Discussion 1 Wk 5 assignment

Love, Forgiveness, and Trust: Critical

Values of the Modern Leader Cam Caldwell Rolf D. Dixon

ABSTRACT. In a world that has become increasingly

dependent upon employee ownership, commitment, and

initiative, organizations need leaders who can inspire

their employees and motivate them individually. Love,

forgiveness, and trust are critical values of today’s orga-

nization leaders who are committed to maximizing value

for organizations while helping organization members to

become their best. We explain the importance of love,

forgiveness, and trust in the modern organization and

identify 10 commonalities of these virtues.

KEY WORDS: love, forgiveness, trust, ethical leader-

ship, caring

The ability of leaders to resonate (Boyatzis and

McKee, 2005) with others at the affective level

(Staub, 2002; Steinbrecher and Bennett, 2003) is

well acknowledged as an important element of

emotional (Rybach, 1998; Weisinger, 1998) and

social intelligence (Albrecht, 2006; Goleman, 2006).

Great leaders transform the lives of the people

whom they serve (Kouzes and Posner, 2006, p. 10).

‘‘Leadership is a reciprocal relationship’’ (Kouzes

and Posner, 2003b, p. 1), and leaders who honor

their highest ethical duties (Caldwell et al., 2002)

empower others to become their best while laying

the foundation for creating a new world (Bennis,

2009).

We suggest that the virtues of love, forgiveness,

and trust are critical foundation values of leaders in

transforming lives and revitalizing relationships

(cf. Boyatzis and McKee, 2005). In this article, we

define love, forgiveness, and trust as leadership

constructs and identify 10 commonalities about these

three constructs. We conclude by identifying the

contributions of this article for individuals and

organizations.

Love, forgiveness, and trust

Organizational research in recent years has acknowl-

edged the importance of a leadership philosophy that

treats people as valued assets rather than simply ‘‘as

labor costs to be reduced or eliminated’’ (Pfeffer,

1998, p. xix). Goleman (2006) explained that people

respond at both the conscious and unconscious levels

to authentic leadership and observed that effective

leaders had a profound influence on those whom

they led as well as on the organizations that they

directed. Leaders who treat colleagues with dignity,

respect, and a commitment to others’ best interests

have found that the pay-off from that treatment

comes in improved performance (Cameron et al.,

2004), and leadership behaviors that ‘‘encourage the

heart’’ have increased employee initiative and

responsibility (Kouzes and Posner, 2003b, pp. 3–4).

Several management scholars have suggested that

when leaders consistently exhibit love, forgiveness,

and trust in relationships, their employees respond

with increased commitment and loyalty (Covey,

2004; Cameron et al., 2003; Pfeffer, 1998). In this

section, we define love, forgiveness, and trust as

organizational constructs that are freedom producing,

empowering, and vital to enhancing employee self-

efficacy.

Love in an organizational context

The concept of love is increasingly being recognized

as a responsibility of leaders in organizations. James

Autry (1991, p. 17) wrote that ‘‘Good management

is largely a matter of love. Or if you’re uncomfort-

able with that word, call it caring, because proper

management involves caring for people, not

manipulating them.’’ Autry’s perspective on the

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 93:91–101 � Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0184-z

relationship between leadership and love is shared by

others, including retired Marine Corps major and

author of two books on quality, Townsend (1982,

p. 24), who observed:

Perhaps the most obvious thing that leadership and

love have in common is the act of caring about the

welfare of others – an act that is central to both. One’s

love for another implies caring for the well-being,

physical and mental, of the other.

Leadership philosopher, Koestenbaum (2002,

pp. 194–195), describes love as the surrender of

one’s freedom to another, an act he calls ‘‘the ulti-

mate act of love’’ because freedom is ‘‘the greatest

gift you can ever give.’’ The notion of love as the

gift of one’s self mirrors the idea of the leader as

servant that is advocated by Greenleaf (1998a, b,

2003).

Several scholars describe love in terms of caring

and an unconditional commitment to the welfare

and happiness of others. Baer (2007, Chapter 1)

describes this caring about others and a commitment

to their welfare as ‘‘Real Love.’’ Dering (1998) had

observed that the relational element of transforma-

tional leadership encompassed ‘‘stewardship, caring,

servant leadership, and even love.’’ This caring for

the welfare of others and a commitment to a servant

leadership model changed the entire culture of the

North Mississippi Medical Center and instilled a

culture of caring that enabled that organization to

earn the prestigious Malcolm Baldridge Award

(Goonan, 2007). Pellicer (2008) has emphasized the

importance of caring in moral leadership, and has

observed that caring leadership reflects not what one

does but what one becomes.

Autry (1991) has suggested that caring leadership

adopts the philosophy that ‘‘Everyone gets special

treatment around here.’’ Caring leadership is fully

authentic in its commitment to each individual and

treats others as valued partners rather than as a

commodity or an inconvenience (Pfeffer, 1998). As

DePree (2004, pp. 53–54) has explained, leaders owe

a series of ‘‘covenantal’’ duties to their employees in

demonstrating that they care about their welfare and

are committed to their success – as well as to the

success of the organization. Pellicer (2008, Chapter

22) called this commitment to others of caring

leadership a sacred trust that transformed the leader,

and for Autry (1991) the notion of love and caring

leadership were identical.

