such consequences. In outlining this conception of integrity, Puka drew a clear distinction: “[c]ontrast this ongoing routine of full-life integrity with mere honesty—with the struggle of not telling lies or with being a “man of my word‘“ (p. 24). Integrity demands more than mere honesty.

Yukl and Van Fleet stated, “[i]ntegrity means that a person’s behavior is consistent with espoused values and that the person is honest and trustworthy” (as cited in Becker, 1998, p. 155). The first requirement is consistent with the argument being developed herein—that integrity is in part coherence between values and behavior. The reference to honesty, however, has no normative basis as a requirement for a person to be considered of high integrity. The reference to trustworthy, to the extent this means that a person is consistent in their values and behavior over time, well captures one dimension of integrity: stability. The citation, while appropriately noting a distinction between integrity and honesty, points to the confusion of terms—in this instance, integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness—which is endemic in the organizational literature.

Several researchers have begun to identify dimensions of integrity. Miller and Schlenker (2007) settled on several findings: those with higher integrity scores a) attached greater importance to being principled as part of their self-concepts; b) described themselves as behaving more consistently with their principles; and c) more strongly preferred principled characters over expedient ones (as cited in Schlenker, 2008). Each of these findings well relates to the definition of integrity, in the first instance having to do with coherence between moral values and identity, in the second instance having to do with coherence between values and behavior, and in the third instance having to do with the requirement that integrity be normatively grounded (i.e., that integrity demands coherence among a set of moral values, with this set of moral values having consistency with a set of social values). The last of these findings involved assessing respondents by utilizing the Integrity Scale. The items contained therein “measure the inherent value of principled conduct, the steadfast commitment to principles despite temptations or costs, and the unwillingness to rationalize unprincipled behavior” (Schlenker, 2008, pp. 1084-85). Given the prominence of this instrument in organizational research related to integrity, it is worth taking a close look at the items making up this scale (see Table 1 below).

Items 1, 5, 12, and 15 specifically reference the importance of telling the truth—or honesty. This is the single item pointing to a specific disposition of character. The balance of the items reference duty, obligation, character, principle, and (in one instance) integrity. Shortly the concept of deontology will be introduced into this discussion, but suffice it to say at this point that the words duty, obligation, and principle—words contained in roughly half the items within the Integrity Scale—reference not integrity but rather commitment to the universalist perspective that actions are right or wrong independent of their consequences. Other scale items tap into this same normative construct without using these key referent terms—instead mentioning “being inflexible” (item 4), “right and wrong” (item 5), “standing by [what one believes to be right]” (items 6 and 9), and “transgressions [of principles] are wrong” (item 18). What emerges from a careful examination of the Integrity Scale is that it is well designed to measure an unveering commitment to honesty. All items reference choosing principle(s) over outcome(s), with several items expressly referencing honesty. The implication? That the construct of integrity is reducible to a stalwart commitment to honesty.

TABLE 2. The Integrity Scale: Items and Item Loadings (Schlenker, 2008, pp. 1084-1085)

Item NumberItem WordingItem Loading
1It is foolish to tell the truth when big profits can be made by lying. (R).57
2No matter how much money one makes, life is unsatisfactory without a strong sense of duty and character..42
3Regardless of concerns about principles, in today’s world you have to be practical, adapt to opportunities, and do what is most advantageous for you. (R).47
4Being inflexible and refusing to compromise are good if it means standing up for what is right..33
5The reason it is important to tell the truth is because of what others will do to you if you don’t, not because of any issue of right and wrong. (R).36
6The true test of character is a willingness to stand by one’s principles, no matter what price one has to pay..50
7There are no principles worth dying for. (R) .35
8It is important to me to feel that I have not compromised my principles..58
9If one believes something is right, one must stand by it, even if it means losing friends or missing out on profitable opportunities..66
10Compromising one’s principles is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances or the amount that can be personally gained..61
11Universal ethical principles exist and should be applied under all circumstances, with no exceptions..40
12Lying is sometimes necessary to accomplish important, worthwhile goals. (R).56
13Integrity is more important than financial gain. .65
14It is important to fulfill one’s obligations at all times, even when nobody will know if one doesn’t..48
15If done for the right reasons, even lying or cheating are ok. (R) .50
16Some actions are wrong no matter what the consequences or justification..40
17One’s principles should not be compromised regardless of the possible gain..74
18Some transgressions are wrong and cannot be legitimately justified or defended regardless of how much one tries..44
Note. Respondents are asked to read each of the statements and indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Items marked (R) are reverse scored. Item loadings are standardized regression coefficients from a singlefactor solution from a principle factor analysis (N = 1341); items were reverse scored (R) prior to analysis. Integrity Scale © Barry R. Schlenker, 2006.

Integrity goes well beyond such a commitment, however. The “whole person‘ perspective of integrity demands researchers grounding empirical inquiries upon this construct be doggedly rigorous in their operationalization of the integrity construct. Critical instrument construction would capture each dimension of what integrity means—in both its values and behavioral manifestations.

Integrity differentiated from moral integrity

It has been herein suggested that the first requirement for integrity is coherence among a set of moral values. This brings up a necessary dimension of integrity, its commitment to “the good.‘ In developing the Integrity scale, Schlenker‘s (2008) focus on honesty—while too narrow to fully access the richness of what it might mean to be a person of integrity—acknowledges this moral imperative. Though this moral aspect of integrity may seem obvious, consider Furrow‘s (2005) observation that “[b]y itself, integrity refers to the coherence of a viewpoint, not its content” (p. 139). To the extent Furrow is correct, one could be considered a person of integrity if one held fast, not to the moral virtue of honesty, but to the moral vice of lying. Imagine an individual having great coherence among a set of values: all were debauched. Imagine this individual living in a society characterized by the same set of debauched beliefs. Imagine this individual consistently exercising behaviors consistent with this coherent set of debauched values, over time and in a variety of contexts. Would this individual exhibit integrity? Yes, but only in a limited sense. The requirement that the values underlying integrity be moral values would not be met. One might conclude this individual exhibited personal integrity, but lacked moral integrity.[ii] So too with Furrow‘s simplified but useful illustration: “A person deeply devoted to his skill as an assassin might have integrity since his commitments may be consistent and his actions in conformity with them” (p. 139). Personal integrity, yes; moral integrity, no. Furrow elaborated the matter by suggesting “the neutrality of integrity regarding moral actions is not a problem if integrity is not the only dominant virtue” (p. 139). 

It is worth citing Mcleod‘s (2005) succinct summation of the debate as to whether personal integrity is usefully differentiated from moral integrity: “The prototypical version of integrity is moral, although we do sometimes use the term in other (i.e., non-prototypical) ways” (p. 110). The term integrity will be used in the prototypical sense throughout the balance of this examination.

Integrity Elaborated

The definition proposed herein argues integrity requires coherence among a set of moral values, with this set of moral values having consistency with a set of social values, and that integrity further requires congruence between an agent’s behavior and this set of moral/social values over time and across social context(s). Five requirements are set forth in the definition offered here, each of which will now be considered in some detail: 1) internal coherence; 2) external consistency; 3) value-behavior congruence; 4) temporal stability; and 5) permanence across roles.[iii]

Integrity: The Requirement of External Consistency

“People of integrity can give persuasive and plausible accounts of how the various dimensions of their lives fit together in manners consistent with their most basic commitments” (Dobel, 1990, p. 356). Some of these commitments are ones we have made to ourselves; most are external to the individual, including obligations emerging across disparate professional, social, and geographic frames. Palanski & Yammarino (2007) reference this category of integrity in noting “in the integrity literature the terms “ethics/ethical‘ and “morality/moral‘ generally refer to actions which are in accordance with socially acceptable behavior” (p. 174). External consistency presumes the capacity to craft confluence between demands these commitments place upon us, and our set of values preferences.

Gintis and his co-authors (Gintis, Henrich, Bowles, Boyd, & Fehr, 2008) adopt an evolutionary perspective from which to examine such consistency. Their argument is that “human morality is the product of gene-culture coevolution” (Gintis et al., 2008, p. 249). These authors construct an argument that human morality has developed as a consequence of goodness of fit: those members of the human community exhibiting prosocial behavior were better equipped to survive than those who were less collaborative. In this argument the notion of inclusive fit is formally tied to the moral construct of justice, since arrangements among group members exhibiting the value of fairness are seen to work to each individual‘s advantage over time. Conversely, unfair arrangements are seen to come at the expense of inclusive fitness. The value for justice emerges only through repeated interactions among members of a group, “allowing fair-minded individuals to gain reputations that advanced their genetic interests” (Gintis et al., p. 249). Finally, the suggestion is made that “[t]he same reasoning may be applied to generosity, bravery on behalf of ones‘ associates, and punishing those who transgress social norms” (Gintis et al., p. 249).

The argument is perhaps more compelling as one takes up the matter of integrity. Given that consistency between personal value preferences and group value preferences is rewarded by the group, it is only rewarded to the extent to which such integrity is in evidence. Take again the matter of fairness. If the group has a social norm for fairness, and an individual holds this same norm as part of her personal value set, it can be expected that the group will reward the individual—assuming this value is demonstrated in behavior. But what does it mean to value fairness? Remembering that values are ordered preferences of moral “goods,‘ holding to the value of fairness has meaning only against the backdrop of a complete set of moral “goods.‘

To illustrate this point, consider a circumstance in which both the group and the individual value fairness. Additionally, both the group and the individual value caring. However, within the group values set fairness is valued more highly than caring, while within the personal values set caring is valued more highly than justice. As decisions are made within the group context, the penchant is for objective assessments of individual performance to be linked with rewards. The individual within this group who privileges caring above fairness—who, although valuing justice, nonetheless privileges compassion to fairness in her personal interactions with others—does not exhibit the external consistency required by integrity.

Integrity demands consistency between organizational values and personal values. This consistency is measured not merely by the inclusion of the same or similar values within the values set of the group and the values set of the individual, but more particularly the same or similar preference ordering of these values.[iv]

Integrity: The Requirement of Value-Behavior Congruence

Chief among the stipulations of integrity is the requirement for congruence between values and behavior.[v] This has generally been referred to as behavioral integrity.[vi] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy identifies such congruence as one (of two) fundamental intuitions regarding integrity: “integrity is connected in an important way to acting morally, in other words, there are some substantive or normative constraints on what it is to act with integrity” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).[vii] McFall (1987) followed this intuition in noting “[i]ntegrity is the state of being “undivided; an integral whole‘“ (p. 7), and in offering greater specificity states such wholeness requires coherence “between principle and action” (p. 7).[viii] Teehan (1995) cited Dewey as observing “that “the key to a correct theory of morality is recognition of the essential unity of the self and its acts‘“ (p. 846). Musschenga (2001) suggested “[t]he interest in integrity leads us to investigate the coherence and consistency of the sayings and doings of those we have to deal with” (p. 219), arguing further that “[w]hat unites those we regard as persons of integrity is…consistency between what they say, profess and promise, and what they actually do” (p.220). Simons (1999) suggests behavioral integrity “does not consider the morality of principles [themselves], but rather focuses on the extent to which stated principles are seen as aligning with actions” (p. 19), further noting that while “a colleague who openly advocates self-interest, rather than the common good, as a basis for personal actions might be despised if one does not share his values… such a colleague might [nonetheless] be seen as having high behavioral integrity if one can see clear alignment between word and deed” (p. 19). Finally, Palanski & Yammarino ultimately reduced all of integrity to “consistency of an acting entity’s words and actions,” (p. 178), further suggesting “the proposed definition, based on the literature review, may be used as a guide to further inquiry into the meaning of integrity” (p. 181).[ix]

The requirement for values and behavior congruence must be understood against the backdrop of the multiple realms of judgment moral agents hold in tension. In spite of this complex web of decision processes, behavioral integrity stresses the importance of “keeping some coherence in their actions and lives…in this sense, personal integrity is a normative ideal for which individuals should and almost always do strive and one presumed by any notions of personal responsibility” (Dobel, 1990, p. 355). Dobel elaborated that discourse as to how individuals can hold potentially disparate commitments, and yet “balance them in a morally defensible manner” (p. 355), is within the purview of behavioral integrity. It is in the telling of stories, grounded in moral reasoning, regarding resonance between values and behavior— whether these stories constitute an inner dialogue or reason-giving to an outside observer— which reveals the extent to which enacted values cohere with espoused values. And as Solomon (1999) observed, “[w]hereas a single action may betray the lack of integrity, there is no single action (or, indeed, any number of actions) that will definitively establish a person‘s integrity” (p. 40).

There is some debate as to whether or not behavioral integrity exists as a matter of course. Gintis and his coauthors (2008) purported to extend upon the economist‘s rational actor model in suggesting “[o]ur ability to infer moral values from observed behavior is based on our use of what we term the beliefs, preferences, and constraints (BPC) model of human choice” (p. 247). In this argument actors are presumed to be rational—not in the economic sense of being self-interested utility maximizers, but rather in the psychological sense of acting in accordance with individualistic core values. The logic then is straightforwardly syllogistic: Actor A is observed to behave in manner X; manner X is consistent with value X; therefore actor A values X. On this logic values can be accurately inferred from observations of behavior—though it is acknowledged there may exist external constraints serving to erode such inferences. This argument discounts the complexities attending an actor‘s commitment to values, or an actor‘s commitment to translate values to action—either of which diminishes the ability to infer values from behavior(s).

Integrity: The Requirement of Temporal Stability

In their non-moral sense, values are simply preference orderings: I prefer a to b and b to c (and by extension I prefer a to c). However, in both common as well as ethical usage the term values does not refer to such pedestrian preferences as food predilections (I prefer steak to tofu) or season preferences (I prefer Summer to Winter), but rather contains an essentially normative quality, referring to the ranking of moral values (I prefer caring to honesty).[x] And such moral values are generally held to be strongly stable over time—and formed at an early age. Although it has been argued herein that integrity is reducible to neither virtue nor character, integrity does share with both these constructs the characteristic of stability over time:

Another distinguishing feature of virtue ethics is that character traits are stable, fixed, and reliable dispositions. If an agent possesses the character trait of kindness, we would expect him or her to act kindly in all sorts of situations, towards all kinds of people, and over a long period of time, even when it is difficult to do so. A person with a certain character can be relied upon to act consistently over a time. (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Virtue Ethics, p. 4)

Consistent with this notion, the reflections of Schlenker (2008) resonate with arguments coming “from several theoretical perspectives…that moral identity plays an important selfregulatory role in linking moral attitudes and behaviors (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Blasi, 1980, 1983; Colby & Damon, 1992; Hardy & Carlo, 2005; Lapsley & Lasky, 2001; Narvaez, Lapsley, Hagele, & Lasky, 2006)” (p. 1081). In emphasizing the internalization of moral goals and traits into moral identity, Schlenker‘s perspective—in concert with the view of the numerous writers which undergird his work—stands “in sharp contrast to earlier cognitive development models that focused on moral reasoning as a determinant of moral behavior [emphasis added]” (p. 1081), such as the writings of Kohlberg (1971, 1976, 1981). To the extent integrity is a matter of moral identity, which is relatively constant over time, integrity itself is correspondingly stable over time.

Schlenker‘s (2008) thinking is further elaborated as a useful distinction between an expedient ideology and an ideology grounded in integrity is outlined. Expediency suggests “principles can and should be tailored to fit the context” (Schlenker, p. 1080); that it is reasonable, at least in the sense of economic rationality, “to take advantage of profitable opportunities and foolish to fail to do so” (Schlenker, p. 1080). An ideology of expediency provides a rationalization for deviations from integrity—at least to the actor herself.[xi] Rather than subscribing to this view, Schlenker proposed commitment to a principled ideology determines the potency of integrity—as evidenced by congruence between values and behavior—, going so far as to refer to differences in principled versus expedient ideologies as variations in integrity itself. The logic here is straightforward: deontological principles are by definition universal, meaning free of variation across person or place—or time. While Schlenker‘s logic does not contain explicit reference to temporal stability as a dimension of integrity, such can be inferred from a careful analysis of the following summation:

The present theory holds that integrity, defined as the strength of personal commitment to a principled ethical ideology, determines the strength of the relationship between ethical beliefs and behavior. Personal commitment links the self-system to the ethical principles, producing greater accessibility of relevant moral constructs in memory, a sense of duty to perform consistently with those principles, a sense of responsibility for the consequences of relevant actions, and less rationalization of deviations from principles, (p. 1117)

Similarly, in arguing “…without constancy all the other virtues to some degree lose their point” (p. 242), MacIntyre (1984) inferred that stability over time is an essential aspect of integrity.

Furrow (2005), as noted earlier, is primarily concerned with understanding integrity as integrated narrative. With respect to such narrative, Furrow cited Paul Ricoeur, Alasdair MacIntyre and Nina Rosenstand as “hav[ing] argued that human beings view themselves as continuous through the many changes in a lifetime by representing themselves in a narrative [emphasis added]” (p. 141). Narratives are different from anthologies in two primary ways: narratives are accounts unfolding over time,[xii] and narratives are seamless stories. Within narrative the seemingly incongruous transformations of the protagonist—past, present and future—come to be understood against the backdrop of a unified, enduring theme helping life to make sense. And Furrow noted the teleological sense of narrative in suggesting “[t]he way we anticipate the endings of our narrative give structure to experience because they give significance to past and present” (p. 141). A necessary element of both narrative and integrity is a stable temporal thread serving to unite seemingly disparate parts into one coherent whole.

Integrity: The Requirement of Permanence Across Roles

“There is clearly disagreement about whether integrity requires internal coherence between the beliefs and values of a person in all roles and domains of his life, or between only those in a particular role or context; about whether integrity is a global or a local concept…” (Musschenga, 2001, p. 221). In focusing on principled ideologies Schlenker (2008) is unequivocal on this question. Within the contention that endemic moral principles guide conduct is incorporated the notion “that principles have a transsituational quality and should be followed regardless of personal consequences or self-serving rationalizations…” (Schlenke, p. 1079). While context or circumstance will matter as one deliberates alternative courses of action, integrity demands decisions as well as behaviors be taken with regard to stable principles—in spite of such context or circumstance.

