Synthesis Paper

Wisdom displayed through leadership: Exploring leadership-related wisdom

Shih-ying Yang ⁎ National Chi Nan University, Department of Educational Policy and Administration, 1 University Rd, Puli, Nantou 545, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 31 May 2011 Theoretical views of the role of wisdom in leadership have varied over time. While early leaders such as Christ and Confucius were perceived as wise and as great leaders, effectiveness and efficiency in promoting organizational performance and profits has become the focus of scholarly discussions of leadership in recent times. The lack of wisdom in leadership in such spheres as the global economy calls that focus into question. To address this lack, a process definition of wisdom which encompasses three components – (1) cognitive integration, (2) embodiment, and (3) positive effects – is proposed and tested against textual descriptions of wisdom in leadership contexts. The results of analyses interview transcripts of leaders nominated as wise persons indicate that: 1) incidents of wisdom involved leadership, 2) the process definition of wisdom describes the incidents of wisdom leaders reported on, and 3) leadership-related wisdom was more likely to be displayed at the societal, and at the organizational levels through fulfilling visions, solving problems, and founding organizations. The results suggest that the scope of leadership-related wisdom often goes beyond individual organizations, exerting positive effects to wider areas of society.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wisdom Leadership Non-profit organization Semi-structured interview Inter-rater reliability

1. Introduction

Wisdom and leadership are important for a high quality of life for individuals and cultural advancement for society. Examining wisdom displayed through leadership can shed light on the discussion of leadership and refocus our attention from increasing profits to promoting the common good. Difficult problems, such as global warming and financial crises, may be resolved or avoided if leadership is executed with wisdom. Moreover, when wisdom is exercised through leadership, the wisdom often generates more pervasive positive effects (Küpers, 2007) and helps more people to live a good life. Thus, a better future can be expected if more wisdom is displayed through leadership.

The present study proposes a process view of wisdom (Yang, 2008a, 2008b, 2009) and argues that when leaders exert positive influence to promote good lives for themselves, members of their organization, and society in general, wisdom is displayed through their leadership. This study is one of the few attempts to examine leadership-related wisdom empirically by analyzing wisdom incidents extracted from the narratives of wisdom nominees who were also leaders. Additionally, in contrast to most other studies of wisdom, the present study focuses on people living in Taiwan, a modernized East Asian country deeply influenced by Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism (Yang & Sternberg, 1997a, 1997b).

1.1. The relationship of leadership and wisdom

Historically, leadership has usually been associated with perceived wisdom. Leaders attract followers through their vision of a good life and their ability to embody such a vision. People willingly follow those who have a clear vision of what a good life is, who

The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

⁎ Tel.: +886 922 266 219; fax: +886 49 2917191. E-mail address: shihying@ncnu.edu.tw.

1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.004

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

embody through their behavior the way to live a good life, have great compassion for fellow human beings, and demonstrate great enthusiasm for the kind of world they believe people can create (Assmann, 1994). It is thus not surprising that throughout human history, individuals perceived as wise, such as Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, and Jesus, have also been considered great leaders.

Since the industrial revolution, with the advent of the modern economy and globalization, leadership has more often been linked to effectiveness and efficiency in promoting organizational performance and profits (Nahavandi, 2000), and is rarely considered in relation to wisdom (Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1998) which has its aim at the promotion of good lives for all (Baltes & Staudinger, 1993; Kekes, 1983; Sternberg, 1998; Yang, 2001, 2008a, 2008b). As a result of such emphasis on organizational efficiency and profits, business researchers generally disregard wisdom as an important factor in outstanding leadership (Beyer & Niño, 1998; Khandwalla, 1998). Until recently, wisdom has not been mentioned in scholarly discussions of leadership, nor has it been a predominant research topic (Kessler & Bailey, 2007). Professors of business, compared to professors of other fields, tend to consider wisdom as negatively related to creativity (Sternberg, 1985), which is more often perceived as the driving force of organizational performance.

However, neglecting the value of wisdom in leadership can have severe negative consequences (Bennis, 2007). As evidenced in recent events (e.g., credit crunch, bank failures, global financial and environmental crises), the harmful effects of leaders' lack of wisdom often spill outside of organizations (Andrews, 2008 October 24; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1998). Moreover, wisdom is now recognized as a research topic in social science. Thus, the time is ripe to empirically examine how wisdom can be displayed through leadership.

1.2. Wisdom is important to leadership

Depending on how it is defined, wisdom can be important to leadership in three ways. First, wisdom, when defined as a personal quality, is an essential component of outstanding leadership, because when applied to leading others, such a quality allows a person to demonstrate characteristics of outstanding leaders. Second, wisdom, defined either as ego strength, a higher level reasoning, or a collective system of practical knowledge, is an outcome of learning acquired from leadership experiences. Third, wisdom, when defined as a positive real-life process, can be displayed through leadership.

1.2.1. Wisdom is an essential component of outstanding leadership

Many argue that wisdom is an essential component of leadership (Ackoff, 1989; Jeannot, 1989; Jones, 2005; Prewitt, 2002); most define wisdom as intrapersonal qualities or application of abilities and knowledge.

1.2.1.1. Wisdom as intrapersonal qualities

For some, wisdom represents a unique intrapersonal quality, a composite of personality characteristics, a composite of competencies, or a personal philosophy. The possession of wisdom enables a person to perform outstanding leadership. For example, Ardelt (2003, 2004) defines wisdom as a personality that integrates cognitive, reflective, and affective personality traits. Clayton (1982) and Clayton and Birren (1980) defines wisdom as the ability that enables the individual to grasp human nature. Holliday and Chandler (1986) assert that wisdom is a complex of competencies; it cuts across the confines of particular knowledge-constitutive interests, and is expressed as exceptional understanding, judgment and communication skills, general competencies, interpersonal skills, and social unobtrusiveness. Jeannot (1989) argues that practical wisdom consists of traits of character and qualities of mind. Prewitt (2002) argues that wisdom is unselfish and other-regarding thoughtful judgment made when no heuristics exist for a conflict with social consequences. Jones (2005) believes that wisdom is an innate quality, a mental faculty that brings an awareness of the proper means and ends of human activity, including matters such as business practices; wisdom thus enables leaders to approach dynamic organizational environments with cautious confidence and the willingness to improvise in response to situational factors. Ackoff (1989) asserts that wisdom is the ability to evaluate any choice with respect to the amount of progress toward the ultimate good of omnicompetence; it is the ability to see the long- as well as the short-range consequences of any act and evaluate them relative to the ideal of omnicompetence.

When these wisdom-related personal qualities and competencies are applied to leading others, they allow a person to demonstrate traits that many regard as characteristics of outstanding leaders. Such traits may include a drive to exercise initiative in social situations, a drive for responsibility and task completion, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, willingness to accept consequences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, ability to influence other persons' behavior, ability to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand, self-confidence and a sense of personal identity, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals (Stogdill, 1948), and a combination of humility and strong professional will (Collins, 2001). Thus, when wisdom is applied to leadership, it enables leaders to be highly effective and yet remain ethical in an organization. Hence, for scholars who define wisdom as an intrapersonal quality, wisdom is one of the most important qualities for leaders to possess if they are to exert outstanding leadership.

However, it may be argued that wisdom, the phenomenon we can observe in real life, does not reside just within an individual. Many components work together to produce wisdom, but those components by themselves are not wisdom. An intrapersonal quality, no matter how unusually well-integrated, cannot be wise by itself. A person may have integrated personality, or a composite of competencies, yet he or she has to express it through purposeful behaviors to the real world to display wisdom.

617S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

Because action is also an essential part of leadership, the actual actions that are taken to employ these faculties must be taken into account.

1.2.1.2. Wisdom as the application of intelligence, creativity, knowledge, and experience

Some scholars define wisdom, not as qualities or competences per se, but as an application of one's intelligence, creativity, knowledge, or experience. Most notably, Sternberg views wisdom as “the use of successful intelligence, creativity, and knowledge as mediated by values to (a) seek to reach a common good (b) by balancing intrapersonal (one's own), interpersonal (others'), and extrapersonal (organizational, institutional, and/or spiritual) interests (c) over the short and long term to (d) adapt to, shape, and select environments” (Sternberg, 2007, p. 38). He proposes a WICS model which describes successful and effective leadership as the result of a synthesis of three key attributes — wisdom, intelligence, and creativity. A successful leader needs creativity to generate good ideas, academic intelligence to ascertain whether the ideas are good, practical intelligence to persuade other people, and wisdom to make the ideas work for the common good. In addition, Bierly, Kessler, and Christensen (2000) contend that wisdom relates to the ability to effectively choose and apply appropriate knowledge in a given situation, and define wisdom as the ability to best use knowledge to establish and achieve desired goals. They further coin the term “organizational wisdom” to depict collective wisdom in organizational contexts. Moreover, Small (2004) proposes that wisdom is having the power to apply experience and knowledge critically, ethically, and practically. Lack of wisdom may lead to failure in carrying out leadership and managerial duties. Thus, for scholars in this group, wisdom consists of applying abilities and knowledge in order to exert outstanding leadership, wisdom is thus an essential component of outstanding leadership.

However, it is quite possible that even the fullest application of our best abilities and knowledge cannot guarantee manifestations of wisdom. Our best decisions and efforts may be of no avail when situations drastically change. In real-life situations, people may accomplish many good works, but unless the consequences of their action bettered not only their own lives but those of others, their actions cannot be deemed as wise. Thus, the positive effects of applying one's abilities and knowledge must also be taken into account in defining wisdom.

1.2.2. Wisdom is an outcome of learning from leadership experience

From a developmental perspective, leadership consists of critical developmental tasks that emerge in adulthood, and wisdom can result from learning through leadership experiences. Thus, for example, after a person has learned to integrate different perspectives and conflicting interests through leading organizations and guiding others, he or she may manifest wisdom in the future. Many holding this view define wisdom as a positive result of human development or as a collective system of practical knowledge.

