Foundations

Chapter 3

Virtues and Organizations

Nansook Park and Christopher M. Peterson

One of the topics of concern to positive psychology is positive traits—char-

acteristics like curiosity, hope, kindness, and prudence—that contribute to

individual fulfillment. Over the past several years, we have attempted to

classify the most important of these traits and devise assessment strategies

for each. The task we have taken for ourselves is to wed the field of virtue

ethics as it has emerged over the centuries within philosophy to trait theory

as it exists within contemporary psychology.

Thinkers as early as Aristotle posed the question, “What is the good of a

person?” and answered it by enumerating moral virtues readily inter-

pretable as traits: general styles of behavior evident in thought, feeling,

and action that develop over time and are displayed or are not in accor-

dance with the situation broadly construed. One of the most important situ-

ations is the context provided by organizations—schools, workplaces,

communities, and entire cultures—and specifically their prevailing roles,

rules, norms, and reward structures. In some cases, the organizational con-

text affords moral excellence on the part of members, and in other cases,

sadly not.

Although positive traits are by definition characteristics of the individual,

we believe that counterparts exist at the organizational level. There is a

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 0 3 . B e r r e t t - K o e h l e r P u b l i s h e r s .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY AN: 260674 ; Kim Cameron, Jane Dutton.; Positive Organizational Scholarship : Foundations of a New Discipline Account: s8876267.main.edsocls

34  Virtuous Processes

flourishing genre of popular books that discuss “good” organizations, and a

common strategy within these books is to articulate the relevant character-

istics. Many of these characteristics resemble the individual-level positive

traits of interest to us, and some even carry the same name. Not only do

these characteristics contribute to the stated moral goals of the organi-

zation, but they also—certainly not by chance—contribute to the fulfill-

ment of individuals in the organization. A productive goal for the field of

positive organizational studies is a systematic examination of organizational-

level virtues. What are the most important of these? Do they generally

occur across different types of organizations or are they thoroughly specific?

Such questions frame an ambitious research agenda, and we can only

sketch how one might begin to answer them. Accordingly, we have several

goals in this chapter. First, we describe our work to date on classifying posi-

tive traits of the individual. Second, we selectively survey discussions of

positive organizations of different types—societies, workplaces, and

schools—by summarizing some of the organizational-level virtues attrib-

uted to them. Third, we attempt to synthesize these two lines of inquiry to

arrive at a consensus view of the positive “person-in-organization.”

CHARACTER STRENGTHS OF THE INDIVIDUAL: THE VIA CLASSIFICATION

There are various ways to approach good character. One might talk about it

as unitary and categorical—a person either has character or not. Or one

could conceptualize character in terms of underlying processes like auton-

omy or reality orientation (Jahoda, 1958). One might wed it to an a priori

theory. One could view character as only a social construction, revealing of

the observer’s values but not of who or what is observed. But in all of these

respects we have taken a different approach.

The stance we take toward character in the Values in Action (VIA) Classi- fication of Strengths is in the spirit of personality psychology, and specifically

that of contemporary trait theory, which recognizes individual differences

that are stable and general but also shaped by the individual’s setting and

thus capable of change (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). The initial step in the

VIA classification was to unpack the notion of character—to start with the

assumption that it is plural—and then to specify the separate strengths and

virtues of individuals and finally to devise ways to assess these as individual

differences.

We generated the entries for the VIA classification by brainstorming and

surveying pertinent literatures that address good character (e.g., Peterson,

2003). Our intent was to leave no stone unturned in identifying candidate

strengths for the VIA classification. We combined redundancies and asked

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Virtues and Organizations  35

ourselves if we had neglected any character strengths deemed important

by others. For example, we excluded from the VIA classification talents

and abilities (e.g., intelligence) and characteristics not valued across all cul-

tures (e.g., cleanliness, frugality, silence). We also excluded what we call

complex or blended strengths of character, those that combine the more

basic strengths we did include. Consider the character strength of toler-

ance, which blends critical thinking and fairness.

The VIA classification includes twenty-four positive traits organized in

terms of six core virtues that emerge consistently in philosophical and reli-

gious discussion of human goodness: wisdom and knowledge; courage; love;

justice; temperance; and transcendence (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Selig-

man, 2002) (see Table 3.1). It is worth noting that the entries in the VIA

classification overlap considerably with those in two other contemporary

classifications arrived at in very different ways from the strategy that pro-

duced the VIA list.