This thinking contradicts the perspective that individuals occupy disparate roles in their lives, with each such position being associated with a distinct standard for behavior—the notion, e.g., that integrity in business means something very different than integrity in friendship. Within business, integrity might mean conforming behavior to the value of shareholder wealth maximization; within friendship, integrity might mean conforming behavior to the value of love. This logic is consistent with one dimension of what integrity means—that of values-behavior congruence—but inconsistent with another—that of permanence across roles. Only a twisted sort of integrity would allow for ranking profit above love in one life-role and love above profit within another life-role—and what coherent life narrative could be crafted serving to adequately account for such extreme differences in prioritization of values? Yet bifurcation of work and love has become particularly commonplace within those social structures which have systematically commodified labor. The challenge to at least one aspect of integrity within such systems is apparent.

 MacIntyre (1984) is particularly astute here, echoing Furrow‘s (2005) focus on integrated narrative: “…the unity of a human life becomes invisible to us when a sharp separation is made either between the individual and the roles that he or she plays…or between the different role…enactments of an individual life so that life comes to appear as nothing but a series of unconnected episodes” (p. 204). While agreeing with MacIntyre that behavior cannot be assessed independent of intentions, as well as concurring that context serves to make “those intentions intelligible both to agents themselves and to others” (p. 231), Musschenga (2001) nonetheless argued against what he brands “the divided moral personality…[t]hat is the person who acts morally in the diverse roles and domains of his life but lacks an overarching, integrating morality” (p. 231). Musschenga suggested two explanations for this lack of integration: either the splitting of oneself into different selves, or the lack of development of “a general, context-transcending morality” (p. 231)—or, simply put, a lack of integrity.

Furrow (2005) is quite nuanced in his discussion of integrity and permanence across roles. Beginning with the observation that roles—or what he describes as “identity-conferring commitments” (p. 139)—can come into conflict, Furrow suggested “[t]here must be some commitments that are unconditional in that to violate them would be to lose the sense that one has a stable sense of self” (p. 137). The challenge becomes to acknowledge and honor all roles one occupies, while simultaneously crafting coherence among them. 

The view that role commitments are central to crafting an integrated life is shared by Dobel (1990). In offering the image of personal integrity as a complex web with many subnetworks, Dobel abandoned the conception of integrity as a unitary hierarchical structure with a set of higher-order values within which lower-order values inhere. Rather, subnetworks are conceived as held together by a center network of commitments. Extending the metaphor, Dobel imagined “commitment[s], such as roles, are connected to the skeleton of one‘s personality” (p. 355), with those commitments most central to identity “form[ing] the moral, intellectual, and emotional network that individuals use to tie together other clusters of commitments linked to roles” (p. 355). Dobel noted the difficulty of living lives in which “one…role pulls or yanks at the centering values” (p. 355)—a difficulty mitigated by integrity understood as permanence across roles. Absent a systemic sense of integrity it is not only inconsistency across roles, but between roles and core values, which is problematic; failure to ease such discontinuities “disturb[s] all other aspects of the weave of one’s life and raise[s] most of the serious issues of personal integrity” (Dobel, p. 355).

Integrity: the requirement of internal coherence

Having outlined four of the five conditions of integrity—those of external consistency, value-behavior congruence, temporal stability, and permanence across roles—it is time to attend to the final condition, that of internal coherence. It is this sense of integrity Musschenga (2001) references in noting “[w]hen we praise someone for having personal integrity we usually mean that there is internal coherence and consistency between his various convictions” (p. 222). McFall (1987) suggested, “personal integrity requires that an agent (1) subscribe to some consistent set of principles or commitments and (2), in the face of temptation or challenge, (3) uphold these principles or commitments, (4) for what the agent takes to be the right reasons” (p. 8); taken collectively, it is concluded these conditions result in “internal coherence” (p. 9). However, it is McFall‘s (1987) first sense—that of subscribing to some consistent set of principles or commitments—which is referenced by the condition of internal coherence throughout the current treatise.

In their work on teaching business ethics, Burton and his co-authors (Burton, Dunn, & Goldsby, 2006) recommend the benefits of adopting a pluralistic approach to ethics—”the view that more than one basic principle operates equally in an area of human endeavor” (p. 91). This perspective begins with the premise that a balanced ethical outlook exists as “a middle ground between monism (the view that one principle or good is basic) and relativism (the view that no principle or good is basic across individuals or societies)” (Burton et al., 2006, p. 91). In elaborating this view, Burton et al. note that within such a pluralistic decision framework intrinsic goods or principles are first identified, with each then utilized in the course of making a determination as to the proper course of action. Moral intuition “is called upon in judging which principle or good gains the highest priority while still fulfilling other principles or attaining other goods as far as is practical” (Burton et al., p. 91). The demand for internal coherence becomes evident within this decision model as it is suggested the degree to which a decision is deemed moral is dependent upon the extent to which such a decision simultaneously fulfills the demands of multiple ethical perspectives—or failing such unity of coherence offers reasonable justification as to why one or more ethical perspectives are privileged above others as a decision is made.

Candidates for inclusion within a pluralistic decision model range from principle-based to outcome-based to virtue-based to caring-based models of ethics (see Table 2 below).[xiii]

TABLE 3. Moral Considerations Emphasized in Monistic Moral Theories (Burton et al. 2006: 96)

 TheoryConsideration
1Kantian deontologyDuty to follow principles
2UtilitarianismNet benefits to society
3Rights basedDuty to protect others‘ rights
4VirtueIndividual character
5JusticeFairness
6CaringDesire to strengthen relationships
7Social contractPeace in society/fulfilling promise to society

This pluralistic view allows each ethical perspective included within the decision model has legitimate normative force, but each is incomplete in that no single framework is able to fully elucidate the good, or right, or fair, or praiseworthy course of action. In order to assess internal coherence it is necessary to appreciate the similarities and differences within the range of perspectives incorporated within the pluralistic decision process.

Deontology.[xiv] The deontological, or universalist, perspective is premised upon the existence of objective standards for deciding matters of right and wrong. These principles can be discerned using the innate capacity for pure reason. Within deontology integrity is defined as “loyalty, in action, to rational principles (general truths) and values” (Peikoff, 1991: 259; Rand, 1964: 52, as cited in Becker, 1998, p. 157). In short, “integrity is the principle of being principled…not allowing any irrational consideration to overwhelm one’s rational conviction” (Becker, 1998, p. 157). There is in such reasoning the requirement for value-behavior congruence; “[i]n judging a person‘s moral integrity one starts from the substantive virtues, principles and values that are seen as essential for the diverse social roles people normally fulfill in society, and examines how those are manifested in his conduct” (Musschenga, 2001, p. 223). But to the point of the current exploration there is also the necessity for internal coherence across the full constellation of deontological tenets: within this set of universal principles must be found no conflict between any two (or more) of the individual principles which comprise the set.  As to the distinction previously drawn between personal integrity and moral integrity, the deontological commitment to “adhere to some set of recognizable moral principles” (McFall, 1987, p. 15) adds to personal integrity a decidedly moral constraint. Just any principles won‘t do, however, if one is to be allowed status as being a person of integrity; while “we need not approve of his or her principles or commitments…we must at least recognize them as ones a reasonable person might take to be of great importance and ones that a reasonable person might be tempted to sacrifice to some lesser yet still recognizable goods” (McFall, p. 11).

Persons of integrity exhibit high regard for a consistent set of significant moral principles.

Utilitarianism. The Aristotelian focus, while principally on virtue, “argues one who reasons well…does so with community and society firmly in mind” (Rugeley & Van Wart, 2006, p. 382); such reflection “can be a Kantian consideration of their duties and responsibilities (Guyer, 2000) or a utilitarian analysis of how to help the most people in the best way (Bentham 1996)” (Rugeley & Van Wart, p. 382). Rather than suggesting right actions consist of those measures conforming to important moral principles, utilitarians adopt the consequentialist (or teleological) approach of assessing actions based on assessment of the capacity of the action to achieve favorable outcomes. In its most common formulation the teleological good is described as “the greatest good for the greatest number.‘[xv] Or, as Teehan (1995) puts it in outlining Dewey‘s pragmatism, “[m]oral values…develop in relation to the concrete needs of morally problematic situations and are held as valuable due to their efficacy in resolving particular moral problems” (p. 843)—a decidedly teleological prospect.

Several authors, most notably Kohlberg (1971, 1976, 1981), have devoted study to the variety of ways in which moral development might occur. Though a matter of some considerable controversy, such explorations have suggested those exhibiting utilitarian calculation are more highly developed morally than are those utilizing deontological logic. On this reasoning, as Rugeley and Van Wart (2006) note, “lower levels of development reflect selfish and selfcentered concerns, and subsequent levels gradually evolve to more selfless, altruistic…modes of being” (p. 382). Chief among these more selfless perspectives having an eye, not toward personal gain, but rather toward the collective good, stands utilitarianism.

“What then is moral integrity?…moral integrity is intimately linked with the social side of morality” (Musschenga, 2001, p. 223). And as such it can be concluded persons of integrity exhibit high regard for maximizing net social benefits.

Virtue. It has been argued heretofore that integrity is not merely a virtue. However, this is not to deny that one of the hallmark characteristics of integrity is virtue. “Virtues are dispositions—acquired habits—to act in ways that are conducive to developing our potential” (Furrow, 2005, p. 116). The focus on virtue changes in a fundamental way the kind of question we ask about ethics: 

Where deontology and consequentialism concern themselves with the right action, virtue ethics is concerned with the good life and what kinds of persons we should be. “What is the right action?” is a significantly different question to ask from “How should I live? What kind of person should I be?” Where the first type of question deals with specific dilemmas, the second is a question about an entire life. Instead of asking what is the right act here and now, virtue ethics asks what kind of person should I be in order to get it right all the time. (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Virtue Ethics, pp. 3-4)

Within virtue theory the moral objective becomes to craft unity between actions and “moral image” (Teehan, 1995, p. 847), rather than between actions and values. This can occur in one of two ways: either action can be brought into conformance with moral image, or moral image can be brought into conformance with an action to which one is solidly committed. AsDewey declares, “”the thing actually at stake in any serious deliberation is not a difference of quantity, but what kind of person one is to become, what sort of self is in the making…‘“ (as cited in Teehan, 1995, p. 846). An example well serves to deconstruct the thought process driven, not by duty or outcome, but by considerations of the virtuous self:

I am dressing in the morning. As I go to choose a tie I find that the one I had planned to wear is missing – a problematic situation. I need to find a different tie which will match my outfit. When I do so I transform the problematic situation by resolving it. This does effect a change in me also, I go from a slight feeling of anxiety and indecision to a state of calm; but the change is not one which affects my character and hence it is a non-moral decision. We can, however, change the scenario a bit and get a different view. Suppose that when I search for a tie I find that I must choose between a tie that matches my outfit but which needs to be ironed and a tie that does not need to be ironed but which clashes with my outfit. Now I must choose between ironing the matching tie, which will make me late for an appointment I promised to make on time, and wearing an ill-matching tie that will make me self-conscious about my appearance. Here is a dilemma which will affect my character: do I put my concern for my appearance before obligation to others or do I put my vanity behind me, realizing that I put myself in this situation due to my habitual tardiness, and accept the personal price which will come from keeping my promise to be prompt? While this isstill not an earth shattering dilemma it does fall within the scope of moral deliberation. According to Dewey all such dilemmas are to be resolved not by applying the categorical imperative nor by calculating the maximization of good but rather by answering the questions ‘what kind of person do I wish to be? What kind of world do I wish there to be?‘“ (Teehan, 1995, pp. 845-46 (emphasis added))

Further, virtue theory is aspirational in that it stresses “integrity…not between an action and who I am, or who I have been, but between an act and who I desire to be” (Teehan, 1995, p. 848). And unlike deontology and utilitarianism, which attend to the morality of particular actions, with respect to virtue “moral integrity…is much more than sheer coherence and consistency…it concerns what it takes to be a whole, a completely moral person” (Musschenga 2001, p. 227).

Persons of integrity exhibit high regard for realizing their personal ethical ideal.

Justice. Justice has oftentimes been parsed into three categories: commutative, distributive and social. Briefly put, the first of these refers “to the fairness of exchanges or agreements;” the second of these “to the ways in which the burdens and the benefits of society are “distributed‘ or allocated;” and the third of these “to the ways in which society is structured so that all can make their contribution to the welfare of the whole” (Weigert, 2006, p. 2). In concert with this commonplace trifurcation is the view that “persons of integrity understand that one cannot do the right thing in a vacuum…[j]ust institutions…are the underpinnings of personal integrity” (Manning & Stroud 2007, p. 6). Integrity can only be fully exercised within the context of fair social systems.

Beyond the institutional perspective on justice, however, is a further observation more central to the current exploration: that “if I claim that “justice‘ is an essential part of my life but I systematically treat other unfairly, I am not “acting with integrity‘“ (Weigert, 2006, p. 2). This comment clearly references values-behavior congruence, but not only this dimension of integrity: it further alludes to the truth that to be a person of integrity is in part to be a person holding to the foundational value of justice—in both its institutional as well as personal manifestations—in the first instance. Or, as put by Rugeley and Van Wart (2006), “[t]he person of good character…has a refined sense of justice or fairness that instinctively detects disjointedness and inequity” (p. 382)—and presumably acts in such a way as to remedy these deficiencies through the exercise of self-control (though “not necessarily [through]…total self-abnegation of personal interests”) (p. 382). 

Persons of integrity exhibit high regard for fair treatment of others.

Feminism. A recent addition to the landscape of ethical decision-making is feminist moral philosophy. Here the focus is “on relationships, responsibilities to stakeholders other than the firm itself, consensus building and communication, and trust and cooperation” (Burton & Dunn 2005, p. 457). Rather than emphasizing objective, formal relationships between firms, or among firms and stakeholders, ethics of care recommend “a way of managing that must be understood in depth and lived within particular contexts” (Burton & Dunn, 2005, p. 457). The demand here is that we recognize and take seriously the moral worth of relationships—not in a general sense, but in the only sense in which we experience them: personally.

Within feminist moral philosophy discussion shifts from rights and duties, or outcomes, or character, or fairness as “right acts are [re]defined as actions that emerge from certain motives, namely those that exhibit care” (Furrow, 2005, p. 132). “Thus, in the ethics of care, the idea of a caring person is primary, and conceptions of right or wrong action are derived from that” (Furrow, 2005, p. 132). In contrast to those conceptions of self which view the individual “as some pre-formed entity which needs to have various layers of inhibitions or enculturation stripped away so that it can shine in all its glorious splendor” (Teehan, 1995, p. 844), ethics of care are more consistent with notions of identity which do not “tend to introversion and isolation of the self from its social relations” (Teehan, 1995, p. 844)—and as such are compatible with the philosophy of Dewey.

As to the tie between feminist moral theory and integrity, “”wholeness‘ has just as much to do with one‘s coherent connections and relationships with other people…as it does with one‘s relation to oneself” (Solomon, 1999, p. 39). Integrity is not merely a matter of individual temperament or disposition or make-up, but importantly a matter of sense-making which is “mutually constitutive” for both parties to a caring relationship (Teehan, 1995, p. 851).[xvi]

Persons of integrity exhibit high regard for nurturing caring relationships. 

Internal Coherence: A Conclusion. It has been asserted herein the requirement for internal coherence involves the person of integrity exhibiting high regard for a consistent set of significant moral principles, for maximizing net social benefits, for realizing their personal ethical ideal, for fair treatment of others, and for nurturing caring relationships. The requirement for internal coherence additionally demands all this be done simultaneously, or at a minimum that the demands of the most relevant ethical perspective be reasonably balanced against the requirements of competing ethical perspectives as decisions are made. The person of high integrity is one who, while fully cognizant of the multiplicity of ethical demands which inhere within any particular circumstance, manages to successfully embark upon a course of action which is at once satisfying to the deontologist, to the utilitarian, to the virtue theorist, to the justice theorist, and to the feminist—or at a minimum to a subset of these frameworks most relevant to the issue under deliberation. And when it is difficult to arbitrate inconsistency between competing models of the moral good, “[p]ersons who are able to resolve such conflicts without continuing to feel deeply torn between the values in play have integrity; persons who cannot do not have integrity” (Furrow, 2005, p. 137). Critical core values “keep us integrated in a way that others do not because they are more central to our identities than others” (McLeod, 2005, pp. 119-20).[xvii] If we were to go against these values, we would experience what McLeod refers to as “psychological alienation” (p. 119)—suggesting “the importance of psychological integration for [moral] integrity” (p. 120).

Organizational Integrity

The concern throughout has been to consider integrity as intimately fixed to an individual moral agent. After all, one might well ask with MacIntyre (1984): “In what does the unity of an individual life consist? The answer is that its unity is the unity of a narrative embodied in a single life” (p. 218). 

Yet, not a few writers purport to speak to the question of organizational integrity. It is worth considering what this might mean, if anything at all.

Simons (1999) provided insight here, extrapolating from more traditional notions of behavioral integrity to offer—at least by insinuation—a concept of organizational integrity. Defining behavioral integrity as “the perceived pattern of alignment between an actor‘s words and deeds” (p. 19), Simons posited behavioral integrity entails not only the perceived fit between espoused and enacted values, but additionally between espoused values and perceived promisekeeping. On this formulation integrity is not only assessed through evaluating the extent to which behavior adheres to psychological contracts in general, but more specifically through assessments of behavioral adherence “to mission statements, corporate value statements, [and] descriptions of…management styles…” (Simons, p. 19). So one notion of organizational integrity has to do with the confluence of personal behavior and organizational purpose.[xviii]

An empirically supported concept of organizational integrity has to do with the congruence of personal behavior and organizational values.[xix] Within this research stream the concept of values enactment is introduced. “Values enactment refers broadly to employee and managerial behaviors that are aligned with the explicitly defined core values of the organization such as those found in mission and values statements” (Gruys et al., 2008, p. 5). In their study, Gruys et al. explored the outcomes associated with “reinforc[ing] the importance of [core organizational] values in the day-to-day lives of executives, managers, and all employees (Anderson, 1997; Pruzan, 1998; Rosenthal & Masarech, 2003; Wetlaufer, 1999)” (p. 5) by drawing upon longitudinal data from an organization utilizing a performance evaluation system specifically capturing ratings for how well employees enacted the core values of the organization. The central research question had to do with whether employees are more likely to stay with the organization, and get promoted, “when the social learning context influences employees to effectively enact the values of the organization” (Gruys et al., p. 10).