In his book, The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm

explained that love requires that we treat people

with an eye toward our ‘‘oneness’’ with them,

thereby respecting them as valued ends in and of

themselves rather than as a means to achieve

our desires, our sought after outcomes, or our self-

gratification (Fromm, 1956, p. 14). In describing the

gift of love, Fromm (1956, p. 23) wrote:

What does one person give to another? He gives of

himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his

life. This does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices

his life for the other—but that he gives of that which is

alive in him; he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of

his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humor, of

his sadness—of all expressions and manifestations

of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life,

he enriches the other person, he enhances the other’s

sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of

aliveness. He does not give in order to receive; giving

is in itself exquisite joy. But in giving he cannot help

bringing something to life in the other person, and this

which is brought to life reflects back to him; in truly

giving, he cannot help receiving that which is given

back to him. Giving implies to make the other person

a giver also and they both share in the joy of what they

have brought to life. In the act of giving something is

born, and both persons involved are grateful for the life

that is born for both of them.

By giving, love becomes a paradoxical power

which creates connection with others while enabling

each person to retain their integrity and individual

identity (Fromm, 1956, p. 19). At the same time,

love and accountability go hand in hand and one

of the characteristics of love is to teach others self-

discipline, self-respect, and self-control (Peck, 2001,

pp. 76–77). Kouzes and Posner (2003a, p. 235) note

that leaders establish credibility and connection

‘‘when people believe that another person under-

stands them… Developing others, helping others, increasing others’ self-esteem, and expressing genu-

ine concern are all behaviors of credible leaders.

Could it be that love is the ultimate act of earning

credibility?’’

In leading by example, Batten (1999, p. 14) has

suggested that great leadership integrates love with

other virtues in a complex combination that differs

from the old command-and-control paradigm:

92 Cam Caldwell and Rolf D. Dixon

The enlightened leader of tomorrow will be committed

to moving from pushing to leading, from telling to

asking, from hating to loving, from directing to

expecting, from low expectations to high expectations

of self and others, from adequacy to excellence, from

getting to giving, from negative to positive, from doubt

to faith, from expedient morality to integrity, from

competing with others to competing with self, from

preoccupation with weaknesses to building on

strengths, from role orientation to goal orientation.

Understanding and integrating these leadership

behaviors requires an organizational perspective that

acknowledges that people must be treated as ‘‘Yous’’

rather than as ‘‘Its’’ (Kaufmann, 1970), and as valued

ends rather than simply as a means to achieving

organizational goals (Hosmer, 2007).

When leaders demonstrate caring or love, they do

so in very practical ways. Nestle USA, ITT Auto-

motive, Cambridge Industries, and Guardian Glass

are just some of the corporations that have sought to

create a caring culture that emphasizes the relation-

ship between love and leadership (Williams, 2004,

p. 8). Covey (2004, p. 98) emphasized the personal

commitment and caring of leadership, writing that

‘‘leadership is communicating to people their worth and

potential so clearly that they come to see it in themselves’’

(Italics in the original). Adding that the essence of

leadership is that it ‘‘influences and truly endures,’’

Covey (2004, p. 99) observed that great leaders treat

others in the same way that grandparents love and

care about their grandchildren, communicating

‘‘in as many ways as possible, the worth and potential

of their children, grandchildren, and great grand-

children.’’ Leaders who love those with whom they

work recognize that authentic caring creates higher

commitment, greater synergy, increased creativity,

and improved quality (cf. Cameron, 2003).

Hunter (1998) framed successful leadership in

terms of an unconditional self-sacrificing love for

others without regard to personal self-interest. To

love others requires that we first love ourselves – but

after we love ourselves we then put our efforts at risk

by caring about another, working for their welfare,

and doing so without attempting to manipulate or

control another’s choices or behavior (Fromm,

1956, pp. 14–15). Although love may disapprove of

another’s actions and hold others accountable for

those actions, the intention of love is always to do

that which ultimately achieves the best interests of

the other party (Peck, 2004, pp. 150–158). Ferris

(1988, p. 42) described love as ‘‘a consciously chosen

mind-set that allows us to see others differently – a

deep respect based upon a oneness with others.’’ We

define love as the unconditional acts of respect,

caring and kindness that communicate the worth of

others and that promote their welfare, growth, and

wholeness. Great leaders recognize that investing in

others by demonstrating a commitment to their best

interests not only strengthens relationships and

enriches lives but improves organizations along the

way (cf. Goleman, 2006; Caldwell et al., 2002).

Forgiveness and freedom

Although organizations rely upon people to perform

tasks accurately and efficiently to accomplish

intended goals (Grant, 2008), Roberts (2007,

pp. 44–45) noted that mistakes result due to the

failure of planned action or the use of an imperfect

plan. Forgiveness, the choice to accept and to look

past the faults of another and to reconcile a rela-

tionship despite a perceived betrayal (Caldwell et al.,

2009), has been acknowledged as a noble quality of a

compassionate and effective leader (Ferch, 2004).

Forgiving another person for failing to honor a

perceived duty allows that person to regain self-

esteem and restores the ability of people to work

together comfortably. Lennick and Kiel (2008,

pp. 106–108) explained that a leader’s responsibility

to serve others flows into compassion and forgive-

ness – but emphasized that compassion and for-

giveness do not mean excusing followers from being

accountable. Forgiving others and forgiving self

when one makes a mistake help to create a safe

culture where taking risks and being creative are

encouraged, expected, and acknowledged as critical

for organizations and individuals to achieve their

potential (Lennick and Kiel, 2008, pp. 110–113).