Table 3.1 VIA Classification of Character Strengths

1. Wisdom and knowledge: Cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge. Creativity/originality/ingenuity: Thinking of novel and productive ways to do things;

includes but is not limited to artistic achievement.

Curiosity/interest: Taking an interest in all of ongoing experience; finding all sub-

jects and topics fascinating; exploring and discovering.

Judgment/active open-mindedness: Thinking things through and examining them

from all sides; not jumping to conclusions; being able to change one’s mind in light

of evidence; weighing all evidence fairly.

Love of learning: Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge, whether on

one’s own or formally. Obviously related to the strength of curiosity, but goes be-

yond it to describe the tendency to add systematically to what one knows.

Perspective: Being able to provide wise counsel to others; having ways of looking at

the world that make sense to the self and to other people.

2. Courage: Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal. Bravery/valor: Not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain; speaking up

for what is right even if there is opposition; acting on convictions even if unpopu-

lar; includes but is not limited to physical bravery.

Industry/perseverance/diligence: Finishing what one starts; persisting in a course of

action in spite of obstacles; “getting it out the door”; taking pleasure in completing

tasks.

Integrity/honesty/authenticity: Speaking the truth but more broadly presenting one-

self in a genuine way; being without pretense; taking responsibility for one’s feel-

ings and actions.

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Table 3.1 VIA Classification of Character Strengths (continued)

Vitality/zest/enthusiasm: Approaching life with excitement and energy; not doing things

halfway or halfheartedly; living life as an adventure; feeling alive and activated.

3. Love: Interpersonal strengths that involve tending and befriending others. Intimacy/reciprocal attachment: Valuing close relations with others, in particular

those in which sharing and caring are reciprocated; being close to people.

Kindness/generosity/nurturance/altruism/“niceness”: Doing favors and good deeds

for others; helping them; taking care of them.

Social intelligence: Being aware of the motives and feelings of other people and the

self; knowing what to do to fit in to different social situations; knowing what

makes other people tick.

4. Justice: Civic strengths that underlie healthy community life. Citizenship/duty/loyalty/teamwork: Working well as member of a group or team;

being loyal to the group; doing one’s share.

Fairness/equity: Treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and jus-

tice; not letting personal feelings bias decisions about others; giving everyone a

fair chance.

Leadership: Encouraging a group of whom one is a member to get things done and at

the same time maintaining good relations within the group; organizing group ac-

tivities and seeing that they happen.

5. Temperance: Strengths that protect against excess. Forgiveness/mercy: Forgiving those who have done wrong; giving people a second

chance; not being vengeful.

Modesty/humility: Letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves; not seeking

the spotlight; not regarding one’s self as more special than one is.

Prudence/caution: Being careful about one’s choices; not taking undue risks; not say-

ing or doing things that might later be regretted.

Self-regulation/self-control: Regulating what one feels and does; being disciplined;

controlling one’s appetites and emotions.

6. Transcendence: Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and pro- vide meaning. Appreciation of beauty and excellence/awe/wonder: Noticing and appreciating

beauty, excellence, and skilled performance in all domains of life, from nature to

art to mathematics to science to everyday experience.

Gratitude: Being aware of and thankful for the good things that happen; taking time

to express thanks.

Hope/optimism: Expecting the best in the future and working to achieve it; believ-

ing that a good future is something that can be brought about.

Playfulness/humor: Liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other people; seeing

the light side; making (not necessarily telling) jokes.

Spirituality/religiousness/sense of purpose: Having coherent beliefs about the higher pur-

pose and meaning of the universe; knowing where one fits within the larger scheme;

having beliefs about the meaning of life that shape conduct and provide comfort.

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Virtues and Organizations  37

First, French philosopher André Comte-Sponville (2001) surveyed clas-

sical and contemporary Western philosophical traditions for mention of the

“qualities that constitute the excellence and essence of humankind.” He

included politeness and gentleness (which we did not, because they seem

prerequisites for more substantive strengths) and excluded several of the

VIA strengths (e.g., appreciation of beauty, curiosity, and zest), but other-

wise the agreement is substantial. Second, Marcus Buckingham and Don-

ald Clifton (2001) of the Gallup Organization described “work-place

themes” that emerged from focus groups with thousands of individuals

about the traits that contribute to excellent performance at work. They in-

cluded strengths that are culture-bound (e.g., competition) as well as

strengths that strike us as blends of more basic strengths (e.g., communica-

tion), but the agreement is again substantial.