The findings? As individual enactment of organizational values increases, voluntary turnover decreases. And as individual values enactment of organizational values increases, so to do promotions for individual employees—but only so long as such employees are within departments that also enact the organization‘s core values. In an interesting permutation of this second finding, as individual enactment of departmental values increases, so to do promotions for individual employees—irrespective of individual enactment of organizational values. The conclusion offered from an examination of these findings is that “correspondence between values and turnover at the individual level of analysis suggests that incorporating the measurement of values enactment into the performance appraisal process is a viable organizational strategy for increasing retention of those employees who adhere to the organization‘s value structure” (Gruys et al., 2008, pp. 25-26).

Simons‘ (1999) observation on the matter of organizational integrity is that perception of values enactment is critically important for the development of trust.[xx] Within neo-classical economics (Jensen & Meckling, 1976), and particularly transaction-cost economics (Williamson, 1964, 1975, 1981, 1983, 1984), it is held that trust substitutes for more expensive forms of organizational structuring—such as developing and monitoring formal contracts. To the extent both these claims are accurate, measures reinforcing trust enhance organizational efficiency and commensurately elevate corporate profitability.

But just what is organizational integrity? Some would argue not only for integrity of organizations, but for morality of organizations as well: “[i]ntegrity, by contrast [from autonomy], entails offering forth our best judgment to members of our moral community about how we and they should live and be treated by others…[i]t involves supporting a moral identity for that community” (McLeod, 2005, p. 111). The research into organizational integrity, however, contains none of this normative flair. Rather, organizational integrity is operationalized as the extent to which organizational values inhere in an individual’s values and/or behavior. It is not the organization that has integrity, after all; to speak of organizational integrity with regard to this empirical referent is to use the term integrity in only its most prosaic sense.

However, there is an alternative meaning that could be given to organizational integrity. Consider MacIntyre (1984), who in penning his seminal work on virtue proceeds through three stages: “a first which concerns virtues as qualities necessary to achieve the goods internal to practices; a second which considers them as qualities contributing to the good of a whole life; and a third which relates them to the pursuit of a good for human beings the conception of which can only be elaborated and possessed within an ongoing social tradition” (p. 273). In this third stage, organizational integrity might be conceptualized as the congruence of organizational values and societal values, or organizational behavior and societal values.[xxi] A compelling argument could be made that stakeholder theory has as its normative grounding just such an interpretation of organizational integrity: legitimate stakeholders are those having a societal-level claim against the corporation.

Future Directions

It is impossible to conclude this exploration of integrity without being confronted with the sharp disconnect between integrity understood as a normative ideal and integrity as operationalized within organizational research. How might greater coherence between relevant theory and research design and methods be crafted? Perhaps taking each constitutive element of the definition of integrity in turn will provide some direction.

Macro-level research might address the theme of external consistency, measuring uniformity between a corporation‘s values, statement of mission, objectives, goals and strategies and the mores and desirable outcomes associated with the society within which the organization is embedded. To the extent social legitimacy is enhanced by such external consistency—i.e., as improvements in values fit are elevated—a positive correlation between what might now reasonably be called organizational integrity and improvements in organizational performance could be hypothesized.

The balance of the requirements of integrity might inform micro-level research. The most obvious improvements here have to do with scale development and research design. Valuebehavior congruence, argued herein as being perhaps the most fundamental dimension of integrity, when operationalized requires clear comparisons between values—whether personal, organizational, or societal—and observed behaviors. As to scale development, defaulting to existing measures of honesty as if these were measures of integrity should be avoided. Similarly, it should not be presumed behaviors automatically illumine values; actions must be assessed by independent measures if value-behavior congruence is to be gauged. Ideally observations of behavior would be offered by impartial respondents, and compared or contrasted with espoused values, in order to determine the extent to which values are enacted; the result would be a normatively-defensible empirical measure of one essential dimension of integrity.

While value-behavior congruence can legitimately be measured at a single point in time, longitudinal research is demanded if one is to accurately assess temporal stability. The appropriate time duration between administrations of integrity assessment is an open question, but it should be kept in mind that values are relatively stable—meaning the timeframe should be longer rather than shorter. Evaluation of permanence across roles necessitates either observing the agent in a variety of contexts, or targeting multiple reliable respondents who have observed the agent within or across the roles she occupies. Finally, the stipulation of internal coherence— while the most complex of the dimensions of integrity—is perhaps more easily measured. Brady‘s (1990) survey of ethical theoretic aptitudes might serve as a model here. This instrument “is designed to ascertain an individual‘s inclination to approach ethical issues from a deontological or a utilitarian perspective” (Brady, pp. 211-213). Extending this logic, the instrument could be expanded to incorporate the relevant frameworks of virtue, justice, caring, and social contract. Research design would have be sophisticated enough to incorporate an overall measure of coherence within an agent‘s ethical decision-making across all these dimensions of moral theory.

Locke and Becker (1998), in their exploration of leadership integrity, note that “[b]y being philosophically passive, academics unknowingly perpetuate past philosophical errors”(pp. 175-176).[xxii] Nothing could be truer. While extant organizational research has allegedly investigated the antecedents and outcomes associated with integrity, in failing to offer a normative grounding for this core construct the legitimacy of such research is called into question. As measurements of integrity have lacked philosophical rigor, associated empirical research has thereby unavoidably lacked theoretical rigor—and by extension practical rigor as well. We can do better. By attending to the philosophically grounded multi-dimensional definition of integrity elucidated herein, refinements to construct operationalization bear the potential to be dramatically enhance organizational research into integrity.

About the Author

Craig P. Dunn is an associate professor at Western Washington University and an associate professor Emeritus of San Diego State University, in both instances specializing in business and society issues. His research interests include managerial ethics and values, corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, the meaning of work, and social entrepreneurship. He is active in the International Association for Business and Society—publisher of the Journal Business & Society—serving as a fellow as well as past president.

Email: craig.dunn@wwu.edu 

References

Becker, T. E. (1998, January). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. The Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 154-161.

Brady, F. N. (1990). Ethical managing: Rules and results.New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Burton, B. K., & Dunn, C. P. (2005). The caring approach and social issues in management education. Journal of Management Education, 29(3), 453-474.

Burton, B. K., Dunn, C. P. & Goldsby, M. (2006). Moral pluralism in business ethics education:

It is about time. Journal of Management Education. 30(1), 90-105.

Dobel, J. P. (1990, May/June). Integrity in the public service. Public Administration Review. 50(3), 354-366.

Freeman, R. E., and Gilbert, D. R. Jr. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Lebanon, Indiana: Prentice Hall Trade.

Furrow, D. (2005) Ethics: Key concepts in philosophy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Gintis, H., Henrich, J, Bowles, S., Boyd, R. & Fehr, E. (2008). Strong reciprocity and the roots of human morality. Social Justice Resources, 21, 241-253.

Gruys, M. L., Stewart, S. M., Goodstein, J., Bing, M. N., & Wicks, A. C. (2008). Values enactment in organizations: A multi-level examination. Journal of Management OnlineFirst, 1-38.

Harcourt, E. (1998, April). Integrity, practical deliberation and utilitarianism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 48(191), 189-198.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.

Locke, E. A. & Becker, T. E. (1998, January). Rebuttal to a subjectivist critique of an objectivist approach to integrity in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 170175.

Kohlberg, L. (1971). From Is to Ought: How to Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy and Get Away with It in the Study of Moral Development. New York: Academic Press.

Kohlberg, L., & Lickona, T. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-

developmental approach. Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues. Holt, NY: Rinehart and Winston.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development, Vol. I: The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

MacIntyre, A. (1984). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

Manning, R. & Stroud, S. R. (2007). A practical guide to ethics: Living and leading with integrity. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

McFall, L. (October 1987). Integrity. Ethics, 98(1), 5-20.

McLeod, C. (2005, March). How to distinguish autonomy from integrity. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 35(1), 107-134.

Moreau, S. R. (2005, January). Reasons and character. Ethics, 115(2), 272-305

Musschenga, A. W. (2001). Education for moral integrity. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(2), 219-235.

Palanski, M. E. & Yammarino, F. J. (2007, June). Integrity and Leadership: Clearing the Conceptual Confusion. European Management Journal, 25(3), 171-184.

Puka, B. (2005, Summer/Fall). Teaching ethical excellence: Artful response-ability, creative integrity, character opus. Liberal Education, 22-25.

Rugeley, C. & Van Wart, M. (2006). Everyday moral exemplars: The case of Judge Sam Medina. Public Integrity, 8(4), 381-394.

Schlenker, B. R. (2008). Integrity and character: Implications of principled and expedient ethical ideologies. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(10), 1078-1125.

Simons, T. L. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 89-104

Solomon, R. C. (1999). A better way to think about business: How personal integrity leads to corporate success. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2001). Integrity. Retrieved May 23, 2007, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/. 

Teehan, J. (1995, Fall). Characer, integrity and Dewey‘s virtue ethics. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 31(4), 841-863.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2004) Virtue Ethics. Retrieved May 23, 2007, from  (http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/virtue.htm, 

Weigert, K. M. (2006, July). Justice, integrity and action: Individuals and institutions. Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching and Service, Georgetown University (Working Paper).

Williamson, O. E. (1964). The economics of discretionary behavior: Managerial objectives in a theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and anti-trust implications. New York: The Free Press.

Williamson, O. E. (1981). The modern corporation: Origins, evolution, attributes. Journal of Economic Literature, 19, 1537-1568.

Williamson, O. E. (1983). Organization form, residual claimants, and corporate control. Journal of Law & Economics, 26(2), 351-366.

Williamson, O. E. (1984). Perspectives on the modern corporation. Quarterly Review of Economics & Business, 24(4), 64-71.

Williston, B. (2006). Blaming agents in moral dilemmas. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 9, 563-576.

[i] Musschenga (2001) suggests the first cell represents a ―theoretical possibility,‖ but is one which ―does not appear in ordinary language‖ (p. 222). 

[ii] At least one writer challenges this bifurcation of moral and personal integrity, suggesting ―[t]here is a temptation to make this task too easy by drawing a distinction between moral and personal integrity and saying that moral integrity requires truth telling, honesty, and fairness while personal integrity does not‖ (McFall 1987, p. 6). 

[iii] The first of these will require the greatest elaboration, and will be taken up last.

[iv] The implications of this finding for operationalization of the integrity construct within empirical research will be explored as future research directions are proposed.

[v] Coherence is the opposite of hypocrisy; hypocrisy involves espousing values which are not reflected in behavior.

[vi] Simons notes behavioral integrity can only be assessed retrospectively, by ―focus[ing] on the past pattern of alignment between words and deeds‖ (Simons 1999, p. 23). 

[vii] The other fundamental intuition is that ―integrity is primarily a formal relation one has to oneself, or between parts or aspects of one’s self‖—what is called herein the requirement for internal coherence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

[viii] Another ―kind of coherence is simple consistency: consistency within one’s set of principles or commitments‖—again, what is called herein the requirement for internal coherence (McFall 1987, p. 7).

[ix] This is the fundamental point of distinction between the work of Palanski & Yammarino and the current work: these authors extrapolate a definition based on the misuse of the term integrity within extant organizational literature—which by their own admission ―draws from a body of literature that contains disparate theory and little empirical research‖ (p. 182), while the project here is to deduce a definition of integrity from an exploration of sound philosophical reasoning.

[x] In addition, ―[s]elf-knowledge is essential for integrity because we have to know what our values and commitments are if we are to put them in order‖ (Furrow 2005, p. 137).

[xi] There is a clear distinction to be made between rationalization, which involves ascribing one‘s actions to causes only superficially reasonable, and justification, which involves defending one‘s actions based on wellgrounded principles.

[xii] Contributions to anthologies may be contemporaneous.

[xiii] To this list might be added the theory of the land ethic, which in addition to impacts upon members of the human community considers impacts of decisions upon non-human species—as well as upon the balance of the ecosystem. To this list might also be added the theory of libertarianism, which emphasizes commitment to those actions tending to maximize the capacity for free, informed personal choice—though it is here suggested autonomy is a background condition for integrity rather than a separate framework within a pluralistic decision process.

[xiv] The deontological perspective considers both duties as well as rights, and in so doing subsumes two of the moral considerations referenced within Table 2 above.

[xv] The tautological nature of this characterization should not be lost on the reader; this represents one of the deficiencies of the utilitarian perspective, that as benefits and costs are weighed one against the other some a priori assessment of what factors get categorized as ‗benefits‘ and what factors get categorized as ‗costs‘ has to have been made.

[xvi] One of the more fascinating issues which has emerged primarily from the writers associated with feminist moral philosophy, but not only from them, has been the question as to whether or not persons of integrity have a duty to exhibit the ‗proper‘ affective reaction to an ethics challenge. Furrow (2005), for one, argues ―[m]oral virtues are habits of character that express themselves in the correct emotional response to any situation we might confront‖ (pp. 116-17). Consideration of this matter will not be considered in the current treatise.

[xvii] ―On the self-integration view of integrity, integrity is a matter of persons integrating various parts of their personality into a harmonious, intact whole. Understood in this way, the integrity of persons is analogous to the integrity of things: integrity is primarily a matter of keeping the self intact and uncorrupted‖ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[xviii] Freeman and Gilbert‘s (1988) notion of personal projects enterprise strategy would have us turn this logic on its head. In wanting the ―answer to ‗What is a person?‘ to allow for the maximum amount of liberty so that persons can pursue their own projects in a civilized manner,‖ these writers argue ―…organizations, and other institutions are mere means toward these [personal] ends.‖

[xix] While the primary concern here is not with the instrumental value of integrity—i.e., with justifying integrity on the basis of improvements to organizational performance—, those few empirical studies adopting a groundedtheory approach are instructive on the matter of organizational integrity, and what this concept might mean (see, e.g., Gruys et al. 2008).

[xx] In addition, ―employee trust leads to: Employee willingness to promote & implement espoused change; Employee intent to stay with organization; Employee organizational citizenship behavior (OCB); Employee performance.‖ (Simons 1999, p. 19).

[xxi] As noted in the discussion of integrity as external consistency, integrity might be conceptualized in part as the congruence of personal values and societal values, or personal behavior and societal values; as McLeod (2005) notes, ―[w]hen our conception of what is good for us conflicts with what we think is right and we act on the former, we act with personal autonomy, but forego our integrity‖ (p. 124). However, external consistency does not constitute organizational integrity; nowhere in this formulation is the organization referenced.

[xxii] Locke and Becker (1998) confront head-on the matter of leader integrity as value-behavior congruence, suggesting ―…for example, an organizational leader who claims that all employees will be treated justly (i.e., in accordance with their actions and the full context in which their actions occur) and acts consistently with this claim is a leader with integrity. A leader who professes justice but does not act accordingly lacks integrity, as does a leader who professes corrupt principles (e.g., racism) and acts to promote them‖ (pp. 175-76).

About Regent

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university with more than 11,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University is ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 13 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2025).

About the School of Business & Leadership

The School of Business & Leadership is a Gold Winner – Best Business School and Best MBA Program by Coastal Virginia Magazine. The school also has earned a top-five ranking by U.S. News & World Report for its online MBA and online graduate business (non-MBA) programs. The school offers both online and on-campus degrees including Master of Business Administration, M.S. in Accounting (Tax or Financial Reporting & Assurance), M.S. in Business Analytics, M.A. in Organizational Leadership, Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, and Doctor of Strategic Leadership.

What Women Bring to the Exercise of Leadership

Since the 1970s, women have steadily emerged in leadership roles in all societal spheres. Women bring to the exercise of leadership an arsenal of strengths, which increasingly are received to benefit the entities they lead on local, national, and global levels. Women’s leadership styles have been shown to be more transformational, participative, and inclusive than the leadership styles of their male counterparts. According to the results of a 2008 Pew Research initiative studying whether men or women make better leaders, participants rated women over men by five-to-one in the top eight leadership characteristics, including honesty and intelligence. Although women are filling more managerial positions, they have yet to emerge in the top executive leadership positions. Therefore, this paper explores three primary areas: (1) women’s leadership emergence, (2) ways women lead, and (3) benefits of women’s leadership. Research grounds each of these three foci by highlighting women’s leadership contributions inclusive of ethical moorings; peace-building; social change; and business and media entrepreneurship and innovation. With women making such substantive contributions in the exercise of leadership, the paper concludes with the rhetorical question, “Why not women?” in hopes of reinforcing a paradigm of women and men serving together for maximum benefit.

Introduction

What do 20th century missionary Gladys Aylward, contemporary Bible teacher Joyce Meyer , former president and CEO of eBay, Meg Whitman, and the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Dr. Wangari Matthai have in common? They are all women who brought their personal passions, convictions, energies, and strengths to their innovative efforts and exercise of leadership. Although quite different in their respective accomplishments, they share common characteristics that placed them in counter-cultural leadership roles, creating innovative venues for change.