1.2.2.1. Wisdom as ego strength

Some developmental psychologists see wisdom as a positive result of human development (Arlin, 1990; Erikson, 1982; Erikson, Erikson, & Kivnick, 1986; Kramer, 1990, 2000; Labouvie-Vief, 1990, 2000; Meacham, 1983; Orwoll & Perlmutter, 1990; Pascual- Leone, 1990). For them, leading others is a major developmental tasks; successful resolution of this task can facilitate the development of wisdom. For instance, Erikson (1968) and Erikson et al. (1986) defines wisdom as the ego strength or virtue which emerges after a lifetime of resolving psychosocial crises, and argues that wisdom is manifested in a person's informed yet detached concern with life when facing death. He asserts that leadership and guidance are meaningful and important developmental tasks of adulthood, and suggests that wisdom can be developed by learning from these experiences. Thus, for him, wisdom can only be developed at the final stage of life after a person has been successful in leading, guiding, and nurturing the next generation.

1.2.2.2. Wisdom as higher level reasoning

Other scholars see wisdom as a higher level reasoning developed through experience. Labouvie-Vief (1990, 2000) argues that the emergence of wisdom is based on relativistic and dialectical reasoning, which are advanced cognitive functions developed only in adulthood after diverse real-world experiences. Similarly, Bellinger, Castro and Mills (2000) suggest that human cognitive complexity goes from processing and producing data, information, knowledge, until it finally reaches wisdom, the highest level of cognitive processing and complexity. For Korac-Kakabadse, Korac-Kakabadse, and Kouzmin (2001), wisdom is “the personal philosophy, perspective on life, sense of balance, and understanding of the complexities of inter-actions within a landscape” (p. 213) which one develops through rich life experiences. Srivastva and Cooperrider (1998) define wisdom as a dynamic process of constantly readjusted, restructured, and rebuilt subtle judging and knowing. Malan and Kriger (1998) contend that wisdom develops from a process of progressively finer discernment of variability in the organizational environment. Since leaders are exposed to a huge variety of human affairs, leadership experience is regarded as a facilitative condition for acquiring the learning necessary for wisdom to develop (Smith, Staudinger, & Baltes, 1994).

Experiential learning studies confirm that learning from important and meaningful experiences may result in an expansion of skills or transformation of perspective (Dewey, 1938/1997; Jarvis, 1987; Kolb, 1984; Merriam & Clark, 1993). Thus, important and meaningful leadership experiences can provide the learning necessary for the development of wisdom, and wisdom can be developed through learning from leadership experiences (Yang, 2009). Waters (1980) postulated that as a leader's managerial

618 S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

wisdom develops, he or she uses longer term strategies, becomes more able to learn from experience, expands and differentiates practical knowledge, and grasps the limits of knowledge. That leader also shifts to values and orientations that are more concerned with a basic sense of self and fundamental values. Often, these expanded skills and broadened perspectives are the basis by which effective national leaders are identified. It therefore seems that a leader may become wiser through learning from experiences in leadership-related contexts over a long period of time (Bigelow, 1992).

1.2.2.3. Wisdom as accumulated knowledge of fundamental pragmatics of life

Contrasting with the previous group of scholars who indentified wisdom as evolved complex reasoning, Baltes and his colleagues define wisdom as a collective system of knowledge concerning the meaning and conduct of life (Baltes, Dittmann-Kohli, & Dixon, 1984; Baltes & Kunzmann, 2003, 2004; Baltes & Smith, 1990; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2001; Smith et al., 1994; Staudinger, 1996, 1999; Staudinger, Smith, & Baltes, 1992). Wisdom is thus often preserved in historical writings; individuals such as leaders are only weak carriers of such a collective system of knowledge. At a personal level, wisdom consists of five core components: (1) rich factual knowledge about life and lifespan development, (2) rich procedural knowledge about how to deal with life problems (e.g., systematic explanation and evaluation of past experience and application of these insights), (3) rich knowledge about the contexts of life and their dynamics, (4) rich knowledge about the relativism of values and life goals (e.g., differing life goals depending on the individual and culture), and (5) recognition and management of uncertainty (Baltes & Kunzmann, 2003; Staudinger et al., 1992).

It seems that the knowledge and skills a leader acquires from leadership experiences contribute to the collective system of fundamental pragmatics of life which Baltes and his group call wisdom. Overall, wisdom-related knowledge may be more concerned with life in general, whereas leadership-related knowledge is more concerned with accomplishing tasks in a group environment. Leadership-related knowledge and skills (e.g., Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000) can include, for example, technical skills (i.e., knowledge in a specialized area and skills in using appropriate tools and techniques), human skills (i.e., knowledge and ability to work with people), and conceptual skills (i.e., ability to work with ideas and concepts) (Katz, 1955). It thus seems that the leadership-related knowledge and skills may be a subset of wisdom-related knowledge. It is reasonable to infer that the technical knowledge and skills of effective leadership may consist of a portion of the general factual and procedural knowledge of life. The human knowledge and skills acquired through leadership experience may contribute significantly to knowledge about the relativism of values and goals. The expertise of conceptual knowledge and skills of a leader may greatly add to knowledge of diversity of contexts and knowledge of managing uncertainty. Accordingly, through learning from leadership experiences, leaders may acquire important knowledge and skills which form a foundation for future manifestations of wisdom when they encounter similar challenges (Polanyi, 1958).

However, this study argues that neither higher level reasoning nor important life-related knowledge by itself can guarantee the manifestation of wisdom. Although rich knowledge and skills, ego strength, and higher level reasoning are important, wisdom is manifested only when action is taken to apply the aforementioned knowledge and reasoning in real-life contexts, and when these actions generate positive effects to promote the good life for self and others.

1.2.3. Wisdom can be displayed through leadership

Many theories and studies suggest that wisdom can be displayed through leadership. Historically, some of the most noticeable displays of wisdom are found in domains concerning the management of human affairs, such as administration, law, and governing society (Moody, 1983). Leading human institutions is believed to be one of the major functions of wisdom (Kramer, 1990, 2000). In East Asia, the results of a study investigating people's conceptions of wisdom suggested that in Taiwan, Chinese people also tend to think that wise persons are good leaders (Yang, 2001). Similarly, in the West, a study in Germany found that 56% of people nominated by others as wise individuals were leaders (Staudinger, 1996). All these studies seem to suggest that wisdom can be displayed through leadership.

1.2.3.1. Wisdom as relational accomplishment

Some scholars define wisdom as relational accomplishment which can be attained through leadership. McNamee (1998) defines wisdom as a communal activity that is engendered in the conversations throughout and around an organization, and proposes that wisdom emerges through the processes of interacting in organizations. Sampson (1998) asserts that wisdom is better understood as properties of social discourse or conversation. Torber (1998) sees wisdom as an ongoing integration of first- person, second-person, and third-person inquiry in the midst of action with others. To him, wisdom has to do with integrating being, knowing, doing, and effecting in a timely fashion. Srivastva and Saatçi}ğlu (1998) argue that wisdom is created through relationships, and define wisdom as “a virtue of many” (p. 270). Dialectical relationships are thus both contexts and outcomes of wisdom, and organizational settings provide both leaders and members with the necessary prerequisites for wisdom. Vail (1998) defines wisdom as a way of thinking and being in relation to motion and change. He coins the term “process wisdom” to describe wisdom that leaders display when they move through situations and problems and act wisely in relation to them.

It seems that most aforementioned discussions concern interpersonal accomplishments within organizations and emphasize leaders' responsibility in creating and supporting communal dialogs for organizational members. Although relational accomplishments are an important part of wisdom, it is argued that such accomplishments must involve broader society if

619S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

wisdom is to be displayed through leadership. To achieve wisdom, the group goals any leader attempts to accomplish must also include fulfilling social responsibilities or philanthropic obligations (Khandwalla, 1998). That is, leaders of organizations must also work for the betterment of society and pursue social benefits as well as economic gains. Thus, wisdom is displayed when outstanding leadership fulfills economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic obligations to the community as a whole, as well as protecting interests of organizational stakeholders.

1.2.3.2. Wisdom as a positive real-life process

Some scholars see wisdom as a positive real-life process which requires cognitive integration as a condition, and ends with the attainment of certain positive effects. It is perhaps only through leadership that an individual can work through organizational structures, translate a good-life-promoting vision into congruent strategies and actions, and thus exert positive influences through personal, group, organizational, or social transformation. The function of wisdom thus may attain one of its optimal levels when wisdom is displayed through leadership.

Walter (1993), for example, believes that wisdom is an integration of thought and action in maintaining and enhancing the good. Küpers (2007) views wisdom as a process of enacted integration by engaging in individual reasoning and emotional regulation, complemented by a corresponding behavior participating in communal activities and social–cultural functions. In organizational contexts, wisdom emerges from contextual relationship within which wise people and groups are able to reflect on a situation by evaluating and making choices. McKenna, Rooney, and Boal (2009) propose that wisdom “is a process that brings together the rational and the transcendent, the prosaic and higher virtues, the short- and long-terms, the contingent and the absolute, and the self and the collective” (p. 185). The degree to which wisdom is displayed can be evaluated by how well it conforms to five principles. One who displays wisdom should embody all five: (1) use reason and careful observation, (2) take non-rational and subjective elements into account when making decisions, (3) value humane and virtuous outcomes, (4) take actions that are practical and oriented toward everyday life, and (5) be articulate, understand the esthetic dimensions of work, and seek intrinsic personal and social reward by contributing to the good life. These five principles can be used as a standard to measure and evaluate leadership. According to this view, although “leaders will always be imperfect instantiations of wisdom” (p. 178), a wise leader is a person who achieves a laudable instantiation of the five principles, making a commitment to the long- term welfare of both immediate stakeholders and humanity in general.