ORGANIZATIONAL-LEVEL VIRTUES

Discussions of organizational-level virtues are neither as numerous nor as

systematic as those of individual-level virtues. However, the process that

created the VIA classification provides a roadmap for how one might

identify and classify organizational-level virtues: survey previous discus-

sions and look for commonalities.

What do we mean by organizational-level virtues? They are moral char-

acteristics of the organization as a whole, not simply summaries or compos-

ites of characteristics of the organization’s individual members. As such,

organizational-level virtues need to be an enduring part of the organiza-

tional culture. A school might happen to employ a number of teachers ded-

icated to the intellectual growth of students, but if the school does not have

practices in place that allow such dedication to survive personnel turnover,

there is no organizational-level virtue.

Organizational-level virtues serve the moral goals of an organization and

not simply its bottom line, whether this be profit, power, or persistence.

The fact that organizations have multiple goals, all labeled “good” ones,

challenges us as we attempt to separate organizational-level virtues from

characteristics that contribute to other desirable goals.

We have read popular books that attempt to describe what makes some

work organizations better than others (e.g., Buckingham & Coffman, 1999;

Collins, 2001; Collins & Porras, 1997; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Shaw,

1997). These endeavors are multiple case studies, comparing and contrast-

ing a handful of consensually “good” organizations with a handful of those

that are “less good,” with the goal of discerning critical features. The prob-

lem with these otherwise provocative comparisons is that the criterion used

for deciding goodness conflates profitability, longevity, customer satisfac-

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

38  Virtuous Processes

tion, and notoriety with moral goodness, and debate ensues about the moral

desirability of some of the critical features thereby identified.

Our solution to this dilemma is to return to our characterization of

individual-level virtues as “contributing to fulfillment” and to propose that

an analogous rule be used to identify organizational-level virtues (cf. Peter-

son & Seligman, 2003). That is, organizational-level virtues are character-

istics of the organization that contribute to the fulfillment of its members.

And what do we mean by “fulfillment”? There is a long tradition within

philosophy that discusses precisely this question. Most agree that fulfill-

ment should not be confused with momentary pleasure or happiness per se,

if happiness is construed only as the presence of positive affect and absence

of negative affect.

What counts as a fulfillment must pass the death-bed test. How might

people, if able to collect their thoughts in the face of death, complete the

sentence: “I wish I had spent more time __________”? It is doubtful that

anyone would say “visiting Disneyland,” “watching reruns of the Dukes of Hazard,” or “eating butter pecan ice cream.” These activities are fun but

not fulfilling. At least in our society, the death-bed test is instead met by ac-

tivities that pertain to work and love broadly construed, as in “I wish I had

spent more time making a mark on the world” and “I wish I had spent

more time getting to know my children and being kind to my friends.” It

seems that fulfillments must reflect effort, the willful choice and pursuit

over time of morally praiseworthy activities. This is why we chose our lan-

guage carefully to say that virtues “contribute” to fulfillments rather than

“cause” them in the automatic way that Jägermeister causes intoxication.

There are no shortcuts to a fulfillment.

We hope this analysis does not smack too strongly of Puritanism. We are

not opposed to pleasure or happiness, and we are certainly not opposed to

shortcuts. Self-adhering postage stamps, cruise control, and automatic re-

dial are among the most noteworthy inventions of the modern world pre-

cisely because they are shortcuts with little downside. But the value of

these and other shortcuts is that they save time and effort that would other-

wise be spent on unfulfilling pursuits. The moral significance of a shortcut

is only indirect, judged by what one does with the time and effort that have

been saved.

What then is this contributory relationship of virtues to fulfillments? Our

thinking here has been guided by the Aristotelian notion of eudemonia, which holds that well-being is not a consequence of virtuous action but

rather an inherent aspect of such action. Virtues, at the individual or orga-

nizational level, may or may not have long-term desirable consequences—

these are interesting empirical questions—but such outcomes are not what

we mean by fulfillments. Rather, a fulfillment is part and parcel of the ac-

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Virtues and Organizations  39

tions that manifest virtue. For example, when a work supervisor fairly adju-

dicates a dispute between two workers, the act of adjudication does not

cause her or him (or the workers) to feel satisfied at some later point in

time; being satisfied is an inherent aspect of justice in action. Especially in

light of this way of thinking about organizational-level virtues, they need to

influence actual conduct within the organization in ways that people can

recognize. No less than do individuals, organizations may pay lip service to

values that are ignored or even contradicted by their everyday practice.