In the 1930s, as a missionary to China, Gladys Aylward led a campaign to end women’s footbinding in Yungcheng, leading to the improvement of women’s health.1 In the 1980s, author and ministry leader Joyce Meyer, along with her husband Dave, founded Joyce Meyer Ministries, which supports Joyce’s writing, television, and global conference ministry.2 As an American

businesswoman, Meg Whitman has held many strategic corporate positions, most notably between 1998-2007, as the former president and CEO of eBay, where she expanded the company from a $4 million to an $8 billion enterprise.3 The first African female to win the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. Wangari Matthai is an environmental and political activist who spearheaded the Green Belt Movement in empowering poor women through planting trees for holistic and sustainable Kenyan development, democracy, and peace.4 Whether social and health innovation (Aylward), business development (Whitman), or political and environmental innovation (Matthai), each of these women brought themselves to leadership and made a strategic impact on the world.

Women bring to the exercise of leadership an arsenal of strengths, which increasingly are being recognized and received to benefit the entities they lead on local, national, and global levels.

Therefore, this paper will focus on three primary areas: (1) women’s leadership emergence, (2) ways women lead, and (3) the benefits of women’s leadership.

Women’s Leadership Emergence

The landscape of women’s leadership emergence has been steadily shifting since the 1970s. As women’s educational achievements have increased, so have their job opportunities.5 In 2009, women in the U.S. accounted for 51% of all those employed in management and professional occupations.6 However, according to Catalyst, a U.S. organization promoting women in business and leadership, women hold only 14.4% of executive positions in Fortune 500 companies, while men hold 85.6%. Regarding executive earnings, women earn 7.6% of the top earnings compared to 92.4% for men.7 For those employed full-time in management and professional occupations, the average median weekly earnings are $1,266 for men and $939 for women.8 

Although women have moved into more managerial positions, they still have not emerged into the top executive leadership positions nor do they earn salaries commensurate with those of men for the same jobs. However, progress has been and is being made. Valerio asserts that global, social, and cultural forces such as globalization, e-business, changing markets, technology proliferation, and the need for teamwork, alliances, and partnerships have created room for women’s leadership emergence.9 Women have capitalized on these opportunities through the unique characteristics and styles in which they lead.

Ways Women Lead

Research on Women in Leadership

Since the release of two formative books in the 1990s on women’s leadership characteristics, research on women in the exercise of leadership has burgeoned. The early work of Sally Helgesen compared similarities and differences in the ways women and men lead based on

Mintzberg’s analysis of what men did as managers.10 Helgesen concluded that women work at a steady pace, view unscheduled interruptions as a part of work flow, make time for activities not focused on work, maintain a complex network of relationships, and focus on the “ecology of leadership,” which emphasizes the social dimension, a vision for society, and time for information sharing with others.11 Helgesen observed that women tend to frame a “web of inclusion” that is circular and inclusive, rather than hierarchical and exclusive.

Professor Judy Rosener found that men and women have distinctive leadership styles, with men more likely to view leadership as a sequence of transactions with others, whereas women are more transformational, using interpersonal skills to motivate followers rather than applying positional power or authority.12 Referring to this style as “interactive leadership,” Rosner states that women use relational skills to influence others, encourage participation, share power and information, and heighten followers’ self-esteem.13

Other researchers, including leadership specialist Alice Eagly and colleagues, note that women lead in a more democratic and participative style than men, and argue that evaluation of women leaders’ effectiveness depends on several interacting variables including work context and culture.14 Further, Eagly advanced a gender role theory, asserting that people judge leadership based on what they deem appropriate behavior for men and women. This has been shown to influence why women may be perceived less favorably than equivalent male counterparts, especially in contexts where stereotypically masculine styles are favored.15 Differing perceptions of women’s leadership effectiveness are based on socialization, gender stereotypes, and confounding variables that do not adequately control for perceived power.16 Klenke calls for careful analysis of situational factors, such as biases, that serve as a filter for evaluating leadership based on gender.17

Quantitative and qualitative studies have shown that women in top corporate positions have both redefined the rules of business and leadership and have demonstrated these characteristics: selfconfidence, emotional intelligence, and an instinct to maximize change for overall benefit. They also “display their feminine side” in employee interactions, and attract new customers by establishing a collegial environment through displaying nurture, empathy, loyalty, respect, and a team spirit.18 Women seem to be aware of and maximize the self-concepts of others.19

In a five-year study, three McKinsey consultants developed a leadership model emerging from interviews with successful women executives.20 They asserted that for centered and successful leadership to occur, women need to demonstrate the preconditions of talent, desire to lead, and tolerance of change; and to enact five characteristics: (1) meaning, connoting the realization of their life purpose, happiness, and core strengths; (2) framing, or self-awareness required to view situations clearly; (3) connecting, or developing collaborative and life-giving relationships; (4) engaging, or taking risks to move forward; and (5) energizing, or the managing of energy reserves to accommodate multiple responsibilities.21

Furthermore, their model included outcomes of impact, renewal, and joy as the end goal of the women interviewed, supporting the late Katharine Graham’s assertion, “To love what you do and feel that it matters –how could anything be more fun?”22 As the former president and CEO of the Washington Post after the death of her husband and as the first CEO of a Fortune 500 company, Graham captures the joy factor that motivates many women to exercise leadership. In addition, having passion for the cause that the leadership role represents is likewise tremendously motivating. Colleen Barrett, president emerita and corporate secretary of Southwest Airlines, recommends, “Don’t ever agree to take on a leadership role for the money, power, title, or prestige; take on the role because you have a passion for the cause.”23 Andrea Jung, CEO of Avon Products, agrees, stating that women must have a “deep passion” for the work they do.24

Power and Authority

Another research initiative explored the secrets of 25 women political leaders, revealing that the risk-taking, courage, confidence, and multi-tasking abilities of women like Olympia Snowe of Maine and Nancy Pelosi of California contributed to their leadership emergence.25 Female participants viewed power as the ability to make other people’s lives better, rather than raw manipulation for personal gain or vision fulfillment.26 For example, Paula Sneed, former vice president of Global Marketing and Initiatives for Kraft Foods and a woman of color who blazed a trail across racism and sexism, observed that power should be used wisely from the perspective of a servant who encourages others.27 Commenting on that tandem between leadership, power, and authority, Ronald Heifetz noted that women can offer perspectives on “mistaken practices of authority and can help men generate new models for themselves,” so as not to repeat the only models men know.28 Further, Heifetz affirmed the “extraordinary women who exercise leadership every day, yet do not have authority,” while also appealing to women to understand men and their sense of loss that may accompany women’s leadership emergence.29

Gender Associations of Leadership

Socialization and culture influence perceptions of women’s leadership qualification and effectiveness. Eagly and Carli explored the mental associations of leaders based on gender, noting that gender prejudice aligns with social constructions of masculine and feminine based on cultural perceptions and influences. Associations develop, with women often associated with communal qualities of compassion, affection, and gentleness, and men associated with agentic qualities of assertion, self-confidence, and dominance.30 Prejudices may result when mismatches or role incongruity between stereotyped attributes of women traverse the leadership roles they fill.31 Thus, favoritism toward male over female leaders may develop.

Women may be accused of being too pushy or too soft. According to leadership research, a woman who leads with behaviors traditionally perceived as masculine may find herself at a disadvantage.32 Women who are feminine may be perceived as less competent, causing a “double bind” of mutual exclusivity between the two,33 creating a delicate balancing act.34 For example, Hillary Clinton, who is often dismissed as being too masculine in her leadership behavior, has also been criticized for showing emotion, such as during the 2008 New Hampshire primary when she teared up during a question and answer session.35 Cultural expectations also contribute to the notion that women should be polite in every situation.36 Furthermore, when an incongruity exists between gender role and leadership role, prejudice often results, which may account for why it is more difficult for women to become leaders and achieve success than for their male counterparts.37

Benefits of Women in Leadership

Over the past four decades, the increase of female leaders, catalyzed by the women’s liberation movement in the 1970s and globalization in the 1990s through today, has produced new approaches to the exercise of leadership. These approaches embrace a flatter leadership playing field with more collaboration, teamwork, and coaching, rather than hierarchical structures and authority.38 Eagly and Carli addressed the increasing assertion that women have an advantage in exercising leadership because of alignment with contemporary culture. However, they warned that any advantages women have as leaders may be offset by gender prejudice and discrimination.39 

In one meta-analysis comparing male and female leaders, Eagly and colleagues found that female leaders were more transformational and demonstrated more contingent reward behaviors (i.e., rewarding followers for satisfactory performance); whereas male leaders were more likely to demonstrate two dimensions of transactional leadership: active management by exception (focusing on followers’ mistakes and failures) and passive management by exception

(intervening after problems with followers become dire). They conclude, “Research on transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles does suggest female advantage, albeit a small advantage”40

According to a national 2008 Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends survey, respondents rated “women superior to men” in honesty and intelligence, among other leadership qualities they value in political leaders.41 Survey results of 2,250 adults (1,060 men and 1,190 women) ranked women better than or equal to men in seven of eight primary leadership traits assessed in the survey.42 Half of survey participants ranked women as more honest than men, with just 20% saying that men are more honest than women. Regarding intelligence, 38% of respondents viewed women as smarter, with 14% indicating men are smarter, and the remaining 48% believing there is no difference between genders. Furthermore, women were ranked with larger leads over men for being compassionate (80% chose women, 5% chose men), outgoing (47% chose women, 38% chose men), and creative (62% chose women, 11% chose men). 

Participants assessed men and women equally regarding hard work and ambition. However, men prevailed over women in decisiveness. To summarize, in the top eight leadership traits, women were ranked higher by participants five to one, including two ties. Regarding job performance, women were ranked higher than men in the characteristics of advocating for one’s principles under political pressure, negotiating compromises, keeping government honest, and representing the interests of the people. However, when asked which gender makes the better political leaders, men or women, only 6% of respondents ranked women above men; 21% mentioned men, 69% indicated that both genders are equal, and 4% responded “I don’t know.”43 

The paradox is that women are rated more highly on leadership traits, yet women make up a lower percentage of those in public office than men (i.e., 16% of U.S. senators, 16% of members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 16% of all state governors, and 24% of state legislators are female).44 Responding to what accounts for this paradox, participants indicated that Americans aren’t ready to elect a woman to high office (51%), women are held back by men (43%), and women are discriminated against in all societal spheres (38%).45 The Pew Report commented, “[W]omen emerge from this survey a bit like a sports team that racks up better statistics but still loses the game…”46 The benefits of having women in political leadership are countered by prevailing attitudes that undermine women’s potential performance in top elected office. Also, as Forbes.com observed, women’s modest strides in the government sector are stalled in the business sector.47

Women’s advocate Marie C. Wilson, founder and President Emeritus of The White House Project and co-creator of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work® Day contended that women bring greater inclusiveness, empathy, and communication to the exercise of leadership, which “makes for stronger government and richer business.48 Furthermore, she argues that women offer “fresh eyes and fresh solutions applied to old and abiding problems, unique skills honed through family and community service, the opportunity for a true democracy, transforming business and politics.”49 One qualitative study comparing 59 female business leaders of large companies with male counterparts found that women were more persuasive, inclusive, learned from adversity, and took risks.50

New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof noted, “While no woman has been president of the United States—yet—the world does have several thousand years’ worth of experience with female leaders. I have to acknowledge it: Their historical record puts men’s to shame.”51 Kristof notes that several of the world’s great leaders have been women (i.e., Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria). Noting that women tend to excel in consensus-building and other leadership skills, Kristof hypothesized that female political figures in monarchies tend to do well; whereas women in modern-day democracies have to prove themselves and overcome public prejudices, making democratic politics more challenging for women than for men. 

In another op-ed piece, Kristof reports that Wall Street may not have encountered the same financial crisis over the past three years if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters, since Wall Street is “the most male-dominated bastion in the business world.”52 Adding that a greater gender balance could reduce the consequences of “male herding,” particularly taking high-risk bets under financial pressure when surrounded by males of similar status, Kristof highlighted the research of Hong and Page,53 who found that “diversity leads to optimality” when it comes to problem solving. Thus, Kristof implied that women not only create needed diversity leading to business/financial optimality, but also contribute to ethical moorings which dissuade unethical business practices.

Women, Ethical Behavior, and Whistleblowing

Research suggests that women may be more ethical than their male counterparts, which might explain why women tend to be whistleblowers. In August 2000, prior to Enron’s collapse, Sherron Watkins, former vice president at Enron, sent her boss, Jeffrey Skilling, a memo concerning shady accounting practices within the company. FBI agent Coleen Rowley wrote her boss, FBI Chief Robert Mueller, that the disarrayed agency might have prevented the 9/11 terror attack if its house had been in order. Retired Army Lt. General Claudia J. Kennedy, the first woman to hold a 3-star rank, exposed a sexual harassment incident of a fellow officer three years after the fact, when he was close to being promoted.Cynthia Cooper, chief audit executive at WorldCom, exposed the fraudulent practices which had cost her company a total of $9 billion. 54

In one study, Miethe and Rothschild found that women were more likely than men to speak out against unethical behavior and to use internal reporting channels in responding to wrongdoing.55 Another study by the same authors found that women were twice as likely as men to be internal whistle blowers.56

Peace-building Initiatives

Examples abound regarding women involved in peace-building initiatives. After 30 years of conflict, women organizers in Northern Ireland57 mobilized on short order to open talks between Protestants and Catholics to mediate ongoing hostilities, culminating in the Belfast Agreement between Protestant unionists and Catholic nationalists.58 In 1976, these women won the Nobel Peace Prize for their peaceful public demonstrations, coalition across religious and political lines, and their reconciliation efforts.59

In a 2006 debate between Hanan Ashwari, former spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel, moderator Bill O’Reilly acknowledged in closing comments, “It [the conflict between Arabs and Jews] will never, ever end—ever—until what happened in Northern Ireland happens in the Middle East,” O’Reilly explained. “It was the women of Northern Ireland who said ‘Enough, this has to stop.’”60

Another contemporary exemplar, Swanee Hunt, former ambassador to Austria and current director of the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, personifies inclusive transformation efforts, particularly in her work in Eastern Europe from 1993-1997. During the crisis in Bosnia from 1992-1995 that left 150,000 dead and 2 million Bosnians displaced, Hunt brought together the Croat and the Bosnian Muslim delegations for negotiations, resulting in a successful military alliance, which was the first step toward peace. Hunt actively developed initiatives to include and empower women in emerging Eastern European democracies. 61 Hunt contends that women must be involved in formal and informal peace processes because women’s perspectives differ from those of men in four primary ways. They are (1) highly invested in preventing and stopping conflict, (2) adept at bridging ethnic, political, and cultural divides, (3) aligned with the pulse of the community, and (4) innovative community leaders, regardless of formal authority and power.

Hunt’s observations are clearly evident in the life of Agathe Uwilingiyimana (1953-1994). As the first and only female prime minister of Rwanda, Uwilingiyimana was compelled to stop the genocide and war. Therefore, she bravely spearheaded negotiations and peace initiatives between rival Hutu and Tutsi factions, which led to the Arusha peace agreement in August of 1993. Due to Uwilingiyimana’s peace-making initiatives, she was assassinated in 1994 by members of her own political party.62

Other peace-making initiatives are personified in the fifteen female Nobel Peace Prize laureates including: (1) Mother Theresa of Calcutta in 1979 for humanitarian work, (2) Aung San Suu Kyi from Myanmar in 1991 for human rights, (3) American Jody Williams in 1997 for  efforts to ban and clear land mines, (4) Shirin Ebadi in 2003 from Iran for the championing of human rights for women and children, (5) Wangari Maathai in 2004 from Kenya for humanitarian, environmental, and democracy advocacy, and (6) Leymay Gbowee from Liberia and Kawakkul Karman from Iran who shared the 2011 prize for the tireless advocacy of women’s safety and women’s rights in peace-building efforts.63

Social Change

Examples of women spearheading social change abound. For example, Sojourner Truth (17971893), abolitionist and women’s rights advocate, had an itinerant preaching ministry focusing on the evils of slavery.64 Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) led the women’s suffrage movement, laying the foundation for women’s right to vote.65 First lady Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962) was instrumental in the formation of the United Nations and drafted the UN Declaration of Human Rights.66 Rosa Parks (1913-2005) both organized and participated in civil rights initiatives, leading to the bus boycott that catapulted the civil rights movement and brought Martin Luther King, Jr. into prominence.67

Wendy Kopp, founder and CEO of Teach For America, has grown an organization that seeks to eliminate educational inequity across the U.S. by recruiting qualified college graduates for twoyear teaching commitments in low-income communities.68 Teach For America has impacted 500,000 students in 39 regions across the U.S. Additionally, Kopp co-founded Teach for All, which applies this educational model around the world. Other innovative contributions of women worldwide have dramatically impacted social change through applying use of technology and economic transformation for women’s empowerment and gender equality.69

Melinda Gates, a philanthropist and the wife of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, was the impetus for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is the most funded private foundation in the world dedicated to promoting global healthcare and curtailing poverty. The foundation operates with a budget of just under $25 billion.70 As former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan affirmed, “Study after study has taught us that there is no tool for development more effective than the education of girls and the empowerment of women…When women are fully involved, the benefits can be seen immediately: families are healthier, they are better fed; their income, savings, and investment go up. And what is true of families is true of communities, and eventually, of countries”71

Business, Media, Entrepreneurship, & Innovation

Successful women exercising leadership in business and media spheres likewise abound. They include Oprah Winfrey, entertainment entrepreneur and philanthropist; Anne Sweeney, president of Disney-ABS Television Group and co-chair of Disney Media Networks; Andrea Jung, chair and CEO of Avon Products; Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop; Debbi Fields, founder of Mrs. Fields Cookies; Carly Fiorini, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard; Sherry Lansing, former chair of Paramount Motion Pictures; Anne M. Mulcahy, former chair and CEO of Xerox; Marie J. Toulantis, former CEO of Barnes & Noble; Ann Moore, former chair and CEO of Time, Inc.; and Pat Mitchell, former president and CEO of PBS. Women offer conduits for individual and organizational learning and change, which these women exemplify.72 As Andrea Jung of Avon asserts, “Innovation is key. This is a seminal moment for companies to invest [in innovative initiatives] that must be “inside out and outside in.”73 

Although women have slowly emerged in top executive positions, they still lag behind their male counterparts, while women leaders in small businesses continue to flourish.74 When compared with women in top executive positions, women entrepreneurs in small businesses comprise the “fastest growing groups of business owners,” owning over 51% of them and signifying over two and one-half times the rate of all U.S. privately held firms.75 Women develop businesses to overcome the “glass ceiling,” (i.e., the invisible barrier that prevents women from rising to leadership positions) but also to accommodate family commitments and the need to make a contribution to better society.76 Initiatives such as “Roadmap to 2020,” overseen by IBM marketing executive, Denise Evans, is one of several national and global initiatives to empower women through job creation and improved health initiatives for a safer and more sustainable planet.77 Through business, media, and entrepreneurial endeavors, women are changing the world.