Forgiveness means both letting go of one’s own

mistakes and letting go of others’ mistakes while

learning from and addressing those mistakes both

short and long term (Lennick and Kiel, 2008,

pp. 109–110). Covey (2004, p. 179) defined true

forgiveness as including ‘‘forgetting, letting it go,

and moving on.’’ Enright (2001) suggested that

forgiveness benefits the forgiver far more than the

person being forgiven, and noted that forgiveness is

93Love, Forgiveness, and Trust

freedom producing for both parties. Hammarskjold

(2001, p. 197), the former Secretary-General of the

United Nations and Nobel Prize winner, suggested

that forgiveness ‘‘always entails a sacrifice’’ and when

forgiveness is done out of love, he who forgives

‘‘takes upon himself the consequences’’ of what

others have done.

Even organizations as disciplined as the U.S.

Marines expect their members to fail, learn from

those failures, and even ‘‘(t)o a certain extent they

demand failure… (since) a Marine who rarely fails is a Marine who isn’t pushing the envelope enough’’

[Italics in the original] (Freedman, 2001, p. 109).

Baucus et al. (2007) observed that leaders have an

ethical duty to create an organizational culture that

encourages creativity, rule-breaking, and personal

initiative when doing so is both ethical and consis-

tent with the organization’s mission and goals.

Covey (2004, p. 165) noted that leaders who forgive

others build personal credibility, establish moral

authority, and build personal and organizational

trust.

Connecting forgiveness with servant leadership,

Greenleaf (1998a, b, p. 21) explained that the ‘‘ser-

vant always accepts and empathizes, never rejects.

The servant as leader always accepts the person, but

sometimes refuses to accept some of the person’s

effort or performance as good enough.’’ Forgiving

others frees them from the burden of past mistakes

and grants them the opportunity to begin anew. The

concept of forgiveness is characterized by the Greek

metanoia, which literally means the changing of one’s

mind. The implication of metanoia is that those who

have evolved from error to obedience merit the

forgiveness and support of others.

Positive organizational scholarship, a new field in

the study of organizations and leaders, emphasizes

that the actions of organization’s leaders in seeking

virtuous outcomes – including the forgiving of

others – can benefit the self-esteem of others

and achieve improved organizational outcomes

(Cameron et al., 2003). Forgiving allows others to

move forward without the burden of weight that

accompanies resentment, distrust, and animosity

(Smedes, 1996). Ren and Gray (2009) have noted

that forgiveness is critical to repairing relationships

and is an essential element in creating a culture of

cooperation and commitment in the leader–

follower dyad.

Barling et al. (2008) noted that authentic

forgiveness is genuinely empathetic rather than self-

serving and is a key factor in building trust and

restoring a relationship. Traditional perspectives

about revenge that justify getting even with others

(Tripp et al., 2002) are inconsistent with the concept

of the leader as one who unites an organization and

works for the best interests of all the stakeholders

(Caldwell et al., 2002). Kouzes and Posner (2003b,

p. 56) opined that ‘‘(c)redible leaders are compas-

sionate’’ and seek to support and sustain their

team members rather than to simply punish them.

Reina and Reina (2007, pp. 17–18) described for-

giveness as a freedom-creating act that empowers an

organization.

Anger, bitterness, and resentment deplete people’s

energy and interfere with relationships and perfor-

mance… Blame and resentment are toxic. They undermine morale, productivity, innovation, engage-

ment, and erode trust. Leaders can cultivate a healing,

trustworthy environment where forgiveness takes

place.

Aquino et al. (2003) confirmed that the act of

forgiving and the release of negative emotions ben-

efited both the person injured and the party guilty of

the breach, and were important to repairing damaged

workplace relationships. Organizational leaders that

go beyond a ‘‘do no harm’’ orientation but seek a

virtuous relationship with stakeholders increase em-

ployee commitment and improved performance –

two liberating factors in organizations (Bright et al.,

2006). Organizations that create caring relationships

that support employees, encourage risk-taking, and

forgive employees, treat employees as valued ‘‘Yous’’

rather than simply as ‘‘Its’’ (Buber, 2008; Wilson and

Ferch, 2005). It is in forgiving that a leader can

facilitate the healing and uplifting of others and of self

(Ferch, 2004, p. 235). Great leaders build trust,

commitment, and meaning for followers because of

their commitment to the welfare of others.

Trust and empowerment

Although trust is widely acknowledged to be the

glue that holds relationships together ‘‘business

leaders are among the least trusted groups in society’’

(Child and Rodrigues, 2004, p. 145). Building an

94 Cam Caldwell and Rolf D. Dixon

organization based upon high trust is critical to

empowering employees (Chan et al., 2008, p. 444)

and to encouraging extra role behavior (Organ,

1988). The social contract implicit in a trust rela-

tionship is a subjectively perceived set of expecta-

tions about the responsibilities of the parties to

each other or to other stakeholders (Caldwell and

Clapham, 2003; Schoorman et al., 2007).

Trust, though often described as a belief (Kra-

mer, 1999), attitude (McAllister, 1995), intention

(McKnight et al., 1998), willingness, disposition, or

propensity (Mayer et al., 1995), is best under-

stood within organizational contexts as a behavior

(Caldwell and Clapham, 2003; Caldwell et al., 2009).

Trust is manifest by one’s actions – ultimately

reflecting core beliefs, assumptions (Schein, 2004),

and the depth of personal commitment (Senge, 2006).

Caldwell et al. (2009, p. 117) defined trust as ‘‘the

relinquishing of one’s personal choice or power in

the expectant hope that another party will honor the

elements of the social contract between the parties.’’