Yang (2001, 2008b) asserts that the wisdom we often observe in real life does not reside just in an individual, and defines wisdom as a positive process that encompasses three core components: (1) cognitive integration of what is ordinarily considered separate or conflicting systems to form a vision promoting the good life, (2) actions that embody the integrated thought or vision, and (3) positive effects of the actions on the actor and others. All three core components work together to produce the kind of real- life phenomenon called wisdom. Thus, even though the original seed of wisdom may reside within a leader, the process of wisdom also requires an action which embodies a vision, and positive effects of the action, as evaluated by multiple parties. Results of a previous study have shown that integration, embodiment, and the resulting positive influences were salient elements in the reasons given for nominations of wise individuals (Yang, 2008a).

What is implied in these process views of wisdom is that social responsibility is an essential aspect of leadership-related wisdom. Leadership that displays wisdom can produce positive influences not only on members of an organization, but also on society in general. Thus, if the attainment of a group goal fails to produce positive results which enhance the good life for both the leader and the members of the community who sustain the consequences of the action, it has achieved something less than wisdom. In other words, wisdom can be manifested when a leader achieves an unusual cognitive integration to form a vision, and then embodies the integrated vision with unwavering resolve. As a result, the leader generates positive effects in promoting a good life for the self, others, and society in general.

2. The present study

The present study aims to examine whether wisdom is displayed through leadership, and test the proposed process view of wisdom by examining whether the three components of wisdom (cognitive integration, embodiment in action, and positive effects on self and others) identified by Yang (2001, 2008a) play an important role in the contents and evaluation of leadership- related wisdom. It is hypothesized that (1) wisdom can be displayed through leadership, and (2) wisdom displayed through leadership consists of the three core components of wisdom. The present study also attempts to explore: (1) ways leadership- related wisdom is manifested, and (2) contexts leadership-related wisdom is most likely to emerge.

2.1. Research design

The present study argues that many reasoning and behavioral processes involved in displaying wisdom in real life may be more difficult to detect by quantitative methods, but can be established through retrospection as elicited in interviews. Therefore, semi- structured interviews were conducted with ethnic Chinese from Taiwan who had been nominated as wise persons. They were asked to describe wise decisions they had made, wise things they had done, and other wisdom-related questions. Interview transcripts were later analyzed to identify wisdom incidents related to leadership.

Like Bluck and Glück (2004), the present study hypothesizes that interview protocols can identify wisdom in its natural contexts. However, instead of conducting interviews with a random population sample, the present study chose as its sample

620 S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

individuals who were nominated as wise. The rationale for this sampling method is based on Orwoll and Perlmutter's study (1990), which found that individuals nominated as wise have more global perspectives than other creative individuals. The present study also differs from Baltes, Staudinger, Maercker, and Smith's study (1995) in that it investigates wisdom as manifested in actual situations, rather than eliciting judgments using hypothetical problems faced by factitious persons.

2.2. Method

2.2.1. Participants

2.2.1.1. Nominators Nominations of wise individuals were solicited from people who lived in the northern, middle, and southern parts of Taiwan

and in different walks of life, age groups, as well as educational levels. The researcher approached potential nominators at their work places, gave an open-ended nomination questionnaire to those who agreed to participate in the study and asked them to provide the name of a person they knew personally and considered wise. The nomination questionnaire was written in Chinese. Each participant was encouraged to nominate one or two persons whom they considered especially wise. Participants were also asked to list the reasons for their nomination. The Chinese term used for a wise person was You Zhi Hui De Ren 有智慧的人 (Yang, 2001). The nominating participants were told that a letter inviting nominees to a semi-structured interview would be sent out without the identities of the nominators being revealed.

Eighty nominators returned the questionnaires; most of them did so by mail; others wrote down their answers and returned the questionnaires to the researcher in person. Although efforts were made to recruit an equal number of male and female nominators, the majority of questionnaires returned were filled out by male participants (60%, n=48). Nominators' ages ranged from 31 to 65 years of age. Eighty percent of the nominators had a graduate level of education. Twenty nominators (29%) were university professors who were contacted through their work as consultants for social work, organizers of volunteer groups, or participants in religious activities. Seven nominators (10%) were graduate students recruited at the night markets near university campuses. The remaining nominators (37, 58%) were in non-academic professions (e.g., lawyers, merchants, ministers, school teachers), and acquired their graduate degrees through continuing education. Overall, the nominators' occupations fell into more than 18 categories, including anthropology, arts, counseling, education, electronics, engineering, information sciences, law, management, medical sciences, political sciences, public administration, psychology, religion, and social work. Their length of work experience ranged from 4 years to 33 years; on average they had 13 years of work experience. Efforts were made to contact nominators from a diverse range of occupations and educational levels, but many contacted declined the request for nominations indicating that no particularly wise person came to mind.

2.2.1.2. Wisdom nominees Altogether, 80 nominators nominated 80 individuals, hereafter referred to as “wisdom nominees” or “nominees.” Nominators

gave a variety of descriptive reasons for their nominations (Yang, 2008a). Ten nominations were not included in this study because the nominators did not provide descriptive reasons. A comparison of the nominators and the nominees revealed that the nominators had a higher educational level than nominees. Five (7.5%) of the nominees had less than college level of education. A comparison of nominees' age (31 to 86 years, M=55.9, SD=13.9) with the age of his or her nominator (31 to 65 years, M=43.7, SD=11.9), showed that 50 were nominated by people younger than them, while 20 were nominated by people older than them. On average, nominees were 12 years older than their nominators (SD=14.9). Age correlation between nominators and nominees was found to be very low (r=.21) and did not reach a significant level (p=.84) (Yang, 2008b).

Nominees occupations could be roughly classified into 25 categories, including architecture, astronomy, business management, civil engineering, dance, insurance, literature, media, museum education, music, navigation, nursing, physical education, physics, politics, regional history, social welfare, and urban planning. Thus, it seems that nominators sometimes made nominations outside their own professions. Some nominees were heads of organizations (e.g., curators of museums, heads of dance groups, city mayor, presidents of social welfare organizations, school principals, deans or presidents of universities or colleges) (60%), while others were not (e.g., philanthropists, writers, musicians, artists, actors, employees, teachers, and college professors). Most nominees were well respected members of their local communities; some were well-known nationally, having made significant contributions to Taiwan, and a few were internationally renowned. Efforts were made to recruit wisdom nominees from diverse backgrounds, but the nominees recruited by this study are not a representative group for Taiwan as a whole.

Of 66 nominees who accepted the interview invitation, 40 were included in this study. The reasons for this further selection are discussed below. The majority of the 40 nominees were males (n=31; 78%); their age at the time of nomination ranged from 31 to 86 years old (M=55.54, SD=12.39), with two thirds of the total sample falling between ages 41–60 (n=24, 60%). Their educational levels ranged from elementary to graduate school. The majority had a graduate level of education (52.5%; ndoctor=17, nmaster=4). Their occupations could be roughly classified into 23 categories.

2.2.2. Procedure

The nominees were first contacted by a letter inviting them to take part in the study. Contacts on the phone were made the following week. Most of the wisdom nominees denied that they possessed any “great wisdom,” but 66 of them accepted the interview invitation after the researcher had explained that the purpose of the study was to find the common functions and forms

621S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

of wisdom produced in daily life, and assured them that their identities would not be revealed to people outside the research group.

Upon acceptance of interview invitations, nominees chose the time and place for the interview. The author of this study conducted all the interviews. After the participants were informed of their rights concerning the interview, they were interviewed for two to five hours. They were not paid. The interviews were tape-recorded. The semi-structured interviews involved questions concerning their conceptions of wisdom (which served as a thought-generating and topic-orienting stimulus), wise decisions they had made or wise things they had done up to the time of the interview, difficulties they faced, methods they used to overcome difficulties, beliefs and visions they held, and advice they would have given to themselves when they were younger or to persons of a younger generation. For brevity, only the results concerning wise decisions the nominees made and wise things they did are presented here.

2.2.3. Data analysis

The identities of the interviewees were masked before the interview tapes were transcribed. Each interview tape was transcribed verbatim, proofread by a person other than the transcriber, and transcripts checked word by word with interview tapes by the author. Incidents were extracted from interview transcripts by analysts and later evaluated by raters based on their own judgments of wisdom to ascertain that the one with high wisdom ratings corresponded to wisdom observed in real life. To test the theory, high-wisdom and leadership-related incidents were subjected to content analyses to determine whether they consisted of the three core components of wisdom — integration, embodiment, and positive effects.

2.2.3.1. Analysis, coding, and extracting of wisdom incidents

2.2.3.1.1. Analysis and coding of nominees' wisdom. Each proofread transcript was randomly assigned to and independently analyzed by three analysts. Following the phenomenological method (Creswell, 1998), the analysts were asked to determine the parts of an interview transcript containing wisdom, based on their own judgment, to excerpt it, and to code the excerpt according to its dominant theme with a label. Analysts were recruited through an Internet advertisement. The use of “lay” analysts to assess the interview transcripts with their own opinions in this study followed the example set by the Berlin Wisdom studies (e.g., Baltes et al., 1995), based on the argument that wisdom is a real-life phenomenon that most people can recognize without much difficulty. Altogether, 6 analysts with a college level education from diverse professional fields (adult education, Chinese literature, foreign languages, health education, psychology, social work and policy) with 1 to 4 years of working experience shared the responsibility of analyzing the 66 transcripts.