Summary

This paper addressed women’s emergence in leadership, the ways women lead, and the benefits of women in leadership. Women bring diverse strengths, perspectives, and innovation to the exercise of leadership. Although women have emerged in leadership roles despite the glass ceiling, the glass wall (i.e., obstacles in moving laterally within an organization),78 and the glass cliff (i.e., when women are invited into leadership positions of organizations in precarious or crisis situations),79 disparities still persist due to traditional gender stereotypes, inadequate mentors, and workplace paradigms.80 As advisor to four previous U.S. presidents and now a senior political analyst for CNN, David Gergen suggests that we cut the gender leadership gap in half by 2015 and then close it altogether thereafter for three reasons to enhance: (1) economics and a prospering society, (2) a more caring society, and (3) a more just society with women in full participation with men.81 In this process, we need to avoid two biases: the alpha bias that exaggerates gender differences and the beta bias that minimizes or ignores them.82 With the benefits and contributions of women functioning together with men in the exercise of leadership for overall benefit in all societal spheres, the question then arises, “Why not women?”83

About the Author

Diane J. Chandler, Ph.D., serves as an associate professor of spiritual formation and Christian leadership development in the Regent University School of Divinity in Virginia Beach, Virginia. She holds a Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, an M.Div. in Practical Theology, and an M.S. in Education. Her research interests include Christian spirituality, spiritual/holistic formation, women in leadership, ethical leadership, and cross-cultural leadership. She also mentors and coaches women who exercise leadership in a variety of contexts. Questions or comments about this article can be directed to Dr. Diane Chandler via email: diancha@sway

Endnotes

8 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Usual weekly earnings of wage and salary workers: First quarter 2011.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

9 Valerio, A. M. (2009). Developing women leaders: A guide for men and women in organizations. West Sussex,
UK: John Wiley Blackwell.

10 Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Currency Doubleday.

11 Helgesen (1990). pp. 8-29.

12 Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 119-125.

13 Gergen, D. (2005). Women leading in the twenty-first century. In L. Coughlin, E. Wingard, & K. Hollihan
(Eds.), Enlightened Power: How Women are Transforming the Practice of Leadership (pp. xv-xxix). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (p. xix).

14 Eagly, A., Makhijani, M., & Klonsky, B. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3–22.

15 Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
108(2), 233-256.

16 Rhode, D. L. (2003). The difference “difference” makes. In D. L. Rhodes (Ed.), The Difference “Difference”
Makes: Women in Leadership (pp. 3-50). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (p. 21).

17 Klenke, K. (1996). Women and leadership: A contextual perspective. New York: Springer. (pp. 152-153).

18 Book, E. W. (2001). Why the best man for the job is a woman: The unique female qualities of leadership. New
York: Harper. p. xiv.

19 Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of
follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 78(3), 167-203.

20 Barsh, J., & Cranston, S. (2009). How remarkable women lead: The breakthrough model for work and life.
New York: McKinsey & Company.

21 Barsh & Cranston (2009). pp. 10-13.

22 Katharine Graham quotation. Women of the hall. Retrieved from http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-thehall/search-the-hall/details/2/187-Graham

23 Quote by Colleen Barrett cited in: Wilson, M. C. (2004). Closing the leadership gap: Why women can and must
help run the world. New York: Viking Penguin. (p. 157).

24 Jung, A. (2009). Interview with Andrea Jung. Stanford Graduate School of Business. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RjAfqKfWlw

25 Cantor, D. W., & Bernay, T. (1992). Women in power: The secrets of leadership. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.

26 Cantor & Bernay (1992). pp. 39-44.

27 Werhane, P., Posig, M., Gundry, L., Ofstein, L., & Powell, E. (Eds.) (2007). Women in business: The changing
face of leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger.,p. 155.

28 Heifetz, R. A. (2007). Leadership, authority, and women. In B. Kellerman & D. L. Rhode (Eds.), Women and
leadership: The state of play and strategies for change (p. 311-327). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (p. 315).

29 Heifetz (2007). p. 318.

30 Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. pp. 83-100.

31 Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological
Review, 109(3), 573-598.

32 Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky (1992). pp. 133-139.

33 Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women in leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.
pp. 120-145.

34 Lips, H. (2009). Women in leadership: Delicate balancing act. Womensmedia.com (online). Retrieved from
http://www.womensmedia.com/lead/88-women-and-leadership-delicate-balancing-act.html

35 Clinton, H. (2008). YouTube Video of an excerpted Q&A time with Hillary Clinton during the 2008 New
Hampshire primary with voters. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qgWH89qWks

36 Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow: The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

37 Eagly & Karau (2002).

38 Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus,
and Giroux.

39 Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership
Quarterly, 14(6), 807-834. (Esp. pp. 811 and 818 respectively).

40 Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 569-
591.

41 Pew Research Center. (2008). Men or women: Who’s the better leader? (Complete report). Pew Research
Center Publications. Retrieved from http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/gender-leadership.pdf

42 Pew Research Center (2008). p. 7.

43 Pew Research Center (2008). Men or women: Who’s the better leader? (Report summary). Pew Research
Center Publications. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/932/men-or-women-whos-the-better-leader

44 Pew Research Center (2008). Men or Women: Who’s the Better Leader? (Complete report). p. 11.

45 Pew Research Center (2008). Men or Women: Who’s the Better Leader? (Report summary).

46 Pew Research Center (2008). Men or Women: Who’s the Better Leader? (Report summary).

47 Goudreau, J. (2010). Women are gaining speed in government. Forbes (online). Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/05/women-government-power-forbes-woman-power-women-quotas.html

48 Wilson, M. C. (2004). Closing the leadership gap: Why women can and must help run the world. New York:
Viking Penguin. p. 6.

49 Wilson (2004). p. 137.

50 Caliper (N.D.). The qualities that distinguish women leaders. Retrieved from the Caliper Corporation website,
http://www.calipercorp.com/cal_women.asp

51 Kristof, N. D. (2008). When women rule. New York Times (online). Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10kristof.html

52Kristof, N. D. (2009). Mistresses of the universe. New York Times (online). Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08kristof.html

53Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2000). Problem solving by heterogeneous groups. Journal of Economic Theory, 97(1),
128-163.

54 Allen, J. T. (2002). Women who blow whistles. US News.com (online). Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/021230/30whistle.htm

55 Miethe, T. D., &. Rothschild, J. (1994). Whistleblowing and the control of organizational misconduct.
Sociological Inquiry, 643(3), 322–347.

56 Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation: The battle to
control information about organizational corruption. Work & Occupations, 26(1), 107-128.

57 Martin, V. (2007). The role of women in the Northern Ireland peace process. Peacewomen.org. Retrieved from
http://www.peacewomen.org/assets/file/Resources/Academic/pp_womennorthernireland_martin_2007

58 Belfast Agreement. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf

59 Anderlini, S. N. (2000). Women at the peace table: Making a difference. New York: UNIFEM.

60 O’Reilly, B. (2006). Middle East perspectives on peace (O’Reilly commentary: Clash of the Titans debate held
at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA between Hanan Ashwari and Ehud Barak). Retrieved from
http://www.regent.edu/news_events/clash_2006.cfm

61 Hunt, S. (2005). Inclusive transformation. In L. Coughlin, E. Wingard, K. Hollihan (Eds.), Enlightened power:
How women are transforming the practice of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 410-436.

62 Adler, N. J. (2005). Leading beyond boundaries: The courage to enrich the world. In L. Coughlin, E. Wingard,
& K. Hollihan (Eds.). Enlightened power: How women are transforming the practice of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. 361.

63 The Nobel Prize website features the biographies of the twelve women Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Retrieved
from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/women.html

64 Sojourner Truth combined her Christian faith with social justice as an abolitionist and women’s rights
advocate. Most biographies about her life derive from her own story told to her friend who published them. See
Gilbert, O. (Ed.), Narrative of Sojourner Truth. New York: Arno Press 1878/1968.

65 Susan B. Anthony House. (2009). A biography of Susan B. Anthony. Retrieved from
http://susanbanthonyhouse.org/her-story/biography.php

66 Roosevelt, E. (1961/2000). The autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt. Cambridge, MA: De Capo Press.

67 Parks, R. (1992). Rosa Parks: My story. New York: Puffin Books.

68 Teach for America. (2011). Our mission. Retrieved from http://www.teachforamerica.org/our-mission

69 Malhotra, A., Schulte, J., Patel, P., & Petesch, P. (2009). Innovation for women’s empowerment and gender
equality: An online report of the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). Retrieved from
http://www.icrw.org/files/publications/ -for-Womens-Empowerment.pdf

70 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (1999-2011). Foundation fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx

71 Annan, K. (2004). Meeting global challenges: Healthy women, healthy world (Address to the International
Women’s Health Coalition). Retrieved from
http://www.iwhc.org/storage/iwhc/documents/kofiannanbenefitremarks.pdf

72 Meyerson, D. E., & Ely, R. J. (2003). Using difference to make a difference. In D. L. Rhodes (Ed.), The
difference “difference” makes: Women in leadership. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 137.

73 Jung (2009).

74 Werhane (2007).

75 Hackler, D., Harpler, E., & Meyer, H. (2008). Human capital and women’s business ownership (Small
Business Research Summary), p. 2-3. Retrieved from http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs323tot.pdf

76 Smith-Hunter, A. (2003). Diversity and entrepreneurship: Analyzing successful women entrepreneurs. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America. p. 109.

77 Evans, D. (2010, Dec.). Roadmap to 2020: Fueling the Growth of Women’s Enterprise Development. Horizons
[Newsletter of the Center for Women’s Business Research]. Retrieved from
http://www.womensbusinessresearchcenter.org/Data/newsroom/2010horizonsnewsle/horizons_december2010.pdf

78 Klenke (1996). p. 174.

79 Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of
women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549-572.

80 Rhode (2003). p. 20.

81 Gergen (2005). pp. xxv-xxvi.

82 Powell, G. N. (2010). Women and men in management (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p. 8.

83 Cunningham, L., & Hamilton, D. J. (2000). Why not women: A Biblical study of women in missions, ministry,
and leadership. Seattle, WA: YWAM Publishing.

About Regent

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university with more than 11,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University is ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 13 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2025).

About the School of Business & Leadership

The School of Business & Leadership is a Gold Winner – Best Business School and Best MBA Program by Coastal Virginia Magazine. The school also has earned a top-five ranking by U.S. News & World Report for its online MBA and online graduate business (non-MBA) programs. The school offers both online and on-campus degrees including Master of Business Administration, M.S. in Accounting (Tax or Financial Reporting & Assurance), M.S. in Business Analytics, M.A. in Organizational Leadership, Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, and Doctor of Strategic Leadership.

Leading with the Head bowed down: Lessons in Leadership Humility from the Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia

Introduction

Leadership often draws the wrong kinds of leaders. Positions of power and influence have the tendency to attract the proud and the upwardly mobile individualists[i]. Contemporary leadership authors have gone as far as describing organizational leaders as idols, heroes, saviors, warriors, magicians, and even as omnipotent demi-gods[ii]. But recently more voices within organizational discourse have been raised to question our perception and acceptance of these power-vested models of leadership. Could leaders be humble, many wonder[iii]? It seems that the tide started to turn as the century did, in favor of a virtuous approach to leadership, culminating in the publication of Jim Collins’ pioneering article on Level 5 Leadership in the January 2001 edition of the Harvard Business Review[iv]. Collins proposed that the “most powerfully transformative executives” surveyed in his study all possessed the virtue of personal humility. 

Although Collin’s work[v] does not describe the process of formation of humble leaders, it does provide an erudite four-fold description of organizational leadership humility:

  1. Personally humble leaders demonstrate a compelling modesty. They shun public adulation and never boast.
  2. Personally humble leaders act with calm and quiet determination, not relying on inspiring charisma to motivate but rather inspired standards.
  3. Personally humble leaders avoid personal ambition in favor of multi-generational organizational growth and development.
  4. Personally humble leaders are self-reflective and tend to appropriate blame towards themselves are not others.

 How then is humility formed in leaders? It might not come as a surprise that Jim Collins is not the first person to describe the possibility and power of leadership humility. A sixth-century Christian monk, St. Benedict of Nursia (480-540 A.D.), the father of Western Cenobitic Monasticism[vi], wrote a rule in which he provided his followers with a twelve step process description of how humility is formed in followers and leaders alike. Benedict’s rule on humility has worked well as a guide and “spiritual manual7” facilitating personal and communal transformation within the Benedictine Order and others for well over 1500 years[vii]. 

The Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia

 Not much is historically known about St. Benedict, apart from the short biography found in the second volume of Pope Gregory the Great’s four-book Dialogues (593 A.D.)[viii]. More telling is the note[ix] that Gregory makes that his “life could not have differed from his teaching.” Benedict was born within a wealthy family in the Roman town of Norcia, east of Rome. He left Norcia for Rome as a teenager in pursuit of higher education, but experienced a deep aversion in the hedonistic ways of the city and the prevalence of Roman timocratic approaches to leadership.  Timocratic leadership (from the Greek word for honor, “timao”), is a leadership that is mainly interested in honor, power, privilege and prestige. Benedict fled Rome and took up residence in a cave near the town Subacio where he devoted his time in solitude and in search of God. His reputation for wisdom, humility and Godliness soon drew crowds of willing followers. He responded to this call to lead by establishing communities where followers could “seek God” and confront the contemporary pagan culture. He finally settled in one of these communities on a hill above the town of Cassino (today, the Abbey of Monte Cassino), where he constructed a rule of life and organization for these communities. The Rule of St. Benedict has served monastic Christian communities since that time[x] and its instructions on spiritual formation and humility have been the foundation for organizational leadership development in many Christian communities[xi]. Benedict’s Rule was written for those serious about seeking God and being formed in His image. Benedict starts his rule with a prologue in which he gives an invitation to obedience and personal transformation:

“Listen carefully, my child, to your master’s precepts, and incline the ear of your heart (Prov. 4:20). Receive willingly and carry out effectively your loving father’s advice, that by the labor of obedience you may return to Him from whom you had departed by the sloth of disobedience. To you, therefore, my words are now addressed, whoever you may be, who are renouncing your own will to do battle under the Lord Christ, the true King, and are taking up the strong, bright weapons of obedience13.” 

 Of all the chapters and instructions, no greater attention is given to any other virtue than humility[xii]. Humility is the road that leads to being formed into the image of God (see the Pauline view of this form of deification in 2 Corinthians 3:18) and for Benedict the ultimate response to a righteous and loving God. He ends his chapter on humility (Chapter 7, the longest of the all the 73 chapters) with the following words:

“Having climbed all these steps of humility, therefore, the monk will presently come to that perfect love of God which casts out fear. And all those precepts which formerly he had not observed without fear, he will now begin to keep by reason of that love, without any effort, as though naturally and by habit. No longer will his motive be the fear of hell, but rather the love of Christ, good habit and delight in the virtues which the Lord will deign to show forth by the Holy Spirit in His servant now cleansed from vice and sin.15”

Benedictine Spirituality and Leadership

 Benedictines spirituality has been summarized by Benedictine scholars[xiii] with the following three simple words from the Rule (RB 57.7), “truly seeks God.[xiv]” The greater portion of the rule where this “test” is found deals with the criteria for receiving new followers (novices) and reads:

“A senior shall be assigned to them who is skilled in winning souls, to watch over them with the utmost care. Let him examine whether the novice truly seeks God, and whether he is zealous for the Work of God, for obedience and for trials. Let the novice be told all the hard and rugged ways by which the journey to God is made.[xv]”

Exegetical reflections on the rule and this above-mentioned “test” of Benedictine spirituality have yielded three criteria to “verify the authenticity of this relentless, radical, single-hearted search for God[xvi]”:

  1. Eagerness for the work of God.
  2. Radical missional obedience.
  3. Active humility expressed in service.

 Benedictine Leadership finds its definition and mode of expression in the above three criteria. Benedictine leaders have surrendered their own personal ambitions for the greater good of God’s Kingdom, they practice radical obedience to the organization’s mission and they express an active humility in service of others. It is the last criteria of authentic Benedictine leadership that holds the promise for a contemporary understanding and application of leadership humility that is expressed in service.