The organizational-level virtues of interest to us are those that are culti-

vated and celebrated and that serve as a source of identity and pride for the

organization’s members. To the degree that membership in an organization

is fluid, members point to the organizational-level virtues as reasons to re-

main a member: when people say that this block is a good neighborhood in

which to reside, that this company is a good place to work, or that this col-

lege is a good school to attend, they mean that one is fulfilled—satisfied and

gratified—by so doing. In the language of positive psychology, a good or-

ganization is one that enables the good life for its members, and we know

that “the good life” is not simply code for money, status, or pleasure (Myers

& Diener, 1995).

We have so far sidestepped the issue of defining what is moral because

of the hoary issues raised by the notion of cultural relativism. The clichéd

examples of Nazi Germany or the ferocious Yanomamo of South America

make it seem impossible to talk about the moral goals of an organization

from the outside. But another point of view holds out the possibility of iden-

tifying across groups agreement about the features of “good” (i.e., moral)

organizations. Indeed, we think the ubiquity of given organizational-level

virtues is settled by looking at what different organizations actually value.

So let us begin this examination.

The Good Society

What characterizes the good society? This question has been posed—and

answered—for as long as people have lived together. Consider the vision of

the good society articulated in ancient Rome (Starr, 1985). The Roman

ideal of the good society has pervaded Western organizations and institu-

tions for the past two millennia, and the Latin words provided by this vision

for describing organizational-level virtues have become familiar in the

Western world.

The Romans recognized personal virtues—what we call character

strengths—like gravitas (a sense of the importance of the matter at hand)

and veritas (honesty) but also municipal virtues—that is, organizational-

level virtues—that characterize an entire society. So, abundance means

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

40  Virtuous Processes

that there must be enough food for all members of society. Only a society

per se can be characterized by concordia (harmony) and pax (peace). Here

are some of the other Roman municipal virtues; many recur in subsequent

characterizations of good organizations:

• equity—fair dealing within the organization

• good fortune—remembrance of important positive events

• justice—sensible laws and governance

• patience—the ability to weather crisis

• providence—the sense that the organization has a destiny

• safety—public health and welfare

It is informative to compare and contrast this vision with an equally in-

fluential one—the vision articulated by Confucius (1992)—which has per-

vaded Asian organizations and institutions for millennia. In his writings,

Confucius extensively addressed the good society, but he did not enumer-

ate its organizational-level virtues as explicitly as did the Romans.

Nonetheless, one can discern his emphases. Most basically, Confucius val-

ued social order and thus stressed explicit role expectations. He discussed

at length these expectations in terms of relationships between and among

people, so an inherent aspect of the Confucian vision of the good society is

interpersonal—organizational, as it were.

Confucius identified six relationships as crucial, those between: ruler

and subjects, parents and children, husband and wife, older brother and

younger brother, teacher and student, and friend and friend. These rela-

tionships each have a “superior” and “subordinate” member, except for

friend and friend, although even here, if one individual is older than the

other, it may become an older-younger brother relationship. In each rela-

tionship, the “subordinate” individual has the responsibility of obedience to

the “superior,” but only when the superior in turn displays benevolence

and care.

At least in principle, the Confucian ideal of duty does not prescribe

humble acquiescence of the powerless to the powerful but rather calls for

mutual respect that persons should have in relation to one another, begin-

ning with the familial relationship and extending outward to the state and

citizen (Haberman, 1998). Put another way, the Confucian notion of duty is

not permission for tyranny but rather an obligation to act honorably and

with self-control in all personal affairs, rather than with a motive for per-

sonal gain. Likewise, the Confucian precept of good etiquette is best un-

derstood as a directive to respect others. The cultivation of courteousness

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Virtues and Organizations  41

and deference in one’s everyday behavior is more about consideration for

another’s feelings than strict adherence to rules and empty custom.

The Confucian vision of the good society can therefore be captured by a

small number of organizational-level virtues embodied in the edicts to

honor one’s parents, to love others, to do what is right instead of what is ad-

vantageous, to practice what can be translated as “reciprocity” (i.e., the

Golden Rule as articulated in the Western world), and to have rulers who

lead by moral example instead of by force.