Hosmer (1995) described trust as ethically complex

and a critical variable at the intersection of economics

and ethics. Trust implies a degree of risk and uncer-

tainty (Mayer et al., 1995). Solomon and Flores

(2003, p. 6) compare trust to love, noting that both

acknowledge the possibility of betrayal:

We learn that trust, like love, may seem to fail us, but

truly we fail at trust or love. But then we get more

sophisticated. We learn that trust, like love, is an

emotional skill. It requires judgment. It requires vigi-

lant attention. It requires conscientious action. It

involves all of the intricate reciprocities of a human

relationship (even in cases in which it remains

‘‘unrequited’’).

Authentic trust embraces the possibility of betrayal

(Solomon and Flores, 2003, p. 6) but chooses to

invest in others despite the risks that may be present

(Caldwell and Clapham, 2003). Mayer et al. (1995,

p. 724) described the behavioral nature of trust as the

‘‘risk taking in a relationship’’ and noted that ‘‘one

must take a risk in order to engage in trusting action.’’

Rebuilding trust when it has eroded requires heal-

ing, and that healing is dependent upon authenti-

cally caring about others and acknowledging their

imperfections, as well as recognizing that expecta-

tions about performance are subjective (Reina and

Reina, 2007). It is in the willingness of the leader to

forgive a perceived violation of the relationship that

allows the leader to again trust another person

(Caldwell et al., 2009), and it is the leader’s com-

mitment to the other party, and his or her ability to

care for that individual, which form the basis of love

(cf. Senge, 2006). Thus, trust is the basis for both

forgiveness and love in the leadership relationship.

Trust is acknowledged as a critical leadership

factor in organizational and interpersonal relation-

ships because the act of trusting empowers others

and communicates that the leader believes in their

abilities (Solomon and Flores, 2003). Employees are

more willing to take risks when they trust organi-

zation leaders (Mayer et al., 1995), and it is this

willingness to risk that enables organizations to

achieve creative solutions (Baucus et al., 2007).

Empowered employees take ownership of their jobs

(Bandura, 1986), becoming ‘‘owners and partners’’

in striving to maximize organizational performance

(Block, 1996).

A careful evaluation of the constructs of love,

forgiveness, and trust suggests 10 commonalities

shared by these three values:

(1) Measured on a continuum of commitment. The

degree to which love, forgiveness, and

trust are demonstrated is manifest on a

continuum (cf. Caldwell and Clapham,

2003; Mayer et al., 1995). In each case an

increasing level of personal commitment

reflects a greater willingness to work for

the welfare and benefit of the party who is

the recipient of love, forgiveness, or trust

(Senge, 2006).

(2) Virtue-based and reflecting the desire to create

added value or positive benefit for the other party.

Consistent with the concepts of Positive

Organizational Scholarship (Cameron et al.,

2003), persons possessing love, forgiveness,

and trust seek to not only do that which is

ethical and moral, but to do that which

is virtuous and exceeds the level of duty

expected by going above and beyond what

would normally be considered the obliga-

tion owed between the parties (cf. Carroll

and Buchholtz, 2008).

(3) Based upon a social contract obligation with

the valued other. The party demonstrating

love, forgiveness, or trust willingly assumes

95Love, Forgiveness, and Trust

obligations and explicitly or implicitly hon-

ors the responsibility to act in ways that

benefit others (Hosmer, 2007). These obli-

gations and responsibilities take on the sta-

tus of a social contract to benefit the other

party (cf. Rousseau, 1995; Rousseau and

Rivero, 2003).

(4) Covenantal in scope, rising to the level of ethical

stewardship. The nature of the relation-

ship resonates with a special connection

between the parties and an unencumbered

willingness to create a transformational

benefit (Hacker and Roberts, 2003; Lussier

and Achua, 2004). The commitment is

covenantal (DePree, 2004; Pava, 2003) in

its demonstration of an interest in the wel-

fare of others and rises to the level of an

ethical stewardship (Caldwell and Hayes,

2007).

(5) Demonstrated by the relinquishment of personal

power or control. Rather than simply reflect-

ing an intention, a willingness, a belief, or

an attitude of support and cooperation

(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), the person

who chooses to love, forgive, or trust takes

actions that willingly empower another and

relinquish one’s personal choice, power, or

control to serve the interests of the valued

other (Hosmer, 2007). Love, forgiveness,

and trust willingly yield that personal con-

trol in the expectant hope that the other

party will honor the relationship. The lea-

der ultimately takes a risk, genuinely seek-

ing the welfare of the person to whom

love, forgiveness, or trust is given (cf.

Mayer et al., 1995).

(6) Reality-based and accepting of others’ faults.

Love, forgiveness, and trust do not require

others to be perfect but accept imperfec-

tions in others as the status quo, not with-

holding personal commitment and effort,

despite the faults that may exist (Kouzes

and Posner, 2003a). Love, forgiveness, and

trust can withstand the failure of others to

fully honor perceived obligations owed by

others (Caldwell et al., 2009).

(7) Founded on treating others as ends rather than

as means. Others are viewed as ‘‘Yous’’

rather than as ‘‘Its’’ (Buber, 2008; Covey,

2004) and are considered to be individually

important ends rather than simply as a

means to the accomplishment of organiza-

tional goals (Pfeffer, 1998; Kouzes and Pos-

ner, 2003). In working for the welfare of

others, those who lead demonstrate a com-

mitment to others’ best interests, growth,

and ongoing improvement (Freeman et al.,

2006).