St. Benedict’s Twelve Steps to Humility

Benedict’s process description of the formation of humility in his rule might be the world’s first 12-step program[xvii] to help leaders and followers serve in humility and deference. His twelve steps towards humility can be summarized as follows (with short excerpts from the rule21):

  1. Respect God: “The first degree of humility, then, is that a person keep the fear of God before his eyes and beware of ever forgetting it…As for self-will, we are forbidden to do our own will by the Scripture, which says to us, ‘Turn away from your own will’ (Eccles. 18:30), and likewise by the prayer in which we ask God that His will be done in us.”
  2. Love not one’s own will: “The second degree of humility is that a person love not his own will nor take pleasure in satisfying his desires, but model his actions on the saying of the Lord, ‘I have come not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me’ (John 6:38). It is written also, ‘Self-will has its punishment, but constraint wins a crown.‘”
  3. Submit to one’s superior: “The third degree of humility is that a person for love of God submit himself to his Superior in all obedience, imitating the Lord, of whom the Apostle says, ‘He became obedient even unto death.‘”
  4. Be obedient at all times, especially in difficult situations: “The fourth degree of humility is that he hold fast to patience with a silent mind when in this obedience he meets with difficulties and contradictions and even any kind of injustice, enduring all without growing weary or running away. For the Scripture says, ‘The one who perseveres to the end, is the one who shall be saved’ (Matt. 10:22); and again ‘Let your heart take courage, and wait for the Lord’ (Ps. 6[27]:14)!“
  5. Be transparent: “The fifth degree of humility is that he hide from his Abbot none of the evil thoughts that enter his heart or the sins committed in secret, but that he humbly confess them. The Scripture urges us to this when it says, ‘Reveal your way to the Lord and hope in Him’ (Ps. 36:5) and again, ‘Confess to the Lord, for He is good, for His mercy endures forever’ (Ps. 105[106]:1).”
  6. Be content with lowly and menial jobs: “The sixth degree of humility is that a monk be content  with the poorest and worst of everything, and that in every occupation assigned him he consider himself a bad and worthless workman, saying with the Prophet, ‘I am brought to nothing and I am without understanding; I have become as a beast of burden before You, and I am always with You’ (Ps:22-23).”
  7. Have a correct, but lowly estimation of self: “The seventh degree of humility is that he consider himself lower and of less account than anyone else, and this not only in verbal protestation  but also with the most heartfelt inner conviction, humbling himself and saying with the Prophet,  ‘But I am a worm and no man, the scorn of men and the outcast of the people’ (Ps. 21[22]:7). ‘After being exalted, I have been humbled and covered with confusion’ (Pa. 87:16). And again,  ‘It is good for me that You have humbled me, that I may learn Your commandments’ (Ps. 118[119]:71,73).“
  8. Stay within the boundaries of the organization and role: “The eighth degree of humility is that a monk do nothing except what is commended by the common Rule of the monastery and the example of the elders.”
  9. Control one’s tongue: “The ninth degree of humility is that a monk restrain his tongue and keep silence, not speaking until he is questioned. For the Scripture shows that ‘in much speaking there is no escape from sin‘ (Prov. 10:19) and that ‘the talkative man is not stable on the earth’ (Ps. 13[14]9:12).”
  10. Avoid frivolity: “The tenth degree of humility is that he be not ready and quick to laugh, for it is written, ‘The fool lifts up his voice in laughter’ (Eccles. 21:23).”
  11. Speak clearly and plainly: “The eleventh degree of humility is that when a monk speaks he do so gently and without laughter, humbly and seriously, in few and sensible words, and that he be not noisy in his speech. It is written, ‘A wise man is known by the fewness of his words’ (Sextus, Enchidirion, 134 or 145).” 
  12. Adopt a humble posture: “The twelfth degree of humility is that a monk not only have humility in his heart but also by his very appearance make it always manifest to those who see him. That is to say that whether he is at the Work of God, in the oratory, in the monastery, in the garden, on the road, in the fields or anywhere else, and whether sitting, walking or standing, he should always have his head bowed and his eyes toward the ground.”

It is important to note that Benedict’s steps start with the heart and ends with a posture that communicates humility. His twelve steps describe a process of personal conversion that leads from interior motive to outward behavior (from axiology to praxis). Benedict makes it clear that leadership conversion starts with having the fear of God. 

What would Benedict’s twelve steps of humility look like if it was written today? Could the steps be adapted to contemporary organizational leadership? Craig and Oliver Galbraith[xviii], a father and son management authoring team, wrote an insightful little book on the management principles within the Rule of Benedict (2004), entitled; “The Benedictine Rule of Leadership: Classic Management secrets you can use today”. Galbraith and Galbraith translated the rules’ twelve steps of humility in the following way[xix]: 

  1. Revere the simple rules: Humble leaders strive to obey and follow the basic rules of courtesy and the organization. They model good behavior to those around them.
  2. Reject your personal desires: Humble leaders curb their own desires for fame and achievement, ever aware of the possibilities of pride and arrogance.
  3. Obey others: Humble leaders readily follow and obey those placed over them in positions of authority.
  4. Endure affliction: Humble leaders willingly “turn the other cheek” in situations of conflict and work towards peace and harmony.
  5. Confess your weaknesses: Humble leaders are honest and transparent about their own limitations and weaknesses. They communicate these regularly to those that follow them.
  6. Practice contentment: Humble leaders try to be content in their current positions, jobs and general situation in life.
  7. Learn self reproach: Humble leaders adopt the disciplines of internal reflection and do not seek to place the blame on others.
  8. Obey the common rule: Humble leaders obey all the organizational rules, not just in letter, but also in spirit
  9. Understand that silence is golden: Humble leaders control their speech and adopt plain and clear avenues of communication.
  10. Meditate on humility: Humble leaders consciously seek to cultivate humility and seek to understand what this means in an organizational setting.
  11. Speak simply: Humble leaders talk in a low voice, speak gently, and with kindness to everyone in the organization.
  12. Act humbly in appearance: Humble leaders act humble in appearance as well as in the heart.

Galbraith and Galbraith’s work on the Rule of Benedict is a helpful popular-press guide on how to incorporate the values of Western Christian Monastic witness in attempts to lead from a virtues-based organizational philosophy. This has been a growing trend within the domains of organizational discourse. Many contemporary authors[xx] and scholars[xxi] continue to explore how ancient spiritual wisdom can benefit those organizational leaders who desire to make sense of their journey and purpose in this world.

Organizational Leadership and Humility

Two recent Organizational Leadership studies[xxii], following up from the work of Collins[xxiii] on humility, revisit the ideal of leadership humility and the possible formational processes that lead up to it.  Both these studies confirm Benedict’s original concepts of a process description of organizational humility without making direct mention of the Rule. Vera and Rodriquez-Lopez’s[xxiv] 2004 study defines leadership humility as a “competitive advantage” and proposes five strategic practices that could promote organizational humility:

  1. Exemplary leadership models humble behaviors to followers.
  2. The explicit inclusion of humility as an element of the organization’s strategy and culture.
  3. Hiring practices that look at the individuals’ humility or their intent to improve it.
  4. Promotion practices that reward humility.
  5. Public rejection of arrogant or overconfident behaviors.

Vera and Rodriquez-Lopez propose that this kind of organizational humility becomes a “critical strength” for those possessing it and a “dangerous weakness” for those falling short of it.  Another study[xxv], the following year (2005), seeks to define the antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Morris, Brotheridge and Urbanski’s work convincingly argues that narcissism; Machiavellianistic approaches to leadership, low selfesteem and defensively high self-esteem negatively predict leadership humility. 

In contrast, a compelling case is made that reality-based feedback, religious conversion and humble mentors could all contribute to leaders that are humble.  The major contribution of the Morris, Brotheridge and Urbanski paper is the consequences of leadership humility that it describes in an erudite and persuasive manner. According to this study[xxvi], leadership humility positively predicts the following organizational behaviors:

  1. Leader humility predicts supportiveness towards others.
  2. Leader humility predicts a socialized power motivation.
  3. Leader humility predicts participative leadership.

Humility, it seems, is no longer receiving the bad press it used to get in organizational leadership discourse. But, the question on how this kind leadership conversion occurs still escapes those writing and thinking about it. This is where Benedict and his rule become helpful. For Benedict, true conversion to humility starts and ends with God[xxvii]:

“The first degree of humility, then, is that a person keeps the fear of God before his eyes and beware of ever forgetting it. Let him be ever mindful of all that God has commanded; let his thoughts constantly recur to the hell-fire which will burn for their sins those who despise God, and to the life everlasting which is prepared for those who fear Him.” 

Leading with the Head Bowed Down

The leadership wisdom of Benedict of Nursia lies in his insistence that all development in virtue starts with the source of true virtue, God. Organizational leaders can transform their leadership style and mode from narcissistic self-interest to humble and empowering participative leadership if the quest for formation starts with God and it follows the natural progression that authentic devotion to His will and purposes brings. Leaders that have integrated their virtuous value of humility with their public actions, lead with their “heads bowed down[xxviii]” in an aesthetic pedagogical manner33 that leads to organizational conversion and transformation. Benedict, in the second last chapter of his rule (72), says it best. This kind of leadership brings us all together to a life that is better and ultimately everlasting:

“Just as there is an evil zeal of bitterness which separates from God and leads to hell, so there is a good zeal which separates from vices and leads to God and to life everlasting. This zeal, therefore, the brothers should practice with the most fervent love. Thus they should anticipate one another in honor (Romans 12:10); most patiently endure one another’s infirmities, whether of body or of character; vie in paying obedience one to another — no one following what he considers useful for himself, but rather what benefits another — ; tender the charity of brotherhood chastely; fear God in love; love their Abbott with a sincere and humble charity; prefer nothing whatever to Christ. And may He bring us all together to life everlasting![xxix]” 

About the Author

Dr. Corné Bekker joined Regent University in 2005. He previously served as the assistant dean of Rhema Bible College in Johannesburg, South Africa and is now an associate professor for the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Dr. Bekker teaches in the doctoral programs of the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship and is actively involved in research on the use of biblical hermeneutics and spirituality to explore leadership. Email: clbekker@regent.edu.

Bibliography:

Butcher, Carmen Acevedo. 2006. Man of Blessing: A Life of St. Benedict. Brewster: Paraclete Press.

Bonomo, Carol. 2004. Don’t quit your Day Job: A Sixth-Century Saint can teach you a thing or two about

work in the 21st Century. U.S. Catholic, 69, No. 9: 50.

Cheline, Paschal G. 2003. Christian Leadership: A Benedictine Perspective. American Theological Library Association Summary of Proceedings 57:107-113.

Collins, Jim. 2001. Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review, January: 66-76.

Dickson, John P. and Rosner, Brian S. 2004. Humility as a Social Virtue in the Hebrew Bible? Vetus Testamentum LIV,4:459-479.

Elsberg, Robert. 2003. The Saints Guide to Happiness. New York: North Point Press.

Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books.

Galbraith, Craig S. and Galbraith, Oliver. 2004. The Benedictine Rule of Leadership: Classic Management Secrets You can use Today. Avon:  Adams Media. 

Graceffo, Mark 2005. Somebody’s knocking at my Door. U.S. Catholic, 70, No. 3: 47.

Hendrickson, Mary Lynn. 2008. St. Ben’s Excellent Adventure. U.S. Catholic, 73, No. 6: 49.

Mitchell, Nathan D. 2008. Liturgy and Life: Lessons in Benedict. Worship 82/2:161-174.

Morris, J. Andrew, Brotheridge, Céleste M., and Urbanski, John C. 2005. Bringing humility to leadership:

Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58/10: 1323-1350.

Munzer, Stephen R. 1999. Beggars of God: the Christian ideal of Mendicancy. Journal of Religious Ethics 27/2:305-330.

Raverty, Aaron. 2006. Are we Monks, or are we Men? The Monastic Masculine Gender Model according to

the Rule of Benedict. The Journal of Men‟s Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3: 269-291.

Schmitt, Miriam. 2001. Benedictine Spirituality. Liturgical Ministry, Fall 2001:198-200.

Taylor, Barbara Brown. 2005. The Evils of Pride and Self-Righteousness. The Living Pulpit, October-December 2005:5.

Vera, Dusya and Rodriguez-Lopez, Antonio. 2004. Strategic Virtues: Humility as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 4: 393-408.

Waaijman, Kees. 2002. Spirituality: Forms, Foundations, Methods. Leuven: Peeters.

Zaleski, Carol. 2006. The Lowly Virtue. Christian Century, May 16, 2006:33.

[i] Taylor, Barbara Brown. 2005. The Evils of Pride and Self-Righteousness. The Living Pulpit, October-December 2005:5.

[ii] Morris, J. Andrew, Brotheridge, Céleste M., and Urbanski, John C. 2005. Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58/10: 1323-1350.

[iii] See Dickson, John P. and Rosner, Brian S. 2004. Humility as a Social Virtue in the Hebrew Bible? Vetus Testamentum LIV,4:459-479; and Elsberg, Robert. 2003. The Saints’ Guide to Happiness. New York: North Point Press.

[iv] Collins, Jim. 2001. Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review, January: 66-76.

[v] Collins, Jim. 2001. Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review, January: 66-76.

[vi] Cheline, Paschal G. 2003. Christian Leadership: A Benedictine Perspective. American Theological Library Association Summary of Proceedings 57:107-113. 7 Waaijman, Kees. 2002. Spirituality: Forms, Foundations, Methods. Leuven: Peeters.

[vii] Mitchell, Nathan D. 2008. Liturgy and Life: Lessons in Benedict. Worship 82/2:161-174.

[viii] Butcher, Carmen Acevedo. 2006. Man of Blessing: A Life of St. Benedict. Brewster: Paraclete Press.

[ix] Cheline, Paschal G. 2003. Christian Leadership: A Benedictine Perspective. American Theological Library Association Summary of Proceedings 57:107-113.

[x] Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books.

[xi] Cheline, Paschal G. 2003. Christian Leadership: A Benedictine Perspective. American Theological Library Association Summary of Proceedings 57:107-113. 13 Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books. Prologue.

[xii] Cheline, Paschal G. 2003. Christian Leadership: A Benedictine Perspective. American Theological Library Association Summary of Proceedings 57:107-113. 15 Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books. Chapter 7.

[xiii] Schmitt, Miriam. 2001. Benedictine Spirituality. Liturgical Ministry, Fall 2001:198-200.

[xiv] Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books. Chapter 58.7.

[xv] Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books. Chapter 58.7.

[xvi] Schmitt, Miriam. 2001. Benedictine Spirituality. Liturgical Ministry, Fall 2001:198-200.

[xvii] Cheline, Paschal G. 2003. Christian Leadership: A Benedictine Perspective. American Theological Library Association Summary of Proceedings 57:107-113. 21 Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books. Chapter 7.

[xviii] Galbraith, Craig S. and Galbraith, Oliver. 2004. The Benedictine Rule of Leadership: Classic Management Secrets You can use Today. Avon:  Adams Media. 

[xix] Galbraith, Craig S. and Galbraith, Oliver. 2004. The Benedictine Rule of Leadership: Classic Management Secrets You can use Today. Avon:  Adams Media. 

[xx] See Bonomo, Carol. 2004. Don’t quit your Day Job: A Sixth-Century Saint can teach you a thing or two about work in the 21st Century. U.S. Catholic, 69, No. 9: 50; 

Graceffo, Mark 2005. Somebody’s knocking at my Door. U.S. Catholic, 70, No. 3: 47; and  Hendrickson, Mary Lynn. 2008. St. Ben’s Excellent Adventure. U.S. Catholic, 73, No. 6: 49.

[xxi] See Morris, J. Andrew, Brotheridge, Céleste M., and Urbanski, John C. 2005. Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58/10: 1323-1350; Munzer, Stephen R. 1999. Beggars of God: the Christian ideal of Mendicancy. Journal of Religious Ethics 27/2:305-330; Raverty, Aaron. 2006. Are we Monks, or are we Men? The Monastic masculine Gender Model according to the Rule of Benedict. The Journal of Men’s Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3: 269-291; and Vera, Dusya and Rodriguez-Lopez, Antonio. 2004. Strategic Virtues: Humility as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 4: 393-408.

[xxii] See Morris, J. Andrew, Brotheridge, Céleste M., and Urbanski, John C. 2005. Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58/10: 1323-1350; and Vera, Dusya and Rodriguez-Lopez, Antonio. 2004. Strategic Virtues: Humility as a Source of Competitive Advantage.

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 4: 393-408.

[xxiii] Collins, Jim. 2001. Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review, January: 66-76.

[xxiv] Vera, Dusya and Rodriguez-Lopez, Antonio. 2004. Strategic Virtues: Humility as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 4: 393-408.

[xxv] Morris, J. Andrew, Brotheridge, Céleste M., and Urbanski, John C. 2005. Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human

Relations, 58/10: 1323-1350.

[xxvi] Morris, J. Andrew, Brotheridge, Céleste M., and Urbanski, John C. 2005. Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58/10: 1323-1350.

[xxvii] Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books.

[xxviii] Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books. Chapter 7. 33 Zaleski, Carol. 2006. The Lowly Virtue. Christian Century, May 16, 2006:33.

[xxix] Fry, Timothy, ed. 1981. The Rule of Saint Benedict. New York: Vintage Books. Chapter 72.

About Regent

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university with more than 11,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University is ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 13 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2025).

About the School of Business & Leadership

The School of Business & Leadership is a Gold Winner – Best Business School and Best MBA Program by Coastal Virginia Magazine. The school also has earned a top-five ranking by U.S. News & World Report for its online MBA and online graduate business (non-MBA) programs. The school offers both online and on-campus degrees including Master of Business Administration, M.S. in Accounting (Tax or Financial Reporting & Assurance), M.S. in Business Analytics, M.A. in Organizational Leadership, Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, and Doctor of Strategic Leadership.

John 9: The Blind Man Transformed

This exploratory case study examines John 9 and the reaction of the blind man to both Jesus Christ and the Pharisees attempts at transformational leadership. Using socio-rhetorical criticism to examine the pericope revealed important themes. The blind man’s motivation and manner of the progression through the pericope provided evidence of Jesus Christ and the Pharisees’ leadership methods Jesus Christ fulfills Bass and Riggio’s four-component model of transformational leadership. The Pharisees are a closer match to pseudotransformational leadership.

I. INTRODUCTION

Biblical leadership studies provide many opportunities to look at the actions of Jesus Christ, a Prophet, or an Apostle in light of modern leadership theories For example, Cooper examined Paul’s transformational leadership (2005). Mabey, Conroy, Blakeley, and Marco (2017) focused on Christian ethical leadership, emphasizing the need for leaders to align their words and actions. These works and others show how scripture can help leaders deepen their understanding of leadership theory and practice.