After the three analysts analyzed the transcripts independently, a research team, consisting of the three analysts and the author, discussed each transcript and its themes to ascertain that disagreement over the results did not come from misunderstanding of the interview narrative. Differences were retained if three analysts did not misunderstand the narratives. Incidents which the analysts considered to be manifestations of wisdom are called “wisdom incidents” in this study. The analysis of the interview transcripts of the 66 wisdom nominees resulted in 220 wisdom incidents, each of which was given a label and a relevant excerpt made. The analysts were blind to the hypotheses of the study, and were paid N.T. $1000 (approximately $ 35 US dollars) for each transcript they analyzed.

2.2.3.1.2. Extracting excerpts describing integration, embodiment, and positive effects. Although the interview questions in this study did not inquire directly about the three core elements of wisdom (Yang, 2001, 2008a), each wisdom incident which was labeled and extracted was assigned to three analysts who were asked to further examine it independently for the elements of wisdom.

Content analyses for possible traces of cognitive integration, behavioral embodiment, and positive effects resulting from behavioral embodiment were thus conducted independently by three analysts so that the underlying meanings were unitized and coded based on phenomenological inquiry (Merriam, 1998) — significant statements were extracted from each description and coded into units of meaning as bracketed. These units of meaning derived through the above process were clustered into themes by the analysts who were blind to the hypotheses of the present study.

After a group discussion of the derived themes, and themes with similar meanings were combined, the three analysts were then also asked to inspect the combined themes according to three core elements of wisdom, namely, (1) integration (i.e., following the instruction “Please extract the parts of incident that you judge to be cognitive integration in the appropriate column.”), (2) embodiment (“Please extract the parts that you judge to be the action and behaviors in the appropriate column.”), and (3) positive influences on both self and others (“Please extract the parts that you judge to be the positive influences that the person had on self and on others in the appropriate column.”). After an agreement among the analysts was reached, those themes which were judged by the analysts to exhibit characteristics of integration, embodiment, and positive effects were thus given labels “integration,” “embodiment,” and “positive effects” of a particular incident. These further analyses of wisdom incidents resulted in extra excerpts detailing integration, embodiment, and positive effects that were already contained in the corresponding incidents. The six analysts shared the responsibility of analyzing the 220 wisdom incidents.

2.2.3.2. Ratings of wisdom incidents As wisdom incidents were identified, three kinds of ratings were assigned to them by three groups of raters: (1) wisdom rating,

(2) leadership rating, and (3) rating of fit of categories.

622 S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

2.2.3.2.1. Wisdom rating of wisdom incidents. After the transcripts were analyzed and extracted, two groups of raters consisting of six individuals in total were recruited to evaluate whether extracted incidents truly involved wisdom. The three raters of the first group were given the original 220 wisdom incidents plus the duplicated excerpts detailing integration, embodiment, and positive effects. The three raters of the second group were given the 220 wisdom incidents only, without the duplicated excerpts that made explicit the integration, embodiment, and positive effects. In other words, the contents of wisdom incidents read by the two groups of raters were identical, yet the three raters of the first group read the excerpts concerning integration, embodiment, and positive effects twice. The three raters of the first group had graduate levels of education and were trained in the fields of business, statistics, and adult education, respectively. The raters of the second group were college seniors recruited from a department of educational policy and administration. After reading the excerpts, they were asked to evaluate the wisdom incidents based on their own judgment of wisdom on a 7-point Likert scale, where the rating 1 indicates “strongly disagree that wisdom was involved in the incident” and the rating 7 indicates “strongly agree.” The order of the wisdom incidents to be evaluated was counterbalanced within each group of raters. They were told that the excerpts were extracted from interviews, but were not told that they were narratives of wisdom nominees.

2.2.3.2.2. Leadership rating and selection of leadership-related wisdom incidents. The third group of three raters consisted of college students recruited from a department of educational policy and administration. These raters had some knowledge of theories of leadership but were untrained in theories of wisdom. They were asked to decide whether they agree that each incident involved leadership based on a broad definition of leadership using a 7-point scale, with the rating 1 equivalent to strongly disagree and 7 equivalent to strongly agree. To include diverse forms of leadership that actually occurred in real life, leadership was operationalized according to a broad definition — as a transactional event that occurs between leader and followers, which consists of at least three core components: (1) influence of the leader, (2) formal or informal group context, and (3) goal attainment (Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2004). In the event that wisdom was demonstrated in an informal setting, raters were asked to take informal leadership into account.

2.2.3.2.3. Categorization of leadership-related wisdom incidents. Many discussions within the research team were held on the issues to categorize leadership-related wisdom incidents. Four major categories emerged as a result of these discussions after considering nominees' intentions and efforts as described in the interviews. Using nominees' own organization as a demarcation; nominees' leadership-related wisdom might be categorized as 1) “influencing the younger generation” if their intentions and efforts were directed at young people who might be members of their organization, 2) “influencing family” if their intentions and efforts dealt with their own family members, 3) “influencing organization at a micro level” if their intention and efforts were directed inward, toward their organization, and 4) “influencing society at a macro level” if their intentions and efforts were aimed outside their organizations. Within the last two categories, nominees' leadership-related wisdom was further classified into three subcategories: 1) Fulfilling visions; nominees in this category were working on a self-appointed mission or project in response to unsatisfactory organizational or social conditions which might be of immediate concern to many people. 2) Resolving problems; nominees in this category were working to resolve real-life problems, emergencies, or crises. 3) Founding organizations; nominees in this category were working to establish an organization.

2.2.3.2.4. Rating of fit of categories. After the incidents were divided into the four categories, the results were then tested for category fit. The fourth group of three raters, consisting of students recruited from a department of educational policy and administration, were given each leadership-related wisdom incident, and the category in which it was placed. They were asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the category based on how well they agreed with the categorization on a 7-point scale, where 1 is equivalent to “strongly disagree” and 7 is equivalent to “strongly agree.” If raters disagreed with categorizations, they were asked to indicate their disagreement by giving low ratings; they were not allowed to move incidents to different categories. All raters in the present study were blind to the hypotheses of the study, but raters in this group were told explicitly that the excerpts were from interviews of wisdom nominees, in order to give them a more complete understanding of the main theme of each wisdom incident. The order of the wisdom incidents to be evaluated was counterbalanced within raters in each group.

2.3. Results

2.3.1. Wisdom and leadership

2.3.1.1. Wisdom ratings Altogether, analysis of the 66 interview transcripts yielded 220 wisdom incidents. The mean of wisdom rating for the 220

wisdom incidents across the six raters was 5.12 (SD=1.42). Because the ratings skewed toward the higher end of the scale, Cronbach α, instead of Kendall's Kappa, was calculated. The inter-rater reliability of the 6 raters was a moderately high 0.72 (pb .001). The mean wisdom rating for each incident was calculated by averaging across the wisdom ratings of the six raters. The results showed that 200 of the 220 total wisdom incidents (91%) had a mean wisdom rating equal to or higher than 4.00, 134 wisdom incidents (61%) had a mean wisdom rating 5.00 and higher, and 44 of them (20%) had a mean wisdom rating of 6.00 and higher.

623S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

2.3.1.2. Leadership ratings The mean leadership rating for each incident was calculated by averaging across the leadership ratings of the three raters. The

results showed that 104 wisdom incidents (47%) had a mean leadership rating 5.00 and higher, and 42 of them (19%) had a mean leadership rating of 6.00 and higher. Because the ratings skewed toward the higher end of the scale if numbers were grouped into high, medium, and low cells, Cronbach α was calculated instead of Kendall's Kappa. The Cronbach α for the inter-rater reliability of the 220 wisdom incidents of the three leadership raters was moderately high (0.70, pb.0001).

2.3.1.3. Selection of leadership-related incidents The results showed that 88 of the 220 total wisdom incidents (40%) had both wisdom mean rating (average across six raters)

and leadership mean rating (average across three raters) equal to or higher than 5.00; of them, 22 incidents (10%) had both mean ratings of 6.00 or higher. Hence, the 88 incidents, which received high scores (≧5.0) for both leadership and wisdom were selected as “leadership-related wisdom incidents.” The mean value of wisdom rating for the 88 incidents across the six raters was 5.83 (SD=0.45). The mean value of leadership rating for the 88 leadership-related incidents across the three raters was 5.77 (SD=0.82). Thus, it seems that wisdom can be displayed through leadership.

2.3.2. Process of leadership-related wisdom

2.3.2.1. Wisdom ratings for emphasizing integration, embodiment, and positive effects The wisdom rating averaged across the first group of raters (i.e., wisdom incidents+integration, embodiment, and positive

effects) for all the 220 wisdom incidents was 5.41 (SD=1.43). The wisdom rating averaged across the second group of raters (i.e., wisdom incidents only) for those 220 wisdom incidents was 4.83 (SD=1.34). The results of a two-tailed t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the wisdom ratings of the two groups (M1 group =5.41, SD1 group =1.43, M2 group =4.83, SD2 group =1.34, t(1318)=7.559, pb .001). For those 88 leadership-related wisdom incidents, the mean wisdom rating of the first group of raters (i.e., wisdom incidents+integration, embodiment, and positive effects) was 5.99 (SD=0.99), and the mean wisdom rating of the second group of raters (i.e., wisdom incidents only) was 5.61 (SD=0.88). The results of a two-tailed t-test showed that there was a significant difference between wisdom ratings of the two groups (M1 group=5.99, SD1 group=0.99, M2 group=5.61, SD2 group=0.88, t(263)=89.41, pb .0001). These results suggest that incidents, leadership-related or not, were evaluated to involve more wisdom if their integration, embodiment, and positive effects were made explicit.

2.3.2.2. Contents of integration, embodiment, and positive effects Results of analyses of themes in each incident showed that within the limited time frame and setting of an interview, wisdom

nominees spontaneously touched on the integration of certain ideas, their embodiment, and positive effects produced when describing wisdom they displayed in the past.