(8) Interpreted through one’s mediating lens. The

actor views the valued other through his

or her subjectively interpreting mediating

lens (Caldwell and Hayes, 2007). That per-

spective incorporates an abundance mental-

ity that builds rather than limits and that

demonstrates a commitment to honoring

the relationship between a leader and those

that (s)he serves (Covey, 2004).

(9) Requires making oneself vulnerable and willing

to take a risk. Love, forgiveness, and trust

ultimately require that a person assume per-

sonal vulnerability – entering into a risk tak-

ing relationship to invest in the welfare of

the other party (Mayer et al., 1995; Sitkin

and Pablo, 1992). Willingness to become

vulnerable is done with the knowledge that

the other party’s actions may result in a sig-

nificant personal detriment.

(10) Based upon an optimistic hope for the future but

ultimately dependent upon the other party’s reci-

procal behavior. Love, forgiveness, and trust

convey a willingness of one party to give

of one’s self to invest in the other party.

This investment in another person and in

the relationship is done with the expecta-

tion that both parties will ultimately benefit

as a result. Although betrayal is a possibility

(Reina and Reina, 2007), the person

who loves, forgives, or trusts does so both

because of who (s)he is, rather than solely

because the other party is expected to hon-

or an obligation.

The attributes of love, forgiveness, and trust help

to create in others an increased self-esteem, a sense of

personal worth and worthiness. ‘‘Leaders demon-

strate by their actions that they believe in the

inherent self-worth of others’’ (Kouzes and Posner,

2003, p. 51). Love, forgiveness, and trust build

96 Cam Caldwell and Rolf D. Dixon

personal connection and cement within others a

sense of the leader’s commitment. By exhibiting

genuine love, forgiveness, and trust, leaders help

others to develop in others a sense of self-efficacy

(Federman, 1991) and empower others to feel that

they can become more than they have ever thought

possible (Covey, 2004, p. 98; Kouzes and Posner,

2003, p. 31). Great leaders ‘‘build confidence and

empower their employees to seek new ways of

doing things’’ (Benni and Nanus, 2007, p. 17).

Cameron’s (2008, p. 12) research has suggested that

organizations led by virtuous leaders ‘‘made more

money, recovered from downsizing, retained cus-

tomers and employees, and were more creative and

innovative’’ than firms where leaders have not

practiced these same virtues.

Contributions of the article

The search for a leadership relationship that fits with

the needs of today’s complex world is not only an

ongoing challenge (Cameron, 2003) but a necessary

priority to ‘‘shape a more desirable future’’ (Bennis

and Nanus 2007, p. 220). Building trust between

leaders and those with whom they work is funda-

mentally important, yet those who would follow

others depend upon their leaders to combine char-

acter and competence (Covey, 2004), benevolence

and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995), and empathy and

insight (Goleman, 2006). As we have described the

importance of love, forgiveness, and trust, our article

has provided six major contributions to the man-

agement literature:

(1) It confirms the practical value of love, forgiveness,

and trust as virtues that leaders can embody to

motivate and inspire others. Although Goleman

(2006) and other scholars have offered evi-

dence of the importance of leaders connect-

ing with others at the emotional and affective

level, our article provides insights about love,

forgiveness, and trust that integrate these

leadership virtues. By identifying 10 com-

monalities of these virtues, we help to clarify

the nature of love, forgiveness, and trust as

behaviors and explain their interrelationships

in dealing with people to accomplish shared

goals.

(2) It affirms the importance of leadership principles

that put people first in creating relationships with

others. Moral leadership recognizes that the

welfare, growth, and wholeness of others

takes precedence over rules, and being genu-

inely kind and caring supersedes being right

(Pava, 2003). Traditional command-and-

control models that treat people merely as

objects rather than as valued organizational

partners (Block, 1996) miss the importance

of people in creating long-term wealth

(Cameron, 2003; Senge, 2006).

(3) It reinforces the significance of new and more

behavioral leadership models in context with lead-

ership virtues. Benni and Nanus (2007, p. 3)

have called for a new type of leader ‘‘who

commits people to action, who converts fol-

lowers into leaders, and who may convert

leaders into agents of change.’’ Leadership

that is committed to serving others, to

developing their capabilities, and to fully

empowering them is virtue based and hon-

ors people while also honoring the duties

owed to their organizations (Cameron,

2003; Paine, 2003; Pfeffer, 1998).

(4) It supports the importance of virtue-based, Posi-

tive Organizational Scholarship assumptions that

seek to honor ethical duties. The literature

about Positive Organizational Scholarship

(Cameron, 2003; Cameron et al., 2003;

Quinn, 2004) integrates well with the vir-

tues of love, forgiveness, and trust. Positive

Organizational Scholarship emphasizes that

‘‘standards that avoid harm are not the

same as standards that lead to doing good’’

(Cameron, 2006, p. 318), but virtues like

love, forgiveness, and trust enrich both

organizations and their members. Our article

builds upon that literature in explaining the

importance of leaders acting as ethical stew-

ards who honor the obligation to pursue the

creation of long-term wealth to benefit all

the stakeholders (Caldwell et al., 2008).

(5) It challenges assumptions about traditional think-

ing that suggests that leaders ought to be distant

and aloof from employees and avoid connecting

with employees at the emotional level. Leaders

who put employees at arms-length and who

view employees as commodities, means, or as

97Love, Forgiveness, and Trust

‘‘its’’ still exist in many organizations today

(Benni and Nanus 2007; Kouzes and Posner,

2003a, b). In a knowledge-, service-, and

wisdom-based economy that is increasingly

dependent upon employee commitment,

ownership, and responsiveness, organizations

need leaders who treat employees as valued

partners, ends, and ‘‘Yous’’ (Covey, 2004).