The Good Workplace

Let us downsize our discussion to focus on characteristics of the good work-

place. As we noted earlier, recent years have seen a number of popular

books that attempt to describe what makes some work organizations more

successful, great, visionary, or enduring than others. Work organizations of

course need to be profitable, but there is agreement that profit per se can-

not be the sole concern of organizations that aspire to excellence.

Instead, certain organizational-level virtues must be present. For ex-

ample, excellent work organizations need to have an articulated moral goal

or vision that can be embraced by workers and customers alike, and this vi-

sion must guide actual conduct within the organization. Slogans and logos

may provide clues about the vision of a work organization, but observation

of day-to-day practices provides the real proof of their existence.

Workers are treated fairly in moral work organizations, which have re-

ward structures both explicit and equitable. The parallel with “good” par-

enting is interesting. In contrast to authoritarian or permissive styles of

raising children, an authoritative style entails limits with explanation and

ongoing negotiation (Baumrind, 1971, 1978). Authoritative parenting leads

to children who are friendly, cooperative, socially responsible, and self-

reliant—kids with good character. An authoritative managerial style simi-

larly leads to employees who are independent yet responsible—workers

with good character (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

The organization must treat people as individuals and not as a pair of

hands. In the case of employees, this may mean giving them the autonomy

to be innovative. It may mean humane concern not only for workers but

also for their families. It may mean placing people in jobs that allow them to

do what they do best. It may mean promoting from within. In the case of

customers, treating them as individuals entails being honest about the goods

or services that are delivered; it means listening to what customers have to

say about the work organization and then following their suggestions.

Finally, excellent work organizations follow through on commitments, to

workers and to customers. Promises and contracts, even implied ones, are

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

42  Virtuous Processes

honored. Said another way, in a good workplace, the spirit of the law tri-

umphs over the letter of the law.

The Good School

As organizations, schools have unique characteristics. Students are crucial

members of schools, the equivalent of customers or clients, and the ulti-

mate goal or product. School is a life industry, which means that educational

practices affect students not just in the here and now but also across the

lifespan in settings far removed from the classroom. The pervasive influ-

ence of schools is not an interesting byproduct of education but an integral

part of a school’s explicit purpose. Schools of course intend to impart knowl-

edge and to encourage intellectual excellence, but the intent of a school

includes much more than teaching multiplication or verb conjugation.

Discussions of excellent schools often focus just on achievement and not

on the people who achieve, but we should not confuse graduation rates and

test scores with the moral goals of education. Likewise, excellent schools

may play a role in reducing such negative outcomes as violence, substance

abuse, and unhealthy behavior (Elias & Weissberg, 2000), but the avoid-

ance of problems cannot be the whole picture. Otherwise, schools would be

indistinguishable from police departments.

We are instead interested in the features of schools that contribute to the

moral fulfillment of students and the adults they become. We had to look

hard for such discussions. The thriving industry of character education was

less useful for our purpose than we had hoped. Many character education

statements dwell at length on the aspects of character to be cultivated as

opposed to the characteristics of schools that actually enable these aspects.

When practices are recommended by character education advocates, they

are often psychologically naive. Reciting the pledge of allegiance every

morning is not an automatic route to good citizenship, and viewing the Ten

Commandments on the wall of a classroom is no guarantee that the ex-

posed students will become moral adults. After all, we stared for years at

the periodic table of elements at the front of our science classrooms, and

we did not become chemists.

Much more useful for our present purpose were the psychologically fo-

cused studies by Martin Maehr and his colleagues on the sorts of schools

that encourage students to be engaged and enthusiastic about learning

(e.g., Maehr & Braskamp, 1986; Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Maehr, Midgley,

& Urdan, 1992). Positive attitudes and motives about school translate

themselves into good academic performance but more importantly make

students lifelong learners who reap psychological benefits long after gradu-

ation (Cowen, 1997; Schneider, 2000).

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Virtues and Organizations  43

The features of “good” schools so defined include an articulated and

shared vision of the school’s purpose: what it stands and strives for (Maehr,

1991). Only when a school provides explicit goals can students adopt them.

Goals increase motivation to learn, investment in the process, and commit-

ment to the hard work that achievement entails (Maehr & Midgley, 1996).