2.3.2.2.1. Integration. Analysts identified diverse cognitive forms of integration achieved by wisdom nominees, and often analysis of a single interview narrative revealed more than one form of integration (nincident=41, 47%). Analysts identified integration of different thinking modes (nincidents=70, 80%), different perspectives (nincidents=29, 33%), and different levels of interest (nincidents=20, 23%, nnominees=16, 40%). It seems that nominees integrated different thinking modes by using cases from different contexts or cultures to examine their assumptions (nnominees=15, 38%), reasoning with opposite points of view (nnominees=19, 48%), and seeing gains in losses (nnominees=5, 13%). At a more interpersonal and organizational level, when facing entangled real- life problems, many of nominees were able to incorporate multiple points of view in arriving at an efficient solution that also preserved harmonious relations among group members (nnominees=17, 43%). Some nominees were able to integrate different perspectives by employing personal experience to empathize with others' grievances (nnominees=8, 20%); by observing others' needs, they generated support and concern that were not available in the past when they themselves were in need.

2.3.2.2.2. Embodiment. All wisdom nominees talked about concrete actions which they took to carry out tasks or fulfill visions. Some of their actions consisted of integrating of different modes of operation (nincidents=31, 35%) and roles (nincidents=19, 22%). Most noticeably, wisdom nominees integrated duties with dreams; when facing stringent patterns of social behavior that they knew they were expected to conform with, they sometimes forged new possibilities so that in the process of fulfilling obligations they could also remain true to their ideals (nnominees=13, 33%). They created new organizational cultures by both assimilating and accommodating social norms (nnominees=9, 23%). Some nominees creatively combined different roles to better serve themselves and the community (nnominees=12, 30%).

2.3.2.2.3. Positive effects. Wise decisions and actions of leaders sometimes seem to produce positive influence on leaders themselves. Of the 88 incidents examined, 64 of them (73%) involved positive effects on leaders. Of the forty leaders in the study, 37 (93%) claimed to have experienced positive effects from their own decisions. Seventeen leaders (43%) listed the following positive effects: learning, growth, self-actualization, and satisfaction; the total number of incidents involving these effects was 33 (38%). Other positive effects cited by nominees were accomplishment of personal goals (nincidents=34, 39%, nnominees=16, 40%), and receiving support and recognition from others (nincidents=20, 23%, nnominees=12, 30%). Wisdom incidents also produced positive effects on members of the leaders' organizations (nincidents=25, 28%, nnominees=14, 35%). Positive effects of some incidents extended to institutions (nincidents=15, 17%, nnominees=10, 25%) and to society at large (nincidents=33, 38%, nnominees=19, 48%).

624 S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

2.3.3. Display of leadership-related wisdom

2.3.3.1. Contexts of leadership-related wisdom Results of analysis showed that 76 of the total 88 leadership-related wisdom incidents took place in contexts of a formal

organization. Because the present study also took informal leadership into account, the remaining 12 leadership-related wisdom incidents took place in familial contexts (14%) while nominees were acting as leaders in their organizations. Of the 76 formal- organization-related incidents, 66 took place in contexts related to non-profit organizations (87%); only ten occurred in for-profit organizations (13%). Most leadership-related wisdom incidents took place when nominees assumed the responsibilities of formal leadership (nincidents=60, 68%), in both non-profit organizations (nincidents=51, 58%) and for-profit organizations (nincidents=9, 10%). The results of chi-squared and post hoc tests show that the observed distribution is significantly different from an assumed equal distribution, and that “formal leader in a non-profit organization” context produced significantly greater numbers of leadership-related wisdom incidents: χ2(3, N = 76)=77.05 (pb .001). The distribution of leadership-related wisdom in different contexts is presented in Table 1.

2.3.3.2. Fit of categories Ratings of fit of categories were averaged across three raters. The mean was 5.82 (SD=1.49); the Cronbach α for the inter-rater

reliability was moderately high (0.70, pb .0001). This result suggests that raters in general agreed with the appropriateness of the categorization. Hence, commonalities were found in the contents of leadership-related wisdom.

2.3.3.3. Contents of leadership-related wisdom Based on the categories derived from the interviews, it is suggested that leadership-related wisdom is most often displayed in

the following ways: 1. influencing society at a macro level (nincidents=38, 43.2%), 2. influencing organization at a micro level (nincidents=27, 30.7%), 3. influencing one's family (nincidents=12, 13.6%), and 4. influencing younger generation (nincidents=11, 12.5%). Because the family is not typically considered a locus of leadership, only the portions of the material which bear on social and organizational leadership are presented in detail.

2.3.3.3.1. Influencing society at a macro level. This category includes incidents in which leaders' efforts were aimed at benefiting society in general. Results of analyses show that this type of leadership-related wisdom was often displayed in three ways: (1) fulfilling visions (n=18, 47.4%), (2) resolving difficulties (n=10, 26.3%), and (3) founding an organization (n=10, 26.3%).

Incidents involving leaders' efforts to lead an organization to fulfill visions of common good, revealing leadership-related wisdom displayed through realization of ideals or embodiment of organizational visions by leaders' actions. For example, one nominee explained the efforts he made to lead his organizational members to strive for the amendment of laws affecting public health:

There are difficulties you have to overcome to propose laws that would solve some societal problems. Yet, once you have that sort of breakthrough, by figuring out how to create a new law or revise certain preexisting laws, you find that things can be changed on a larger scale, and the general public can be helped in this way. When I was doing this kind of thing, I often reminded myself to look around. If people were helped by benefit from the laws we proposed, then I think we did a good thing, a wise thing. (Nominee No. 58, male, Incident No. 198).

Other nominees' wisdom was manifested in resolving leadership-related problems that arose external to the organizations they led. For example, one nominee described how she resolved intense opposition to the organization's project:

At that time, we were doing this [project]. Just when everything was ready to go, all of sudden there was a huge crowd opposing this project strongly, and people were protesting on a large scale…. So some members argued that we should give up. But I thought differently. I said to our head, “We can cancel everything if we have to, but first we should figure out what we will lose if we do cancel…. The project can be good for many people, and we are ready. Why don't we face the crowd and find out what it is that they want?” Our head agreed, and the next day he held a conference, explaining and discussing things with the crowd…. So their thoughts were made clear to us…. Later they organized a committee, and we completed our project. It was a huge international success. (Nominee No. 2, female, Incident No. 8).

Table 1 Distribution of leadership-related wisdom incidents in different contexts.

Formal leader Informal leader Total

Non-profit organization 51 (67%) 15 (20%) 66 (87%) Profit organization 9 (12%) 1 (1%) 10 (13%) Total 60 (79%) 16 (21%) 76 (100%)

625S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

After finding that existing organizations were inadequate for solving certain social problems, some nominees founded organizations to resolve the problematic conditions they noted or to fulfill unique visions to promote a good life for all. One nominee explained that his reason for founding an organization was to facilitate the empowerment of local communities:

Without such an organization, we couldn't do much. Community empowerment is a fairly complex process; it cannot be done by individuals alone. It can only be accomplished by an organized group with a division of labor. This was the core purpose for founding X [his organization]. By allowing residents to participate throughout the whole process in an interactive manner, not only was the community made a better place to live, but the residents themselves were also transformed into better citizens. (Nominee No. 38, male, Incident No. 137).

Displays of nominees' leadership-related wisdom also included cultivating an organizational culture and training followers. One nominee recounted,

I was the founder of this organization. That is, there had never been such an organization in Taiwan before. So I had to do everything by myself. That was how I started. I had to design everything. At the time I had no money, no personnel. It was just me. So I started from scratch. I did the fundraising, I did the interviews and recruiting, and I found and rented the office…, all by myself. I began my work because our government didn't pay any attention to those issues at the time…. And now, as you can see, many resources are devoted to related tasks and people are really trying to make things better. The situation really has changed. (Nominee No. 26, female, Incident No. 95).

Another nominee described how he resolved the difficulties he faced when he sought to staff his organization.

Because people did not understand what the organization was for. [Interviewer: Because the organization was unprecedented?] Yes. So I had a hard time hiring capable employees. Even though we advertised the jobs on the newspapers, nobody applied. It was tremendously difficult. Now as I come to think of it, I think the team I started with did not have many first-rate talents. Yet after I truly devoted myself to training and empowering them, they became more capable. I could not believe my eyes when our result first came out. I looked at it and felt: “we have gone so far and reached so high all by ourselves!” (Nominee No. 36, male, Incident No. 130).

Thus, some wisdom incidents occurred when nominees took the initiative and founded organizations to respond to social demands and improve societal conditions. This kind of leadership-related wisdom was displayed through self-appointed tasks, which arose from integrating their ideals with social demands.

Nominees' striving for the common good of society was obvious in the incidents in this category. Some nominees explained in their interviews that their concerns for the development of their organizations were aimed first and foremost at the improvement of societal conditions. For example, the leader of an organization designed to help parents of disadvantaged children explained:

I do not hope that my foundation becomes bigger by having more members. On the contrary, I hope that there will be fewer and fewer people who need our help. That's why I decided to focus on early intervention, because in this way we can decrease the number of people going through similar difficulties. Wouldn't you say that this was a good judgment? But people laughed at me: “Why doesn't your foundation help your own son first? Why do you devote yourself to helping other people's children?”…. But I have been insisting that this is the right path. Given a few decades, I believe that we can see our society change as a whole. (Nominee No. 26, female, Incident No. 95).

Thus, it seems at least some wisdom nominees put ethics and common good over organizational gains and benefits. As a result of nominees' efforts, the positive effects that wisdom nominees produce when they succeed in their endeavors are great. Another nominee gauged the scope of his influence this way: “When your ideals are carried out, that is great, because you can influence thousands” (Nominee No. 13, male).