(6) It affirms the validity of a leader embracing a lead-

ership style that reflects a deep personal commit-

ment to the welfare of others while working

for the best interests of the organization. Effective

organizations balance a commitment to orga-

nizational outcomes with the needs of

organization members – but seek to achieve

both simultaneously (Collins, 2001; Paine,

2003). Organizational leaders are perceived as

owing a sacred obligation to both the organi-

zation and its members (DePree, 2004,

pp. 55–56). Autry (1991) described the obli-

gation of leaders as ‘‘a sacred trust in which

the well-being of people’’ is in their care, but

leaders also have an obligation to maximize

the ability of organizations to create long-

term wealth (Pfeffer, 1998).

The ability of leaders to honor the obligations

expected of them by a multitude of stakeholders is a

challenging and burdensome responsibility. In

explaining the role of effective leaders, University of

Michigan scholar, Quinn (2004, p. 24), has

explained that excellence in organizations is ‘‘a form

of deviance, doing things that are not normal’’ [Italics

in the original]. Through honoring relationships

with others and caring about the welfare of those

whom they serve, leaders can tap into the best

within themselves and can bring out the best in

others (Quinn, 2005). For more than 70 years,

organizational leaders have struggled to be effective,

and most leaders have fallen far short of the expec-

tations that others have for them (Barnard, 1938).

Conclusion

Today’s business world benefits when individuals

aspire to ‘‘be their very best’’ (Caza et al., 2004,

p. 173). As organizational leaders help others to

become effective, a leadership model that is personal

and authentic enables leaders to touch the hearts of

those with whom they work – encouraging col-

leagues to both become their best and to achieve the

excellence required to excel in a global marketplace.

Although there may undoubtedly be critics and

cynics who consider a virtue-based leadership style

‘‘too soft’’ for today’s highly competitive business

environment, we suggest that caring leaders can be as

passionately committed to organizational excellence

as any other leadership model (cf. Covey, 2004).

The strategic competitive advantage that leadership

offers when it creates a culture of love, forgiveness,

and trust is that it unlocks and empowers the un-

tapped capabilities, overcomes the withheld com-

mitment, and dissipates the reluctant distrust so

prevalent in other leadership models that lack an

authentic interest in the welfare of employees and

other stakeholders (cf. Benni and Nanus, 2007;

Kouzes and Posner, 2003b). Perhaps, the greatness of

a culture that embraces love, forgiveness, and trust as

its core values is that it seeks to create not a perfect

work environment but an enduring one – an envi-

ronment that touches hearts, inspires individuals to

self-discovery, and builds relationships that extend

beyond the context of work alone to help people in

all the facets of their lives.

References

Albrecht, K.: 2006, Social Intelligence: The New Science of

Success (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Aquino, K., S. L. Grover, B. Goldman and R. Folger:

2003, ‘When Push Doesn’t Come to Shove’, Journal of

Management Inquiry 12(3), 209–216.

Autry, J. A.: 1991, Love and Profit: The Art of Caring

Leadership (Avon Books, New York).

Baer, G.: 2007, Real Love in the Workplace: Eight Principles

for Consistently Effective Leadership in Business (Blueridge

Press, Rome, GA).

Bandura, A.: 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and

Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Prentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Barling, J., N. Turner, H. Dezan and H. Carroll: 2008,

‘The Nature and Consequences of Apologies from

Leaders in Organizations’, Academy of Management

Proceedings, 1–6.

Barnard, C. I.: 1938, Functions of the Executive (Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA).

98 Cam Caldwell and Rolf D. Dixon

Batten, J.: 1999, ‘Lead with Love’, Executive Excellence

16(6), 14.

Baucus, M. S., W. I. Norton Jr., D. A. Baucus and

S. E. Human: 2007, ‘Fostering Creativity and Inno-

vation without Encouraging Unethical Behavior’,

Journal of Business Ethics 81, 97–115.

Benni, W. and B. Nanus: 2007, Leaders (Collins Business

Essentials, New York).

Bennis, W.: 2009, On Becoming a Leader (Revised Edition)

(Addison-Wesley Publishing, New York).

Block, P.: 1996, Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-

Interest (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Boyatzis, R. and A. McKee: 2005, Resonant Leadership:

Renewing Yourself and Connecting with Others Through

Mindfulness, Hope, and Compassion (Harvard Business

School Press, Boston, MA).

Bright, D. S., K. S. Cameron and A. Caza: 2006, ‘The

Amplifying and Buffering Effects of Virtuousness in

Downsized Organizations’, Journal of Business Ethics 64,

249–269.

Buber, M.: 2008, I and Thou (Touchstone, New York).

Caldwell, C., S. J. Bischoff and R. Karri: 2002, ‘The Four

Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership’, Journal of

Business Ethics 36(1/2), 153–163.

Caldwell, C. and S. Clapham: 2003, ‘Organizational

Trustworthiness: An International Perspective’, Journal

of Business Ethics 47(4), 349–364.

Caldwell, C. and L. Hayes: 2007, ‘Leadership, Trust-

worthiness, and the Mediating Lens’, The Journal of

Management Development 26(3), 261–274.

Caldwell, C., B. Davis and J. A. Devine: 2009, ‘Trust,

Faith, and Betrayal: Insights from Management for the

Wise Believer’, Journal of Business Ethics 89(1), 103–114.