Good schools emphasize the individual student and reward his or her effort

and improvement (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Maehr, Ames, & Braskamp,

1988; Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995). In contrast, schools that em-

phasize ability may actually undercut performance and certainly work

against positive attitudes. There is much to commend in the recent move-

ment within the United States to hold students to high standards, but if this

entails “teaching to the standardized test,” the movement is self-defeating.

There is little reason to believe that drilling youngsters on how to take

multiple-choice tests will change their intellectual values or sense of self

(Roeser & Eccles, 1998).

As noted, a good school is one that prepares students to be effective

learners throughout life (Lyon, 1999). Accordingly, such a school starts by

providing an environment where students feel safe and proceeds by explic-

itly guiding them to be caring, responsible, and ultimately productive

members of their society (Elias et al., 1997; Pepler & Slaby, 1994; Weiss-

berg, Barton, & Shriver, 1997). Social competence and emotional compe-

tence can be encouraged by appropriate exercises and activities, which

need not be expensive and in any event are not incompatible with tradi-

tional academic pursuits.

Consider the ongoing intervention by Jamieson (2000) to encourage

civic engagement among U.S. high school students by teaching what she

calls civic literacy through a combination of student-led classroom discus-

sions and community activities. As a local election approaches, high school

students survey the electorate about the issues that matter most to them.

The students determine the positions on these issues of the respective can-

didates, and evaluate the viability of these positions. The students sponsor

public discussions and debates. They help turn out the vote, and those of

legal age of course vote themselves.

Rigorous evaluation of educational programs that build character are just

beginning in earnest (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional

Learning, 2002), but in the meantime, we can look at the more extensive

studies of programs that reduce problems such as school violence. Here are

some conclusions about “good” schools judged in these terms (Hawkins &

Lam 1987; Hunter & Elias, 1998):

• Students perceive courses to be relevant.

• Students perceive control over what happens to them at school.

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

44  Virtuous Processes

• Students perceive school discipline policies to be firm, fair,

clear, and consistently enforced, with a focus on correction and

skill-building rather than on punishment.

• Students see the school reward system as rational: the school

recognizes students for their achievement and rewards their

positive behavior.

• There exists a strong and effective school governance.

• The school principal displays strong leadership.

• Practices are in place that decrease impersonality of the school

and increase contact between students and teachers, which in

turn increases students’ feeling of belongings and connected-

ness.

Similar conclusions emerge from discussions of good schools from social sys-

tem and community perspectives (e.g., Felner, 2000; Felner, Felner, & Sil-

verman, 2000).

CONCLUSION

We trust that the reader has seen agreement across our discussions of good

societies, good workplaces, and good schools about at least five widely val-

ued organizational-level virtues: purpose (a shared vision of the moral goals

of the organization, one reinforced by remembrances and celebrations);

safety (protection against threat, danger, and exploitation); fairness (equi-

table rules governing reward and punishment and the means for consis-

tently enforcing them); humanity (mutual care and concern); and dignity (the treatment of all people in the organization as individuals regardless of

their position). A sweatshop or forced labor camp fails to be “good” by any

of these criteria.

We believe that other good organizations, like families, sports teams,

nonprofit organizations, and government agencies, can also be described in

terms of these virtues. We are further encouraged that this suggested

scheme subsumes the one offered by philosopher Sissela Bok (1995) in her

attempt to articulate universal societal values. Bok proposed that the level

of abstraction matters in deeming values universal or not. In very general

terms, people in all times and places endorse sets of values that we have

identified as safety, fairness, and humanity. Missing from her scheme are

the values that we have identified as purpose and dignity, but we are confi-

dent that they belong.

Bok called these features “minimalist” because they are the minimal re-

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Virtues and Organizations  45

quirements for a viable group. But there are also “maximalist” values and

virtues—more numerous, extensive, elaborated, and culturally situated: for

example, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to con-

traception and abortion. Any given group of course endorses both minimal-

ist and maximalist values and usually has no reason to distinguish between

them. But if one wishes to speak across groups—as when members of the

United Nations make pronouncements to the entire world about human

rights—it behooves one to keep them straight.

We believe that our examination of organizational-level virtues is simi-

larly clarified by keeping this distinction in mind. What is universal is not

captured by the specific form of government that a society has, the amount

of vacation time given to workers by a company, or the pass-fail policy of a

college. To focus on these is to miss the universal forest for the culture-

bound trees.

What is the relationship of organizational-level virtues to personal

strengths of character? Let us return to positive psychology for some ideas.