2.3.3.3.2. Influencing organizations at a micro level. This category includes incidents in which nominees' efforts were directed toward groups and individuals within their own organizations. This type of leadership-related wisdom was often displayed in two forms: (1) fulfilling visions (n=10, 37%), and (2) resolving difficulties (n=17, 63%).

Some nominees' efforts were devoted to fulfilling visions that concerned their own organizations. For example, nominees frequently mentioned efforts to create a harmonious and productive atmosphere at work. This was accomplished by setting an example to promote a new working culture, enhancing and empowering others, or helping parties in conflict to communicate. One nominee's wisdom was displayed in the form of helping to create the kind of work environment she had always dreamed of when she was an employee.

I tried so very hard to build up a work environment by changing the physical settings, the work climate, and the institutional atmosphere of our school. And through those efforts, our school is now the most admired school in the district in the eyes of parents and administrators, and our county magistrate thinks highly of our school. I think this is my wisdom. Up until now, I only have experiences leading small schools, and I have found that people are the most important component. To lead schools well you must treat people right. If individuals can get along with each other, then the whole group can work in harmony, and leadership can be effective. During the meetings which we hold twice a week, I always

626 S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

share one or two stories, so that what I want to communicate can seep into the minds of our faculty members. That is the way I gradually cultivate our group atmosphere. If I come across a good article, I often immediately make copies and share it with the staff and faculty. I even give them hand-made cards with encouraging words as gifts. Many of them have told me that I do not impress them as an overpowering leader, but as a trusted friend. Yet I feel that I gain more respect in this way, and I would not have it any other way. (Nominee No. 24, female, Incident No. 94).

Some nominees' wisdom is manifested in resolving problems such as conflicts within the organization. For instance, one nominee explained how he resolved conflicts caused by the merger of two colleges.

In the beginning there were a lot of complaints, but people felt that the merger could be beneficial to everyone because it could bring advancement for the whole university, and in the end it was a success. During the whole process, I immersed myself in their interactions, trying to see things from their perspectives. So a lot of time and energy was devoted to exchanging ideas. I think it is most important to be and remain sincere. I did not say things that I did not mean, and tried very hard to keep the promises that I made. After that the complaints diminished. My words were few, unless they were absolutely necessary, but I always tried very hard to come quickly to their aid when faculty and staff faced problems. If they found anything unreasonable, I always tried to figure out a better way of doing things. If I could not solve the problem after racking my brain, I still got back to them promptly, sharing with them my difficulties and telling them what could not be done. Most often they understood that I had tried my best, and were comforted by my sincerity. I think this is one of the reasons that we have very little friction now. (Nominee No. 6, male, Incident No. 23).

Another nominee's wisdom was displayed in resolving problems caused by discord among members.

If I knew that there were clashes among members, I often invited all parties to my office. Sometimes by the time I found out about the conflict, the situation had already evolved beyond any easy remedy. Those sorts of things happened. But as soon as I found out, I would invite all the parties to my office, and I would first extinguish the ‘fire.’ If the disagreement could be resolved, I would go on to strengthen the emotional bond between them. If members have good relationship with each other, even a big conflict can be made into a smaller one, and a smaller one will take care of itself. However, if there is no good relationship, no firm emotional foundation, even a trifle can turn into a big fight. (Nominee No. 53, male, Incident No. 81).

In addition, nominees' strives for the well-beings of their members were obvious in the incidents of this category. One nominee explained that when he found out that his organization, a famous drama group, was developing at the expense of its members, he closed the group.

Because our group was in a sense a troop, there were not enough acting opportunities for every member, so some of the wonderful talents of our members were not being fully cultivated. We were so successful that nobody was paying any attention to this problem. But as a self-identified educator, I paid a great deal of attention to this decline, and I took all those things into account. So I decided and gradually closed the group. The members were forced to begin their process of reaching out to the outside world, and all of them started to pursue their own paths, perform independently, and set up their own groups. So that was my decision, made after considering many aspects and possible consequences. I think it can be said that it was a right decision which resulted in the right effect, simply because that decision was made at the right time, at the most critical moment. (Nominee No. 16, male, Incident No. 63).

To sum up, in real-life contexts, leadership-related wisdom sometimes is displayed through fulfilling vision and solving difficult problems. When facing problems originating inside the organization, nominees often integrated different departments within the organization, resolved conflicts among members, and facilitated internal interactions. In such incidents, nominees were able to reason dialectically, to integrate opposing poles of opinions, to successfully merge disparate working units, and to synthesize clashing needs of different members and groups.

Thus, within the process of displaying their wisdom in this category, the results of analysis show that nominees were often able to integrate their own perspectives with those of others, and balance their dreams with duties. By their constant striving, they and their organizations often benefited from the visions they actualized and the solution they came up with.

2.3.3.3.3. Influencing the younger generation. This category included incidents in which nominees' efforts were devoted to guiding the younger generation (n=11; 12%). Some of the wisdom incidents in this category occurred in the context of leading research groups. One nominee who served as a leader of a research institute recalled:

At that time I spent most of my time researching and working with students. We did everything together. I did everything that was needed to get the research going, as a post-doctoral trainee. You see what I mean. And I involved students in doing research with me. Now sometimes my former students, who are all leaders at different research institutes, make fun of me. They would recall, “It did not surprise us at all that on Saturday nights our professor rode his bike to our dorm and asked us to explain things we did. We bet that no professor in the whole world could be so intimidating.” Yes, I was that intimidating professor. With that sort of effort we plowed the field deep. Knowledge was deeply rooted, not only in me,

627S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

but also in those students. So they are all doing very well now. They have all turned out to be experts or leading figures in related fields. (Nominee No. 32, male, Incident No. 121).

Another nominee who was the dean of a college at the time of the interview felt the wisest thing he ever did was educating the young:

I was lucky enough to see my students outperform me, and their outstanding performance really gave me a lift. I think that is one of the greatest joys a person can ever experience in life. The achievement really does not have to be my own achievement, but rather the knowledge that many can accomplish their own achievements through my help. It is of course not enough that I am the only person who develops and grows; I can help other people develop and grow. I think this is the greatest achievement of all. So it does not need to be my own success, but to know that what I did has helped many to achieve and succeed. And such joy can be attained by educating and cultivating students. (Nominee No. 45, male, Incident No. 155).

Thus, it seems that leadership-related tasks also involve providing guidance, and leadership-related wisdom can be displayed through influencing young people. In such incidents nominees integrated the past with the present, by aiming less for immediate gains and working for things that can last for a long time. As a result, their endeavors exerted positive influence on others' learning and development.

2.4. Discussion

2.4.1. Leadership involves wisdom

The findings of this study suggest that wisdom can be displayed through leadership in various ways in everyday life. In addition, the present study shows that in Taiwanese Chinese communities, many people nominated as wise individuals also had leadership responsibilities. This finding corresponds with the results found in a German study (Staudinger, 1996) and confirms the Taiwanese Chinese perceptions that wise people are often good leaders (Yang, 2001).

2.4.2. A process of leadership-related wisdom

2.4.2.1. Integration, embodiment, and positive effects Results of the present study suggest that leadership-related wisdom incidents involve three core components of wisdom:

integration, embodiment, and positive effects. Leaders nominated as wise individuals often demonstrate the ability to integrate multiple perspectives and conflicting interests, perhaps through dialectical and relative reasoning as previously noted by Kramer (2000). In addition to cognitive integration, they exert positive influence on themselves, on other individuals and organizations, and on society in general through their actions (Yang, 2001, 2008a, 2008b, 2009).

2.4.2.2. Contexts and contents Results of the present study show that leadership-related wisdom can be observed in organizational and social contexts.

Leadership-related wisdom may influence society at a macro level, influence organizations at a micro level, and influence younger generation. It is manifested in the form of fulfilling visions, solving difficulties, or founding organizations. In this study, most leadership-related wisdom incidents were manifested by formal leaders of non-profit organizations. This result seems to support Srivastva and Saatçi}ğlu (1998)'s proposition that organizational settings provide the necessary dialectical prerequisites for wisdom to emerge.

2.4.2.3. Leadership-related wisdom and societal needs The present results show that the nominees often strived to respond to certain societal needs; they often held ideals not only

for members and customers of their own organizations (Jones, 2005), but also for society in general. This finding is consistent with Prewitt's argument (2002) that wisdom is unselfish and other-regarding and carries with it significant social consequences, and with Sternberg's assertion (2007) that wisdom is for the common good. It also seems that as leaders, most wisdom nominees strive to fulfill the social responsibilities and philanthropic obligations of their organizations (Khandwalla, 1998; Küpers, 2007; McKenna et al., 2009; Walter, 1993). Their concerns may sometimes transcend the boundaries of their own organizations.

The results of the present study show that outstanding leaders may display wisdom if they are able to produce positive influences on themselves, on others around them, on their organizations, and on the larger community through realizing their visions. Hence, if leaders, though effective in their management, lack an integrated vision of a good life, or the results of their actions do not benefit others outside of their organizations, less wisdom can be attributed to their leadership.

Further research is needed to examine whether these transcendental concerns are an anomaly, or whether they can commonly be found in wise leaders of non-profit organizations, as a parallel to characteristics of outstanding leadership often found in for- profit organizations. If the later is indeed the case, then this transcendental striving can be an important characteristic that distinguishes the leadership of these nominees from leadership of other outstanding leaders who have their main focus on the long-term prosperity of their organizations (Collins, 2001). In addition, because the present results were based on nominees'

628 S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

subjective narratives, further research is needed to examine their leadership styles from their followers' viewpoints. Investigations of the followers are also needed to ascertain if and how the leaders have influenced them.