Caldwell, C., L. Hayes, R. Karri and P. Bernal: 2008,

‘Ethical Stewardship: The Role of Leadership Behav-

ior and Perceived Trustworthiness’, Journal of Business

Ethics 78(1/2), 153–164.

Cameron, K. S.: 2003, ‘Ethics, Virtuousness, and Constant

Change’, in N. M. Tichy and A. R. McGill (eds.), The

Ethical Challenge: How to Lead with Unyielding Integrity

(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA), pp. 185–194.

Cameron, K. S.: 2006, ‘Good or Not Bad: Standards and

Ethics in Managing Change’, Academy of Management

Learning and Education 5(3), 317–323.

Cameron, K. S.: 2008, ‘Leading Change’, Leadership

Excellence 25(5), 12.

Cameron, K. S., D. Bright and A. Caza: 2004, ‘Exploring

the Relationships Between Organizational Virtuous-

ness and Performance’, The American Behavioral Scientist

47(6), 766–790.

Cameron, K. S., J. E. Dutton and R. E. Quinn: 2003,

Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new

Discipline (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, San Fran-

cisco).

Carroll, A. B. and A. K. Buchholtz: 2008, Business and

Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management (South-

Western College Publishing, Mason, OH).

Caza, A., B. A. Barker and K. S. Cameron: 2004, ‘Ethics

and Ethos: The Buffering and Amplifying Effects of

Ethical Behavior and Virtuousness’, Journal of Business

Ethics 52(2), 169–178.

Chan, Y. H., R. R. Taylor and S. Markham: 2008, ‘The

Role of Subordinates’ Trust in a Social Exchange-

driven Psychological Empowerment Process’, Journal of

Managerial Issues 20(4), 444–467.

Child, J. and S. B. Rodrigues: 2004, ‘Repairing the

Breach of Trust in Corporate Governance’, Corporate

Governance: An International Review 12(2), 143–152.

Collins, J.: 2001, Good to Great: Why Some Companies

Make the Leap… and Others Don’t (HarperCollins, New York).

Covey, S. R.: 2004, The 8 th

Habit: From Effectiveness to

Greatness (Free Press, New York).

DePree, M.: 2004, Leadership is an Art (Doubleday, New

York).

Dering, N. Z.: 1998, ‘Leadership in Quality Organiza-

tions’, The Journal for Quality and Participation 21(1),

32–35.

Enright, R. D.: 2001, Forgiveness is a Choice: A Step-

by-Step Process for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope

(APA Life Tools, Washington, DC).

Federman, I.: 1991, Remarks Made to the Leavey School

of Business and Administration, Santa Clara University,

2 April, 1991 reported in Kouzes, J. M. and Posner,

B. Z.: 2003, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It,

why People Demand It (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Ferch, S. R.: 2004, ‘Servant-Leadership, Forgiveness, and

Social Justice’, in Larry C. Spears and M. Lawrence

(eds.), Practicing Servant Leadership: Succeeding Through

Trust, Bravery, and Forgiveness (Jossey-Bass, San Fran-

cisco, CA), pp. 225–239.

Ferris, R.: 1988, ‘How Organizational Love can Improve

Leadership’, Organizational Dynamics 16(4), 41–51.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen: 1975, Belief, Attitude, Intention,

and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research

(Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, MA).

Freedman, D.: 2001, Corps Business: The 30 Management

Principles of the U.S. Marines (HarperBusiness, New

York).

Freeman, R. E., K. Martin, B. Parmar, P. Werhane and

M. Cording: 2006, ‘Leading Through Values and

Ethical Principles’, in R. Burke and C. Cooper (eds.),

Inspired Leaders (Routledge, Taylor, and Francis

Group, London), pp. 149–174.

99Love, Forgiveness, and Trust

Fromm, E.: 1956, The Art of Loving (HarperCollins, New

York).

Goleman, D.: 2006, Social Intelligence: The New Science of

Human Relationships (Bantam Books, New York).

Goonan, K. J.: 2007, ‘Caring Culture and Results Focus

Lead to Baldridge Award’, Quality Progress 40(3), 41–48.

Grant, K.: 2008, ‘Imperfect People Leading Imperfect

People: Creating Environments of Forgiveness’, Inter-

being 2(2), 11–17.

Greenleaf, R. K.: 1998a, The Power of Servant Leadership

(Berrettt-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA).

Greenleaf, R. K.: 1998b, ‘Servant Leadership’, in L. C.

Spears (ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship,

Spirit, and Servant Leadership (Wiley, New York).

Greenleaf, R. K.: 2003, The Servant-Leader Within: A

Transformative Path (Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ).

Hacker, S. and T. Roberts: 2003, Transformational Lead-

ership: Creating Organizations of Meaning (ASQ Quality

Press, Wooster, OH).

Hammarskjold, D.: 2001, Markings (Alfred A. Knopf,

New York).

Hosmer, L. T.: 1995, ‘Trust: The Connecting Link

between Organizational Theory and Behavior’,

Academy of Management Review 20, 379–404.

Hosmer, L.: 2007, The Ethics of Management (McGraw-

Hill, New York).

Hunter, J. C.: 1998, The Servant: A Simple Story About the

True Essence of Leadership (Prima Publishing, Roseville,

CA).

Kaufmann, W.: 1970, I and Thou Martin Buber (Touch-

stone, New York).

Koestenbaum, P.: 2002, Leadership: The Inner Side of

Greatness, a Philosophy for Leaders, New and Revised

(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner: 2003a, Credibility: How

Leaders Gain and Lose It, why People Demand It, 2nd

Edition (Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA).

Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner: 2003b, Encouraging the

Heart: A Leader’s Guide to Rewarding and Recognizing

Others (Jossey-Boss, San Francisco, CA).

Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner: 2006, A Leader’s Legacy

(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Kramer, R.: 1999, ‘Trust and Distrust in Organizations:

Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions’, Annual

Review of Psychology 50(1), 569–596.

Lennick, D. and F. Kiel: 2008, Moral Intelligence:

Enhancing Business Performance & Leadership Success

(Wharton Business School Publishing, Upper Saddle

River, NJ).

Lussier, R. N. and C. F. Achua: 2004, Leadership: Theory,

Application, Skill Development (South-Western Pub-

lishing, Mason, OH).

Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis and F. D. Schoorman: 1995,

‘An Integration Model of Organizational Trust’,

Academy of Management Review 20, 709–729.

McAllister, D. J.: 1995, ‘Affect- and Cognition-Based

Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in

Organizations’, Academy of Management Journal 38(1),

24–59.

McKnight, D. H., L. L. Cummings and N. L. Chervany:

1998, ‘Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational

Relationships’, Academy of Management Review 23(3),

473–490.

Organ, D.: 1988, Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The

Good Soldier Syndrome (Lexington Books, Lexington,

MA).

Paine, L. S.: 2003, Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge

Social and Financial Imperatives to Achieve Superior Per-

formance (McGraw-Hill, New York).

Pava, M. L.: 2003, Leading with Meaning: Using Covenantal

Leadership to Build a Better Organization (Palgrave

MacMillan, New York).

Peck, M. S.: 2004, The Road Less Traveled, 25 th

Anniver-

sary Edition: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional

Values, and Spiritual Growth (Touchstone, New York).

Pellicer, L. O.: 2008, Caring Enough to Lead: How

Reflective Practice Leads to Moral Leadership, 3rd Edition

(Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA).

Pfeffer, J.: 1998, The Human Equation: Building Power by

Putting People First (Harvard Business School Press,

Cambridge, MA).

Quinn, R. E.: 2004, ‘Building the Bridge as you Walk on

It’, Leader to Leader 2004(34), 21–26.

Quinn, R. E.: 2005, ‘Moments of Greatness’, Harvard

Business Review 83(7/8), 74–83.

Reina, D. and M. Reina: 2007, ‘Rebuilding Trust: The

Leader’s Role’, Leadership Excellence 24(2), 17–18.

Ren, H. and B. Gray: 2009, ‘Repairing Relationship

Conflict: How Violation Types and Culture Influence

the Effectiveness of Restoration Rituals’, Academy of

Management Review 34(1), 105–126.

Roberts, R. G.: 2007, ‘The Art of Apology: When and

how to Seek Forgiveness’, Family Practice Management

14(7), 44–50.

Rousseau, D. M.: 1995, Psychological Contracts in Organi-

zations – Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreement

(Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).

Rousseau, D. M. and A. Rivero: 2003, ‘Extending the

Psychology of the Psychological Contract: A Reply to

‘‘Putting Psychology Back into Psychological Con-

tracts’, Journal of Management Inquiry 12(2), 115–134.

Rybach, D.: 1998, Putting Emotional Intelligence to Work:

Successful Leadership is more than IQ (Butterworh-

Heinemann, Woburn, MA).

100 Cam Caldwell and Rolf D. Dixon

Schein, E. H.: 2004, Organizational Culture and Leadership

(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Schoorman, F. D., R. C. Mayer and J. H. Davis: 2007,

‘An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past,

Present, and Future’, Academy of Management Review

32(2), 344–354.

Senge, P. M.: 2006, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice

of the Learning Organization (Doubleday, New York).

Sitkin, S. B. and A. L. Pablo: 1992, ‘Reconceptualizing

the Determinants of Risk Behavior’, Academy of

Management Review 17, 9–38.

Smedes, L. B.: 1996, The Art of Forgiving: When you Need

to Forgive and don’t Know how (Random House, New

York).

Solomon, R. C. and F. Flores: 2003, Building Trust: In

Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life (Oxford Uni-

versity Press, New York).

Staub, R. E. II: 2002, The Heart of Leadership: 12 Practices

of Courageous Leaders (Staub Leadership Consultants,

Greensboro, NC).

Steinbrecher, S. and J. B. Bennett: 2003, Heart-Centered

Leadership: An Invitation to Lead from the Inside Out

(Black Pants Publishing, Memphis, TN).

Townsend, P. L.: 1982, ‘Love and Leadership’, Marine

Corps Gazette, February, p. 24.

Tripp, T. M., R. J. Bies and K. Aquino: 2002, ‘Poetic

Justice or Petty Jealousy? The Aesthetics of Revenge’,

Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes

89(1), 966–984.

Weisinger, H.: 1998, Emotional Intelligence at Work (Jossey-

Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Williams, T. A.: 2004, ‘Lead by Love’, Quality Magazine

43(1), 8.

Wilson, S. M. and S. R. Ferch: 2005, ‘Enhancing Resi-

lience in the Workplace Through the Practice of

Caring Relationships’, Organization Development Journal

23(4), 45–60.

Cam Caldwell

Professor of Management and Chair of the Business

Department at Paul Quinn College,

Dallas, TX, U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]

Rolf D. Dixon

Associate Professor and Co-chair of the Management

Department at Weber State University,

Ogden, UT, U.S.A.

101Love, Forgiveness, and Trust

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.