This field parses its topics of concern into three areas: the study of positive

subjective experiences (happiness, pleasure, gratification, fulfillment, well-

being), the study of positive individual traits (character, talents, interests,

values), and the study of positive institutions (families, schools, businesses,

societies) (Seligman, 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). A theory

lurks here: we propose that positive institutions enable (or not) positive

traits, which in turn enable (or not) positive subjective experiences.

We deliberately chose the term “enable” to avoid a strict causal impli-

cation. We think it possible for people to be happy or content even in the

absence of good character, and we certainly think people can have good

character even when living outside the realm of good organizations. The

example of apartheid’s demise in South Africa shows that citizens can do

the right thing even in the face of historical precedent. The example of

whistle-blowers shows that employees do not always conform with work-

place norms. And the example of excellent students from underfunded

school districts shows that intellectual curiosity is not always stamped out

by educational mediocrity.

But matters are facilitated when organizations, traits, and subjective ex-

periences are in alignment. Indeed, the good life represents a coming to-

gether of these three domains. There are several important implications

here. First, the routes to the good life are multiple. Positive organizational

studies no less than positive psychology must avoid a monolithic view of ex-

cellence. Second, because “enable” is a light-handed term, the role of the

good organization in enabling good character on the part of its members and

ultimately their subjective positive experiences can be subtle and certainly

complex. One of the tasks for positive organizational scholars is to articulate

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

46  Virtuous Processes

how organizational features provide the context that enables the various

strengths of character we have identified.

We wish that space would permit an examination of each of the VIA

strengths (Table 3.1) in terms of their enabling organizational contexts, but

we opt instead for some general comments. Although we regard character

strengths as traits, they are not displayed in any and all circumstances. As

noted, rules, roles, norms, and prevailing rewards and punishments in a

given situation work for or against the display of a particular strength.

If one is involved in an automobile accident, “kindness” is not the trait

that should come to the fore, at least insofar as it would give the other par-

ticipants leverage for an unwarranted insurance claim. “Playfulness” is a

terrible trait to display when walking through a metal detector at an airport.

Conversely, certain occupational roles demand specific strengths of charac-

ter—for example, family court judges need to be fair, inventors need to be

creative, therapists need to have social intelligence—and we expect that

individuals in these roles will either develop the requisite strengths or soon

seek other jobs.

We sometimes divide the strengths in the VIA classification into two

types: tonic and phasic. “Tonic” strengths are those that can be displayed

on an ongoing and steady basis, except when there is good reason not to do

so, traits like curiosity, kindness, modesty, and zest. “Phasic” strengths are

those that rise and fall according to the demands of specifiable situations.

One can only be brave when in a situation that produces fear. One can only

display teamwork as a member of a group with a common task. One can

only exercise critical thinking when confronting a complex decision.

We therefore speculate that tonic strengths are less contextualized than

phasic strengths. Regardless, an organization needs to recognize that both

sorts of strengths matter but may require different means of encourage-

ment. In the case of tonic strengths, it may be sufficient not to punish those

who display them. In the case of phasic strengths, the “appropriate” way to

display a strength needs to be articulated, trained as needed, and of course

rewarded. We have interviewed firefighters, for instance, and found that

especially valorous individuals report that the requisite skills for doing their

job despite fear have been so overlearned that they are automatized.

Our identification of widely valued organizational virtues is tentative at

best. Further work is needed to finalize the list. Once this process is com-

plete, other questions can then be addressed. How can these virtues be

measured at the organizational level? What are the consequences of their

presence or absence? Do they come into conflict with one another, and if

so, how are conflicts adjudicated? How do organizational-level virtues de-

velop? How are they sustained?

We speculate that a good organization can inspire its members to be

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Virtues and Organizations  47

more than they are—to reveal strengths of character that are dormant or to

create new ones that allow them to rise to the occasions deemed important

by the organization. In a study of the effects of the events of September 11,

2001, on character strengths, we found that the theological virtues of St.

Paul (faith, hope, and charity) increased among Americans in the wake of

the terrorist attacks; we concluded that crisis can be the crucible of charac-

ter (Peterson & Seligman, in press). Less dramatic but certainly more typi-

cal is the enabling role played by good organizations, and we suggest here

that positive organizational scholars should turn their attention to how or-

ganizational practices can be engineered so that moral excellence and per-

sonal fulfillment on the part of all organizational members are afforded.

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/15/2024 5:42 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use