2.4.3. Leadership-related wisdom and creativity

The present results show that when nominees can find no preexisting institute to help them accomplish their goals, nominees tend to create leadership responsibilities by founding their own organizations. Thus, leadership-related wisdom is sometimes displayed through founding new organizations in response to social problems. This finding suggests that, perhaps contrary to the past conceptions of business professors (Sternberg, 1985), but consistent with Sternberg's WISC model (2007), leadership-related wisdom may involve problem-finding (Arlin, 1990) and creativity.

2.4.4. Limitations to the research

Because conscious efforts were made to recruit participants from a diverse range of residential regions as well as occupations and educational levels, it is expected that the results should be produced to at least wise Chinese leaders in Taiwan. However, certain sampling biases may give limited warrant to such generalization.

2.4.4.1. Educational levels Most nominators and nominees were highly educated; the present findings may result from a sampling bias for education, in

which highly educated nominators tended to nominate people who were also highly educated. It seems that at least in Taiwan people with a higher level of education were more willing to nominate wise people, even though they tend to uphold higher standards for wisdom (Yang, 2001). It may be that people with a higher level of education had more frequent encounters with the target population and hence were more likely to nominate people they considered wise. The researcher once gave out questionnaires at the night market, and one potential participant rejected the questionnaire with a surprised look: “Who are the wise persons? Isn't that something should be told by you people who have more knowledge, rather than a street vendor like me?” Another reason for questionnaires were more likely to be filled out by highly educated participants may be that those who were well educated were more familiar with methods of scientific investigation and hence were more confident and willing to respond when asked to nominate wise people. Whatever the reasons, the nominators' high level of education was also a problem for Orwoll and Perlmutter (1990) — their nominators also turned out to be fairly well-educated (N12 years of education).

In fact, results of a previous study show that knowledge and competencies are essential elements of Taiwanese Chinese people's conceptions of wisdom (Yang, 2001). It is therefore not surprising that most wisdom nominees of this study were highly- educated individuals. This result duplicates that of other recent studies (Hershey & Farrell, 1997; Orwoll & Perlmutter, 1990). In addition, people who are nominated by others as wise persons were found to have higher educational levels than people who referred themselves as wise persons (Lyster, 1996, cited in Kramer, 2000). The results of Lyster's study (1996, cited in Kramer, 2000) found that cognitively more complex nominators tended to choose cognitively complex wise exemplars, and cognitively less complex wise nominators tended to choose wise exemplars with less cognitive complexity. Thus, nominators were more likely to choose people they could “look up to” as wise.

In the present study, however, not all nominators nominated people whose educational level matched with their own, as the educational level of five wisdom nominees in this study fell below college level. A comparison of the two groups revealed that in the present study the nominators had a higher educational level than those who they nominated! Similar results were also found in Orwoll and Perlmutter's study (1990) — some of their wise nominees had very little education.

2.4.4.2. Age Though the age of wisdom nominees in this study ranged from early to late adulthood, it seems that middle-aged persons were

more likely than others to be nominated, as more than two thirds of the wisdom nominees in the present study were between 41 and 60 years old. As the age of nominators of the present study ranged from 31 to 65 years, these results might also be influenced by sampling bias; their nominations could be skewed toward nominees of similar age, perhaps due to the nominators' circles of acquaintances. Although the age correlation between nominators and their nominees was found to be very low (r=.21) and did not reach a significant level (p=.84), the likely explanation that middle-aged nominators tended to nominate people of their own age group cannot be completely ruled out. A similar result was found by Orwoll and Perlmutter (1990) — their nominees also tended to be middle-aged to old. Moreover, the results of the present study, that seven top-rated wisdom incidents, each has a mean wisdom rating of 6.50 or above and a combined mean rating (i.e., wisdom plus leadership) of 12.17 or above, were recounted by wisdom nominees whose ages ranged from 31 to 59, seem to coincide with what was found in another study — it was middle- aged individuals who performed best on wisdom-related tasks (Staudinger, 1999).

2.4.4.3. Gender The present findings revealed that more men than women were willing to nominate, and more men than women were

nominated. Thus, the fact that the majority of wisdom nominees were men may be a result of sampling bias. However, Orwoll and Perlmutter (1990), Denney, Dew, and Kroupa (1995), Jason, Reichler, King, Madsen, Camacho, and Marchese (2001), Perlmutter, Adams, Nyquist, and Kaplan (1988), cited in Orwoll and Perlmutter (1990), and Sowarka (1989), cited in Bluck and Glück (2005) also reported having predominately more male wisdom nominees. However, the seven top-rated wisdom incidents were done by

629S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

more women (nincident=4) than men (nincident=3). No significant gender effect was found within or between categories of wisdom incidents.

3. Conclusions and suggestions

To conclude, by examining wisdom displayed through leadership both theoretically and empirically, the present study broadens our view of the roles leaders may play in achieving the common good for society as a whole. This can further help us to speculate why some forms of leadership may lead to wisdom, whereas other forms of leadership may not.

As the harmful effects caused by bad corporate decisions often spill over to the society (Andrews, 2008, October 24), and as discussion of leadership is now focusing on cross-organizational, cross-boundary (Burkhardt, 2002; Gergen & Gergen, 1998), or even cross-continental leadership (Adler, 1998; Brown, 2008, May 28; Rivers, 2008, October 16; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1998), perhaps wisdom that aims at promoting good lives for all is what we need in order to improve the overall quality and efficacy of leadership and solve many leadership-related problems.

However, leadership-related wisdom cannot increase unless wisdom is added to the evaluation, recruitment, and training of leaders (McKenna et al., 2009). Several suggestions for recruitment and training of future leaders are thus offered.

3.1. Adding wisdom to evaluation and recruitment of leaders

Applicants' past achievement of leadership-related wisdom should be listed and evaluated before recruiting them as leaders. Applicants should be encouraged to examine their previous success in cognitive integration, their actions taken to realize visions, and their success in generating positive influences. Moreover, during the interview, potential leaders should be asked to predict the effects their leadership may generate for themselves, for other individuals, and for the continuing development and prosperity of surrounding communities. These descriptions should be evaluated and used as a supplemental criterion.

3.2. Adding wisdom to the training of leaders

We also need to develop wisdom in future leaders. Methods for enhancing cognitive integration, applying problem-finding skills to real-life situations, reflecting on oneself (Torber, 1998), regularly examining effects one may generate on others and society as a whole, as well as articulating, discussing, and criticizing visions and means one holds for achieving good lives for all (Maxwell, 1984) should be added to programs designed to train future leaders.

3.3. Emphasizing leadership-related wisdom in society

We should value leaders who display wisdom by promoting good lives for all. Further studies of wisdom displayed through outstanding leadership can help us understand whether and how leadership-related wisdom in wisdom nominees is different from wisdom displayed by outstanding leaders in profit-oriented organizations. Moreover, future research is also needed to investigate how learning can be transformed into leadership-related wisdom.

In addition, mechanisms that foster communication of leadership-related wisdom need to be established and strengthened both within and across organizations. Bierly, Kessler, and Christensen (2000) observe that “there may be wise individuals in the organization, but the organization does not become wise unless individuals' wisdom is articulated and transferred to others” (p. 609). Similarly, there may be wise leaders in our societies, yet the community as a whole cannot become wise unless their wisdom is actively sought out and shared with the general public. Incidents of leadership-related wisdom need to be collected and shared within the community, so that society as a whole can be constantly reminded that cultivating leadership-related wisdom is more important than having powerful and effective but selfish leaders.

The world is in need of leadership displaying wisdom, leadership that not only benefits organizations, but also serves the well- being of the society. The present results ultimately raise the following questions. Can we, as members of both individual organizations and the society as a whole, entertain the idea that leaders who put the benefits of larger society above the profits of his or her own organization are good leaders? Can we approve and support leaders who emphasize members' well-beings and social welfares no less than the gains and profits of their organizations? Is promoting good lives for society a valid criterion that should be added to the overall evaluation of leaders' performance? These questions remain to be affirmed or refuted by future studies and discussions.

Acknowledgments

National Science Council funded this study under the grant number NSC 97-2410-H-260-005-SS2. The author would like to thank Dr. Arild Tjeldvoll and Dr. Yeh Rih-song for his valuable suggestions on an earlier draft and Dr. Chris J. Sundstrom, Dr. Robert Reynolds, and Dr. Songyen Lin for their editing help. Special thanks are to Song-Bo Lin, Shih-wei Zheng, Tieh-Huai Chang, Yi-an Shih, Shu-juan Huang, Sin-je Huang, Yo-yun Lin, Hong-yi Fang, Yung-Han Hung, Wei-lin Chen, Yen-Hsiu Kuo, and Chia-chen Cheng for their very capable research assistance.

630 S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

References

Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3–9. Adler, N. J. (1998). Societal leadership: The wisdom of peace. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and executive courage (pp. 205–221).

San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Andrews, E. L. (2008, October 24). Greenspan concedes error on regulation. New York Times. p. B1. Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging, 25, 275–324. Ardelt, M. (2004). Wisdom as expert knowledge system: A critical review of a contemporary operationalization of an ancient concept. Human Development, 47,

257–285. Arlin, P. K. (1990). Wisdom: The art of problem finding. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp. 230–243). New York: Cambridge

University Press. Assmann, A. (1994). Wholesome knowledge: Concepts of wisdom in a historical and cross-cultural perspective. Life-span Development and Behavior, 12, 187–224. Baltes, P. B., Dittmann-Kohli, F., & Dixon, R. A. (1984). New perspectives on the development of intelligence in adulthood: Toward a dual-process conception and a

model of selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim Jr. (Eds.), Life-span Development and Behavior, Vol. 6. (pp. 39–76). New York: Academic Press.