This explanatory case study uses Bass and Riggio’s (2006) models of transformational and pseudotransformational leadership to examine Jesus Christ’s and the Pharisees’ actions in John 9. In the pericope, both Jesus Christ and the Pharisees attempted to influence a blind beggar over the same set of circumstances. Jesus Christ healed the blind man, while the Pharisees encouraged the blind man to reject his healer. The researcher seeks to determine if Jesus Christ exhibited transformational leadership in John 9 according to Bass and Riggio’s model. The researcher also seeks to determine if the Pharisees exhibited pseudotransformational leadership according to Bass and Riggio’s model.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

James MacGregor Burns introduced the concept of transformational leadership in 1978 (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass extended Burns’ work and further developed the concept and a way to measure a leader’s transformational characteristics. Bass and Riggio (2006) defined transformational leaders as those leaders who “stimulate and inspire followers to both achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity” (p. 3). Transformational leaders empower followers and align “the objectives and goals of the individual followers, the leader, the group, and the larger organization” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 3). Bass and Riggio (2006) described four characteristics of transformational leadership: (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration.

Idealized Influence

Transformational leaders are role models (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Their followers “respect, admire, and trust them” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6). A transformational leader’s followers identify with him or her and want to be like him or her (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass and Riggio (2006) identified two aspects of idealized influence: the behavior of the leader and the attributes followers perceive transformational leaders possess. Followers perceive transformational leaders as having “extraordinary capabilities, persistence and determination” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6).

Transformational leadership can be directive or participative, but in either case, the follower trusts the leader and the ultimate decision (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass and Riggio found transformational leaders take risks for subordinates and view tasks as “joint missions” for the leader and followers to accomplish together (p. 28).

Inspirational Motivation

Transformational leaders “motivate and inspire those around them by providing meaning and challenge to the followers’ work” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6). Inspirational motivation helps followers envision a desirable future state and provides followers with clear direction on how to achieve the shared vision (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass & Riggio (2006) noted transformational leaders display and engender optimism and enthusiasm. Transformational leaders help followers see their progress (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Inspirational motivation also includes thinking ahead and “creating self-fulfilling prophecies” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 28). Inspirational motivation leads to increased self-concept (Bass & Riggio, 2006). After they increased their self-concept, followers of transformational leaders grow to identify with the leader, individually and collectively (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Followers are then motivated by shared values and goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Finally, transformational leaders empower their “followers to perform beyond expectations” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 51).

Intellectual Stimulation

Intellectual stimulation involves allowing and encouraging subordinates to think creatively through challenging assumptions and reframing problems (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass and Riggio (2006) found followers’ trust in leaders to not publicly criticize them to be an essential aspect of intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders encourage followers to solicit problem solutions and do not reject followers’ ideas because they are different from the leader’s ideas (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Followers perceive intellectual stimulation when leaders question followers’ assumptions and ask them to reaccomplish tasks they failed at (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Individualized Consideration

Transformational leaders mentor and develop their followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006). They provide a supportive climate for followers to learn as they achieve “successively higher levels of potential” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 7). Individualized consideration also requires leaders to view each follower as an individual, with unique needs and personalize their interactions with the follower (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Delegation of appropriate tasks is another way leaders show individualized consideration. Leaders and followers also exchange ideas on how to accomplish the tasks and what support the follower needs (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Christ as a Transformational Leader

Bass and Riggio (2006) described idealized influence and inspirational motivation as components of charismatic leadership behaviors. Piovanelli (2005) defined Christ as a charismatic leader to those who ascribe “a prophet-like status” (p. 397). He noted Christ inspired devoted supporters with his invitation to follow him (see Matt 4:19). Piovanelli (2005) argued scholars should move past the idea of Christ as just a great charismatic leader, but look at him as a transformational leader.

Frayer (2007) used Kouzes and Posner’s model of transformational leadership to examine Christ’s leadership. Kouzes and Posner’s (2017) five practices share key concepts with Bass and Riggio’s (2006) four components of transformational leadership (see Table 1). Kouzes and Posner’s ten commitments identify behaviors transformational leaders perform (see Table 2). According to Frayer, Jesus Christ employed idealized influence via “profound integrity in word and deed” which established credibility in his message (p. 159). Christ challenged the process when he questioned his own followers’ assumptions, values, and ideals (Frayer, 2007). He forced them to consider the answers to questions they did not want the answers to (Frayer, 2007). Christ also challenged their idea of what the Messiah would do for the Israelites (Frayer, 2007). These challenged assumptions are part of intellectual stimulation. Christ created a new, shared destiny to motivate his followers (Frayer, 2007). This shared destiny provided them with the support they needed to achieve the new, shared vision (Frayer, 2007).

Table 1: Kouzes and Posner’s Five Practices Mapped to Bass and Riggio’s Four Components

Kouzes and Posner’s Five PracticesBass and Riggio’sFour Components
Model the WayIdealized Influence
Inspire a Shared VisionInspirational Motivation
Challenge the Process.Intellectual Stimulation
Enable others to Act Encourage the HeartIndividualized Consideration
Note. Adapted from The Leadership Challenge, by J. M. Kouzes and B. Z. Posner, 2017. Copyright 2017 by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner and Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.), by B. M. Bass and R. E. Riggio. Copyright 2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Table 2: Kouzes and Posner’s Five Practices and Associated Ten Commitments

Five PracticesTen Commitments
Model the Way Clarify values Set the example
Inspire a Shared Vision Envision the future Enlist others
Challenge the Process.Search for opportunities Experiment and take risks
Enable others to Act Foster collaboration Strengthen others
Encourage the HeartRecognize contributions Celebrate victories and values
Note. Adapted from The Leadership Challenge, by J. M. Kouzes and B. Z. Posner, 2017. Copyright 2017 by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner.

Pharisees as Transformational Leaders

Langbert and Friedman (2003) argued the head rabbi of the Sanhedrin, the Nasi, during the Greek and Roman rule exhibited transformational leadership. Langbert and Friedman (2003) drew on rabbinical tradition to show how each Nesi’im’s (the plural of Nasi) sayings and actions support the transformational leadership model proposed by Bass. While it is uncertain whether the Nesi’im were Pharisees or not, Langbert and Friedman’s (2003) thesis was the Nesi’im must have been transformational leaders to keep the Jewish people together as a cultural and spiritual body in the face of so much opposition.

Pseudotransformational Leadership

Burns believed transformational leadership must be morally uplifting (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass (1985) initially argued transformational leadership would work the same way whether the outcome was beneficial or harmful to the followers. Bass (1998) later accepted Burns’ argument that transformational leadership must be moral.

Charismatic leadership theory developed the concept of socialized and personalized leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Socialized leaders engage in “egalitarian behavior, serve collective interests and develop and empower others” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 13). Personalized leaders “rely … on manipulation, threat, and punishment” and “disregard the established institutional procedures and … the rights and feelings of others” (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Personalized leaders are impetuous, narcissistic and aggressive (Bass & Riggio, 2006). According to Bass & Riggio (2006), what separates personalized leaders from socialized leaders is “whether the leader works primarily toward personal gains as opposed to focusing on the outcomes for followers” (p. 13). Personalized transformational leaders are inauthentic transformational leaders or pseudotransformational leaders (Bass & Riggio, 2006). While they may produce transforming behavior, it is in their self-interest and not the followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The same components of idealized influence which create commitment and motivation can be used inauthentically to manipulate followers and produce dependence (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Bass and Riggio (2006) argued the distinguishing feature between authentic transformational leadership and pseudotransformational leadership is individualized concern for the follower. An authentic transformational leader is “truly concerned with the desires and needs of followers” (Bass & Riggio, 2006). A pseudotransformational leader treats followers as a means to an end (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership bases a large part of its influence on the attributes followers ascribe to the leader (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Lin, Huang, and Chen (2017) found a followers’ perception of a leader’s motivation determined whether followers perceived a leadership behavior as transformational or pseudotransformational. When followers perceived the leader as having manipulative intent they were more likely to perceive the leader’s actions as pseudotransformational (Lin, Huang, & Chen, 2017). Lin et al. also found when followers perceive a manipulative intent they have lower organizational identification and lower performance.

III. METHOD

This explanatory case study examines the application of Bass and Riggio’s (2006) transformational leadership model in John 9. Using Robbins (1996) socialrhetorical criticism (SRC) model, this paper focuses primarily on inner texture, as it reveals aspects of the text requiring further examination (Robbins, 1996). This paper then uses the other four SRC textures: (a) intertexture, (b) social and cultural texture, (c) ideological texture, and (d) scared texture as needed to identify elements relating to Bass and Riggio’s transformational leadership model. Applying this model to Jesus Christ’s and the Pharisees’ actions in the pericope allows the researcher to contrast their effects on the blind man and how those effects derive from authentic and pseudotransformational leadership. The researcher believes this pericope is well suited for this task as it contains an example of both Jesus Christ’s and the Pharisees’ attempts to influence the same subject.

IV. DATA

Inner Texture Analysis

John 9 tells the story of a man who was born blind being healed on the Sabbath day by Jesus Christ and the healing’s aftereffects. An inner texture analysis of the pericope identified multiple subtextures which guide further exploration in Robbins’ (2006) other SRC textures. All five of Robbins’ subtextures are examined to determine the pericope’s application to transformational and pseudotransformational leadership.

Opening-middle-closing texture and pattern. John 9 possess three major narrational units. The transition between the major narrational units coincides with Christ’s departure and subsequent return to the narrative. The opening unit, Christ taught his disciples and healed the blind man: John 9:1-7 (see Table 3), covered Christ’s teachings on the causation of a blind beggar’s blindness and his actions to restore the blind man’s sight. The departure of Christ from the pericope closed the narrational unit.

Table 3: John 9 Narrational Units and Subunits (King James Version)

Christ taught his disciples and healed the blind man. John 9:1-7

  1. And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
  2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
  3. Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
  4. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
  5. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
  6. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
  7. And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Discussion concerning the healing: John 9:8-34

Discussion of the manner of the blind man’s healing: John 9:8-15

  1. The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
  2. Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
  3. Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
  4. He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
  5. Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
  6. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
  7. And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
  8. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

Discussion on the propriety of and nature of the healing: John 9:16-23

  1. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
  2. They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
  3. But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
  4. And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
  5. His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
  6. But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
  7. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
  8. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

The healed man refuted the Pharisees: John 9:24-34

  1. Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
  2. He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
  3. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
  4. He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
  5. Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
  6. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
  7. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
  8. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
  9. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
  10. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
  11. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

Dialogue between Christ, the healed man and the Pharisees: John 9:35-41

  1. Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
  2. He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
  3. And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
  4. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
  5. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
  6. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
  7. Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

The middle unit, discussion concerning the healing: John 9:8-34 (see Table 3), is a series of three dialogues, also in an opening, middle, and closing texture. The middle unit, discussion of the manner of the blind man’s healing: John 9:8-15 (see Table 3), opened with the now healed man discussing the nature of his healing, first with his neighbors and then with the Pharisees. The middle portion, discussion on the propriety of and nature of the healing: John 9:16-23 (see Table 3), occurred as the Pharisees and others discussed amongst themselves and others the nature and propriety of the man’s healing. The Pharisees attempted to engage the healed man’s parents, who declined to become involved. The middle unit, the healed man refuted the Pharisees: John 9: 2434 (see Table 3), closed when the Pharisees reengaged the man and tried to persuade him to reject the miraculous nature of his healing and the goodness of the healer. After the Pharisees failed to persuade the man to reject Christ and therefore cast him out of the synagogue the middle section closed.

The closing unit, dialogue between Christ, the healed man, and the Pharisees: John 9:35-41, (see Table 3), reintroduced Christ into the pericope. Christ returned to complete the healing process by healing the man spiritually and the teaching process by declaring the false teachings of the Pharisees.

The opening-middle-closing subtexture highlighted two critical tasks for further examination. The first task is identifying the repetitive themes across the subsections of the pericope. According to Robbins (2006) examining repetitive portions of the text helps identify the author’s thematic construction. The second task is examining the man’s progressive healing, both in its physical and spiritual aspects. The blind man is the only character present in every narrational unit and subunit (see Table 3).Determining whether he changed due to his interactions with Christ and the Pharisees allows examining the effects of Christ and the Pharisees’ leadership behaviors.

Repetitive texture. Robbins (2006) defined progressive texture as the “occurrence of words and phrases more than once in a unit” (p. 8). Repetitive texture serves as a guide to reveal “overall rhetorical movements” provide the “overarching view” which “invites the interpreter to move yet closer to the details of the text” (p. 8). Two repetitive texture patterns relevant to transformational leadership exist in the periscope.

The pericope repeated the actions of three central individuals or groups, Christ, the blind man, and the Pharisees. Christ appeared as the main subject in the opening and closing section. He was the instrument of healing the blind man and one of two characters who teach. The blind man was the only character who appeared in all three sections. He progressed from blind beggar to follower of Christ. The Pharisees appeared in the middle and closing sections. In the middle section, they served as arbiters of Mosaic and Talmudic law, and in the closing section as an example for Christ to juxtapose physical and spiritual blindness. The significance of the repetition requires further analysis.

Sinning also forms a reoccurring theme. The blind man, his parents, Jesus, and the Pharisees are accused of being sinners (see Table 4). Christ absolved the man and his parents of being sinners (v. 3). Christ sinning is incompatible with Christianity (see 1 Pet. 2:22, 2 Cor. 5:21, and Heb. 4:15). Christ called the Pharisees sinners (v. 41). The repetition of the theme highlighted Christ’s assertion the Pharisees were sinners due to spiritual blindness.

Table 4: Theme of sinning

VersePotential Sinner
2.WhoSinnedthe man or parents
3.NeitherSinnedthe man or parents
24.This manis aSinner(Christ)
25.Heis asinner or not(Christ)
34.Thouwas bornin sin(blind man)
41.Yoursin remaineth(Pharisees)

Progressive texture. The subjects identified in the repetition subtexture have different progression patterns throughout the pericope. Christ progressed others through the narrative. The man progressed in his acknowledgment and understanding of Christ. The Pharisees failed to help others progress while experiencing the same facts as the blind man.

Christ’s words and actions in the pericope followed an ABBA pattern. Christ opened the narrative by teaching his disciples about the nature of physical blindness. Then he physically healed the blind man and departed. After the blind man progressed through a series of dialogues, Christ returned to heal the blind man spiritually. The pericope closed with Christ teaching the Pharisees about spiritual blindness. The completion of the pattern highlighted how Christ individually addressed physical and spiritual suffering.

The blind man progressed in his knowledge of Christ (see Table 5). This progression reflected an increasing understanding of Jesus Christ and his divine role. Muderhwa (2012) wrote “elementary belief, before it becomes authentic, has to grow, or mature, in order to reach the decisive recognition of the identity of Christ. It is this route which the blind man follows” (p. 3). The recognition of identity culminated in verses 27 and 28 when the man asks the Pharisees if they “will…also be his disciples.” This suggests the man committed to becoming Christ’s disciple over the course of the pericope. The Pharisees’ declaration in verse 28 that the man is now “his disciple” supports this suggestion. As the man repeatedly recounted his story, he progressively increased his understanding of Christ’s true nature. At the end of the narrative, the blind man acknowledged Jesus Christ as the Son of God and worshiped him.

Table 5: Blind man’s progression in acknowledgment of Christ

VerseBlind man’s description of Jesus
11.A man called Jesus
17a.He is a prophet
17b.Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not
27.will ye, also be his disciples
36.Who is he (the Son of God) that I might believe on him?
38.Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

The Pharisees experienced the same underlying facts as the blind man but were not transformed. In verse 16, after they determined how the blind man received his sight they declared Jesus “is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day.” After questioning the man on his assessment of Christ, see Table 3, the Pharisees directed the man to praise God because Christ is a sinner (v. 24). After the man’s parents established his blindness from birth, the Pharisees acknowledged the man could see, but they rejected the manner of his healing.

Argumentative texture and pattern. John 9 contained two arguments which display the characteristics Robbins (2006) identifies in a complete Mediterranean argument. These two arguments reveal how the Pharisees and Christ applied or failed to apply the transformational leadership components.

The first argument was the Pharisees assertion that Christ’s actions were unrighteous. The structure of the argument follows.

Major premise 1Sabbath-breakers are sinners
Minor premise 1 Making clay (kneading) is forbidden on the Sabbath (Bultmann as cited in Frayer-Griggs, 2013). Jesus Christ made clay on the Sabbath.
Conclusion 1Jesus Christ is a sinner
Major premise 2Sinners cannot do truly good works
Minor premise 2Jesus is a sinner
Conclusion 2Jesus cannot do truly good works

In John 9, the Pharisees argued a sinner cannot be a man of God or do truly good works (vv. 16, 24, & 29). Since Pharaoh’s magicians duplicated some of Aaron’s feats, a tradition existed that unrighteous people could duplicate the works of God (see Ex 7:1-12, 20-22, and 8: 6-7). Some Pharisees believed Jesus’s actions constituted a Sabbath violation. Other Pharisees questioned, “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” (v. 16). Ultimately the Pharisees concluded Jesus Christ was a sinner who could not do good works (vv. 16, 24, & 29).

The Pharisees’ second argument was the blind man was also a sinner. Their argument follows.

Unstated major premiseMisfortune only comes as punishment for sin
Minor premiseThe man is blind
ConclusionThe man or his ancestors sinned

The Pharisees asserted during their argument with the man regarding the nature of his healing that he “was born in sin” (v. 34). The argument’s thesis is the man’s blindness resulted from “divine” judgment as punishment for a sin (Tite, 1996, p. 85). Restated in general terms, the Pharisees’ argument is bad things only happen as a result of sin.

Inter-texture Analysis

Oral-scribal intertexture. The narrative’s use of oral-scribal intertexture demonstrated how Christ and the blind man challenged assumptions. Christ rejected the Pharisees and his disciples’ assumptions about the nature of the man’s blindness. Later in the pericope, after undergoing his transformation, the man also asserted a response questioning the Pharisees notion of sin. Challenging assumptions is part of intellectual stimulation (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Jesus said in John 9:5 “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” This verse recontextualized a phrase he used twice before. In the Sermon on the Mount, he said, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). In John 8:12 he said: “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” The recontextualization emphasized Christ’s role as the perfect example for his followers. In declaring himself the light, he directed his followers to “identify with [him and] emulate” him (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6).