Baltes, P. B., & Kunzmann, U. (2003). Wisdom. Psychologist, 16, 131–133. Baltes, P. B., & Kunzmann, U. (2004). The two faces of wisdom: Wisdom as a general theory of knowledge and judgment about excellence in mind and virtue vs.

wisdom as everyday realization in people and product. Human Development, 47, 290–299. Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (1990). Toward a psychology of wisdom and its ontogenesis. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development

(pp. 87–120). New York: Cambridge University Press. Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (1993). The search for a psychology of wisdom. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 75–80. Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55,

122–136. Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., Maercker, A., & Smith, J. (1995). People nominated as wise: A comparative study of wisdom-related knowledge. Psychology and

Aging, 10, 155–166. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Bellinger, G., Castro, D., & Mills, A. (2000, December 31). Data, information, knowledge, and wisdom [Online]. Outsights Available: http://www.outsights.com/

systems/dikw/dikw.htm. Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 62(1), 2–5. Beyer, J. M., & Niño, D. (1998). Facing the future: Backing courage with wisdom. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and executive

courage (pp. 65–100). San Fransisco: The New Lexington Press. Bierly, P., Kessler, E., & Christensen, E. (2000). Organizational learning knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organization Change, 13(6), 595–618. Bigelow, J. (1992). Developing managerial wisdom. Journal of Management, 1(2), 143–153. Bluck, S., & Glück, J. (2004). Making things better and learning a lesson: Experiencing wisdom across the lifespan. Journal of Personality, 72, 543–572. Bluck, S., & Glück, J. (2005). From the inside out. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbook of wisdom (pp. 84–109). New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, G. (2008, May 28). Gordon Brown: We must all act together. The Guardian. Retrieved December 6, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/

2008/may/28/gordonbrown.oil. Burkhardt, J. C. (2002). Boundary-spanning leadership in higher education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 145–150. Clayton, V. P. (1982). Wisdom and intelligence: The nature and function of knowledge in the later years. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 15(4),

315–321. Clayton, V. P., & Birren, J. E. (1980). The development of wisdom across the life span: An reexamination of an ancient topic. Life-span Development and Behavior, 3,

103–135. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Business. Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. (1998). An invitation to organizational wisdom and executive courage. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational

wisdom and executive courage (pp. 1–24). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denney, N. W., Dew, J. R., & Kroupa, S. L. (1995). Perceptions of wisdom: What is it and who has it? Journal of Adult Development, 2(1), 37–47. Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Erikson, J., Erikson, E., & Kivnick, H. (1986). Vital involvement in old age. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (1998). The relational rebirthing of wisdom and courage. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and

executive courage (pp. 134–156). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Hershey, D. A., & Farrell, A. H. (1997). Perceptions of wisdom associated with selected occupations and personality characteristics. Current Psychology, 16, 115–130. Holliday, S. G., & Chandler, M. J. (1986). Wisdom: Explorations in adult competence. Contributions to Human Development, 17, 1–96. Jarvis, P. (1987). Meaningful and meaningless experience: Towards an analysis of learning from life. Adult Education Quarterly, 37, 164–172. Jason, L. A., Reichler, A., King, C., Madsen, D., Camacho, J., & Marchese, W. (2001). The measurement of wisdom: A preliminary effort. Journal of Community

Psychology, 29, 585–598. Jeannot, T. M. (1989). Moral leadership and practical wisdom. International Journal of Social Economics, 16(6), 14–38. Jones, C. A. (2005). Wisdom paradigms for the enhancement of ethical and profitable business practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 363–375. Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33, 33–42. Kekes, J. (1983). Wisdom. American Philosophical Quarterly, 20, 277–286. Kessler, E. H., & Bailey, J. R. (2007). Introduction: Understanding, applying, and developing organizational and managerial wisdom. In E. H. Kessler & J. R. Bailey

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational and managerial wisdom (pp. xv–lxxiv). Los Angeles: Sage. Khandwalla, P. N. (1998). Thorny glory: Toward organizational greatness. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and executive courage

(pp. 157–204). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Korac-Kakabadse, N., Korac-Kakabadse, A., & Kouzmin, A. (2001). Leadership renewal: Towards the philosophy of wisdom. International Review of Administrative

Sciences, 67(3), 207–227. Kramer, D. A. (1990). Conceptualizing wisdom: The primacy of affect–cognition relations. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development

(pp. 279–313). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kramer, D. A. (2000). Wisdom as a classical source of human strength: Conceptualization and empirical inquiry. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 83–101. Küpers, W. M. (2007). Phenomenology and integral phenol-practice of wisdom in leadership and organization. Social Epistemology, 21, 169–193. Labouvie-Vief, G. (1990). Wisdom as integrated thought: Historical and developmental perspectives. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and

development (pp. 52–86). New York: Cambridge University Press. Labouvie-Vief, G. (2000). Affect complexity and views of the transcendent. In P. Young-Eisendrath & M. E. Miller (Eds.), The psychology of mature spirituality:

Integrity, wisdom, transcendence (pp. 103–119). London: Routledge. Lyster, T. L. (1996). A nomination approach to the study of wisdom in old age. Doctoral Dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Malan, L. C., & Kriger, M. P. (1998). Making sense of managerial wisdom. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(3), 242–251.

631S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632

Maxwell, N. (1984). From knowledge to wisdom. New York: Basil Blackwell. McKenna, B., Rooney, D., & Boal, K. (2009). Wisdom principles as a meta-theoretical basis for evaluating leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 177–190. McNamee, S. (1998). Reinscribing organizational wisdom and courage: The relational engaged organization. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.),

Organizational wisdom and executive courage (pp. 101–117). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Meacham, J. A. (1983). Wisdom and the context of knowledge: Knowing that one doesn't know. Contributions to Human Development, 8, 111–134. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Clark, M. C. (1993). Learning from life experience: What makes it significant? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 12, 129–138. Moody, H. R. (1983, Novemberr). Wisdom and the search for meaning. Paper presented at the 36th annual meetings of the Gerontological Society of America, San

Francisco, CA. Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, O. T., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems.

Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11–35. Nahavandi, A. (2000). The art and science of leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. London: Sage. Orwoll, L., & Perlmutter, M. (1990). The study of wise persons: Integrating a personality perspective. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origin, and

development (pp. 160–177). New York: Cambridge University Press. Pascual-Leone, J. (1990). An essay on wisdom: Toward organismic processes that make it possible. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and

development (pp. 244–278). New York: Cambridge University Press. Pasupathi, M., & Staudinger, U. M. (2001). Do advanced moral reasoners also show wisdom? Linking moral reasoning and wisdom-related knowledge and

judgement. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 401–415. Perlmutter, M., Adams, C., Nyquist, L., & Kaplan, C. (1988). [Beliefs about wisdom]. Unpublished data. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Prewitt, V. R. (2002). Wisdom in the workplace. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(1), 84–98. Rivers, T. (2008, October 16). Brown presses hard for banking crisis agreement at EU summit. VOA News. Retrieved December 6, 2008, from http://www.en-

learning-blog.com/english/Brown-Presses-Hard-for-Banking-Crisis-Agreement-at-EU-Summit.html. Sampson, E. E. (1998). The political organization of wisdom and courage. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and executive courage

(pp. 118–133). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Small, M. W. (2004). Wisdom and now managerial wisdom: Do they have a place in management development programs? The Journal of Management

Development, 23, 751–7764. Smith, J., Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1994). Occupational settings facilitating wisdom-related knowledge: The sample case of clinical psychologists. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 989–999. Sowarka, D. (1989). Weisheit und weise Personen: Common-Sense-Konzepte älterer Menschen [Wisdom and wise persons: Common-sense conceptions of older

people]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Paedagogische Psychologie, 21, 87–109. Srivastva, S., & Cooperrider, D. L. (Eds.). (1998). Organizational wisdom and executive courage. San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Srivastva, S., & Saatçi}ğlu, A. (1998). An epilogue: An invitation to future dialogue. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and executive

courage (pp. 254–283). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Staudinger, U. M. (1996). Wisdom and the social-interactive foundation of the mind. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive mind: Life-span perspectives

on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 276–315). New York: Cambridge University Press. Staudinger, U. M. (1999). Older and wiser? Integrating results on the relationship between age and wisdom-related performance. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 23, 641–664. Staudinger, U. M., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1992). Wisdom-related knowledge in a life review task: Age differences and the role of professional specialization.

Psychology and Aging, 7(2), 271–281. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347–365. Sternberg, R. J. (2007). A system model of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 34–42. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71. Torber, W. R. (1998). Developing wisdom and courage in organization and sciencing. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and executive

courage (pp. 222–253). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Vail, P. B. (1998). The unspeakable texture of process wisdom. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and executive courage (pp. 25–39).

San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Walter, G. A. (1993). Wisdom's critical requirement for scientific objectivity in organizational behavior research: Explicit reporting of research values. In R. T.

Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 491–524). New York: M. Dekker. Waters, J. A. (1980). Managerial skill development. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 449–453. Yang, S. -Y. (2001). Conceptions of wisdom among Taiwanese Chinese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 662–680. Yang, S. -Y. (2008a). A process view of wisdom. Journal of Adult Development, 15(2), 62–75. Yang, S. -Y. (2008b). Real-life contextual manifestations of wisdom. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 67(4), 273–303. Yang, S. -Y. (2009). 智慧與領導智慧與領導:高等教育場域中的經驗學習 [Wisdom and leadership: experiential learning in contexts of higher education].

Educational Forum, 12(3), 125–162 [楊世英]. Yang, S. -Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997a). Taiwanese Chinese people's conceptions of intelligence. Intelligence, 25, 21–36. Yang, S. -Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997b). Conceptions of intelligence in ancient Chinese philosophy. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 17, 101–119.

632 S. Yang / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 616–632