The healed man told the Pharisees “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth” (v. 31). His statement reconfigured two Old Testament passages regarding God’s willingness to listen to the pleas of sinners. Psalm 66:18 reads “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” Proverbs 15:29 states “The Lord is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.” These reconfigurations demonstrated the man gained the ability to see beyond his experience as a blind beggar.

Cultural intertexture. The blind man in this pericope started the narrative as a beggar (v. 8). While not all ancient blind persons were low status, begging indicated the man was a low-status individual (Opatrny, 2010). Both Jesus’ disciples (v. 2) and the Pharisees (v. 34) regarded the blind man’s blindness as a result of sin. This idea likely resulted from Old Testament writings identifying blindness as a punishment from God (Sorsby, 2008). Without property or skill to counteract this cultural assertion his ostracization was assured.

The pericope contained several echoes to other scripture regarding the nature of spittle. The Bible generally presented spittle in a negative regard (see Num. 12:14, Job 30:10, and Isaiah 50:6). Cook (1992) however, noted contemporary culture viewed saliva as possessing “curative powers” (p. 245). In this pericope, Christ used spittle to make clay and heal the blind man. Christ also used spittle to heal the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26) and the deaf-mute (Mark 7:32-37). These positive uses are echoed in other Bible uses where spittle shows contempt or an attempt to defile, particularly as rabbinical writings always identify spittle as in impure instrument (see Matt. 26:67, Mark 16:45, and Luke 18:32; Cook, 1992). Christ’s use of a popular instrument of healing instead of a rabbinically blessed healing instrument identifies him with the popular culture (Cook, 1992).

Social Intertexture

Casting people out of the synagogue. Biblical Judaism’s leading social institution was the synagogue. Schechter and Greenstone (1906) wrote casting someone out of the synagogue “meant a practical prohibition on all intercourse with society” (para. 1). The punishment for “confess[ing] Christ” was being cast out of the synagogue. The implicit threat to the man’s parents deterred them from accepting their son’s healing (vv. 22-23). Christ explained, “neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents” demonstrating intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration for the blind man and his parents. The Pharisees made the same threat explicit when they cast the man out of the synagogue for confessing Christ (v. 34). When he was blind, the man was dehumanized and reduced to begging. Casting him out of the synagogue for believing the man who healed him was a restatement of his dehumanization (Cook, 1992).

Role of the Pharisees in Biblical Judaism. The Pharisees in pre-70 BCE were laity who desired to bring the temple’s ritual purity into everyday life (de Lacey, 1992). They believed secular meals should be consumed in the same state of ritual purity that a priest would eat a consecrated meal in the temple. Pharisees did this because they believed they were the “heart of the ‘kingdom of priests’ (Ex. 19:6) which was Israel” (de Lacey, 1992, p. 360). The Pharisees believed their ritual purity entitled them to be viewed as privileged, holy people worthy of honor and esteem from others (Malina & Rohrbaugh, 1998). De Lacey (1992) argued the “the pharisaic raison d’être is a striving toward the highest holiness, as epitomized in the priestly service and expressed in the regulations of the Torah concerning purity” (p. 354).

Striving for ritual purity, the Pharisees possessed a secure, self-contained social identity which reinforced their social role as keepers of the Talmudic traditions. As a group of zealous Jews, they viewed their primary concern as maintaining the Mosaic’s law’s oral traditions and ritual purity (de Lacey, 1992; Taylor, 2000). The Jews viewed the Pharisees as “exemplars of wholesome living, of holiness, righteousness, compassion, and loving-kindness, preaching not only faithful adherence to the Torah’s injunctions but even pious imitation of God” (Taylor, 2000, p. 446). Therefore, it is understandable the man’s neighbors went to the Pharisees to help them make sense of the man’s healing. Based on the Torah and rabbinical traditions the Pharisees could determine the true nature of the man’s healing.

Social and Cultural Texture Analysis

Thaumaturgical response. The blind man experienced thaumaturgical healing twice in the pericope. First, Jesus restored his physical sight (vv. 6-7). Then, Jesus spiritually healed him (vv. 35-38). The physical healing of the man’s blindness sparked his increased understanding of Christ’s true nature. This increased understanding led the man to declare his desire to follow Jesus (vv. 27 & 35-38). His discipleship led to being cast out of the synagogue and socially ostracized (Schechter & Greenstone, 1906; Muderhwa, 2012). Once the formerly blind man was cast out, Christ revealed himself to the man and healed him spiritually (v. 37).

Common social and cultural topics. Robbins (1996) identified several underlying cultural assumptions present in the biblical culture which are not present in modern western culture. Robbins argued modern readers must understand and account for these cultural assumptions to avoid an “ethnocentric and anachronistic interpretation” of scripture (p. 75).

In verse 37, the formerly blind man challenged the Pharisees regarding their intent to become Christ’s disciples. His use of μή θέλω (mē thelō) implies he expected a negative response from the Pharisees (Malina & Rohrbaugh, 1998). This question was, therefore, a “sharp honor challenge” (Malina & Rohrbaugh, 1998). The Pharisees would not accept an honor challenge from a beggar and therefore they “reviled” him (v. 28). Muderhwa (2012) argued the Pharisees were “acting in their judicial capacity identify themselves as ‘disciples of Moses’ to whom God spoke. They do not reveal the slightest interest in becoming disciples of ‘that fellow’” (Muderhwa, 2012, p. 4). The Pharisees response suggested they considered the healed blind man unworthy of direct response (Malina & Rohrbaugh, 1998).

The Pharisees viewed themselves as keeper of both the Torah law and the rabbinical traditions. They believed the traditional rabbinical interpretation of the Torah was equal in weight to the actual text (de Silva, 2004). The Israelites had Levites to execute the priesthood offices, but needed interpreters of the Torah and rabbinical traditions to guide their daily activities under the Mosaic law. As keepers and interpreters of rabbinical tradition, this placed the Israelites in a patron-client relationship with the Pharisees. The Pharisees had the power to determine an action’s acceptability, granting them power over the Israelites. The Pharisees could call witnesses (vv. 18-21) and issue punishment (vv. 22 & 34). However:

Jesus offered an alternative means to religious fulfillment that was more sympathetic to the culture and socio-economic circumstances of the peasant societies amongst whom he taught, people for whom maintaining a constant state of ritual purity as though they were in the Temple was economically impracticable. (Taylor, 2000, p. 302).

Christ threatened the Pharisees’ self-defined role of the Israelites’ patron on religious matters. Accepting Christ as the Messiah, or even a religious leader weakened the Pharisees’ power. The threat to the Pharisees’ power caused them to threaten Christ’s followers with being cast out of the synagogue (v. 22).

Ideological Texture Analysis

According to Robbins (1996) determining John’s intended audience allows exegetes to understand the pericope’s place with early Christian era writings and understand his intended message. Tite (1996) noted the early Christians considered themselves Jews and had concerns about what would happen if they were expelled from the synagogue like the blind man. John’s use of Christ spiritually healing the blind man after his expulsion was part of John’s attempt to redefine the early Christians’ “religious and cultural identity” (Tite, 1996, p. 81). John used the blind man’s experience of discovering Christ as the new Moses to support his position in the contemporary debate over the role of the Judaic past in the Christian future (Tite, 1996). John’s account was intended to reassure his contemporaries their choice of faith in Christ was worth the sacrifice (Tite, 1996).

Sacred Texture Analysis

The search for the divine and divine influence is at the heart of the pericope. The great debate in the middle portion of the narrative concerns the nature of the man’s healing. If Christ acted as an agent of God, he did not violate the Sabbath and it was a truly good work. If Christ was a sinner the work was a counterfeit act meant to deceive humankind into following a false leader.

Human redemption. The blind man is physically redeemed from blindness by Jesus Christ (vv. 6-7). The physical healing is a manifestation of the divine power to heal. The man and the Pharisees agreed the healing came from God (vv. 24 & 33). However, they disagree on if Jesus Christ is an agent of the divine redemption of the blind man. After the man is dehumanized by the Pharisees and cast out, Christ acted to redeem him from ostracization(Cook, 1992).

Human commitment. In John 9 the Pharisees and the man each committed to following a person whom they viewed as reflecting the divine. In verse 28-29 the Pharisees asserted their Mosaic discipleship. Harstine, as cited in Muderhwa (2012) wrote Moses became “a legendary figure or the religious authority who gave the law to Israel and who mediates between God and Israel” (p. 4). The Pharisees grounded their commitment in Moses, which was the source of their resistance to Jesus (Muderhwa, 2012). The healed blind man grounded his commitment in Jesus Christ.

V. RESULTS

Christ as an Authentic Transformational Leader

Using Robbins’ (1996) ideological texture uncovered John’s intended audience as his contemporaries (Tite, 1996). Tite (1996) identified an early debate among the Christians concerning the role of the Mosaic law. This same debate permeated the writings of Paul. Painter (1986) proposed one of John’s primary goals with the pericope was to show a miracle wrought by Christ. Because many early Christians lived in the community of Jews as secret believers, the believers had concerns about the consequences of their belief being made public (Painter, 1986). John’s inclusion of this account may be an attempt by him to show belief in Christ can overcome those consequences.

The reconfiguration of spittle shows Christ used intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration towards the blind man. The dichotomy between an object’s use as a healing instrument or an instrument of derision contrasts how similar behaviors can be transformational or pseudotransformational based on the leader’s intent (Bass and Riggio, 2006).

Idealized influence. Immediately before healing the blind man, Christ asserted he was the “light of the world” (v. 5). This assertion began Jesus’ argument his behavior should be emulated. Transformational leaders “do the right thing” and demonstrate “high standards of ethical and moral conduct” (Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 6). Over the series of dialogues in the middle texture, the man accepted the idealized influence of Christ by becoming his disciple (v. 27). This acceptance began, not when Christ healed the blind man, but when Christ did not judge him as others did (v. 3). Christ’s acceptance started the man’s transformation.

Inspirational motivation. The blind man’s growth through the series of dialogues demonstrated an increased self-concept as a disciple of Jesus Christ (v. 27). This increased self-concept allowed him to reduce the power distance between himself and the Pharisees and critique their actions. The man progressed through inspirational motivation, ultimately performing beyond expectations, in debating scripture with the Pharisees and refusing to be cowed by them.

Intellectual stimulation. Table 4 shows how Christ challenged the prevalent cultural belief of blindness being a punishment for sin. When the disciples first encountered the blind man, their only concern was determining who had sinned, the man or his parents (v. 2). Sorsby (2008) noted this supposition is consistent with contemporary cultural belief and supported by the Old Testament. However, Christ challenged this assumption and declared the man’s blindness occurred to enable God to manifest his works. Bass and Riggio (1996) noted followers perceive intellectual stimulation when leaders challenge their beliefs.

The man also demonstrated the results of intellectual stimulation when he debated with the Pharisees. He reconfigured Old Testament scripture, showing how God only hears the righteous to refute the Pharisees’ assertions of Christ’s sinful nature.

Individualized consideration. The pericope opened with Jesus Christ observing a blind beggar (v. 1). This observation resulted in Christ initialing the contact. This contrasted with other examples of persons with physical ailments seeking Christ out (for example Matt. 9: 20-22 and Luke 17:12-19). Christ identified the greater need within him, rather than supporting his begging. However, Bass and Riggio (2006) argued true individualized concern is a result of mutual identification of the follower’s needs. This occurs in verses 35-38. After being cast out, the blind man identified his need to believe “on the Son of God” (vv. 35-36). Christ met that need by revealing his true nature to the man (v. 37). Leadership is ultimately an emotional process (Bass & Riggio, 2006). By showing individualized consideration, Christ invoked an emotional process to build relationships with his followers.

The Pharisees as Pseudotransformational Leaders

The Pharisees’ role as leaders in Biblical times depended on two factors: (a) control over the interpretation of the Talmud and rabbinical tradition, and (b) the ability to enforce punishment on unorthodox views (De Lacey, 1992). This rooted their power, not in follower development, but follower control. Pseudotransformational leaders focus on control and compliance of their followers (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Bass and Riggio (2006) described pseudotransformational leaders as “tyrants [who] emphasize compliance…and identification” (p. 41). They perceived the man as their client and directed him to deny the experiences he had (see vv. 24 & 29). Pseudotransformational leaders strive to maintain status roles (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The Pharisees motivation to reject Christ came from their need for power and inability to accept concepts inconsistent with their interpretation of the Mosaic law. The Pharisees response towards the man typified pseudotransformational leadership.

A transformational leader would have displayed individualized consideration and addressed the needs of the blind man as a marginalized member of society (Bass and Riggio, 2006). As pseudotransformational leaders, the Pharisees needed the man’s low, presumably sinful status, as a contrast to their high, righteous status (Bass and Riggio, 2006). The Pharisees demonstrated personalized pseudotransformational leadership with regards to the newly healed man’s status. Pseudotransformational leaders are transactional; when the promised reward is insufficient followers will rebel against their leadership (Bass and Riggio, 2006). During his confrontation with the Pharisees, the man determined the reward for complying with the Pharisees’ edicts was less critical than following the man who gave him sight (see vv. 30-34). However, the Pharisees used pseudotransformational transactional leadership behavior to coerce the man’s parents to reject the miraculous healing their son experienced.

VI. DISCUSSION

Jesus Christ demonstrated the use of all four components of transformational leadership. The pericope also showed transformational leaderships theorized responses. Idealized influence led to the man declaring himself Christ’s follower. Inspirational motivation increased the man’s self-concept. Intellectual stimulation helped the man cast off any potential self-doubt on the nature of his blindness. Christ demonstrated individualized concern first, by healing his physical blindness rather than giving him money. Second, Christ returned to ensure the man could be sure of his choice and healed him spiritually.

The Pharisees in the pericope used fear as their primary motivational tool. The Pharisees possessed the implied ability to exclude their followers from society for expressing alternative ideas. Bass and Riggio (2006) argued a key tenant of intellectual stimulation is not publicly criticizing followers’ mistakes. The Pharisees reviled the blind man’s beliefs and felt him unworthy of a response (Malina & Rohrbauch, 1998). Ultimately the Pharisees’ coercive motivation was insufficient to keep the blind man as a follower. He rejected the Pharisees’ pseudotransformational leadership for Jesus Christ’s transformational leadership.

VII. CONCLUSION

Christ acted as a transformational leader in John 9. The Pharisees acted as pseudotransformational leaders. Future research should examine the ability to generalize these statements across all the sacred texts. In addition, demonstrating Christ lived the behaviors modern scholars identify with transformational leadership, allows Christians to argue scriptural compatibility with transformational leadership. This allows Christian leaders to incorporate transformational leadership behaviors in their leadership repertoire.

About the Author

Matthew Thrift is a doctoral student in Regent University’s Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership program. Prior to graduating college, he served for two years as a missionary in Taiwan. He holds degrees in electrical engineering and aviation. His primary research interest is leadership in high-turnover organizations.

Email: mbthrift@yahoo.com

VIII. REFERENCES

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. Ciulla (Ed.) Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp. 162-192). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Cook, G. (1992). Seeing, judging and acting: Evangelism in Jesus’ way according to John 9. Evangelical Review of Theology, 16(3), 251-261.

Cooper, M. (2005). The transformational leadership of the apostle Paul: A contextual and biblical leadership for contemporary ministry. Christian Education Journal, 2(1), 48-61. doi:2048/10.1177/073989130500200103

De Lacey, D. R., (1992). In search of a Pharisee. Tyndale Bulletin, 43(2), 353-372.

De Silva, D. A. (2004). An introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, methods & ministry formation. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

Fryar, J. L. (2007). Jesus as leader in Mark’s gospel: Reflecting on the place of transformational leadership in developing leaders of leaders in the church today. Lutheran Theological Journal, 41(3), 157.

Frayer-Griggs, D. (2013). Spittle, clay, and creation in John 9:6 and some Dead Sea scrolls. Journal of Biblical Literature, 132(3), 659-670.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (6th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Lin, C., Huang, P., Chen, S., & Huang, L. (2017). Pseudo-transformational leadership is in the eyes of the subordinates. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 179. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2739-5

Mabey, C., Conroy, M., Blakeley, K., & Marco, S. (2017). Having burned the straw man of Christian spiritual leadership, what can we learn from Jesus about leading ethically? Journal of Business Ethics, 145(4), 757-769. doi:10.1007/s10551-0163054-5

Malina, B. J. & Rohrbaugh, R. L. (1998). Social-science commentary on the gospel of John. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Muderhwa, B. V. (2012). The blind man of John 9 as a paradigmatic figure of the disciple in the fourth gospel. Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 68(1), 1-10.

Opatrny, D. (2010). The figure of the blind man in the light of papyrological evidence. Biblica, 91(4), 583-594.

Painter, J. (1986). John 9 and the interpretation of the fourth gospel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 28, 31-61.

Piovanelli, P. (2005). Jesus’ Charismatic Authority: On the Historical Applicability of a Sociological Model. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73(2), 395427. doi:10.1093/jaarel/l

Robbins, V. K. (1996). Exploring the texture of texts; A guide to socio-rhetorical interpretation. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

Schechter, S., & Greenstone, J. H. (1906). Excommunication: (Hebrew, “niddui,” “ḥerem”). In Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5933-excommunication

Sorsby, A. (2008). Encyclopedia Judaica: Blindness. Retrieved from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blindness

Taylor, N. (2000). Herodians and Pharisees: The Historical and Political Context of Mark 3:6; 8:15; 12:13-17. Neotestamentica, 34(2), 299-310.

Tite, P. L. (1996). A community in conflict: A literary and historical reading of John 9. Religious Studies and Theology, 15(2-3), 77-100.