ASSIGNMENT 2-2 SEMSTER

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice

Gina Grandy1 • Martyna Sliwa2

Received: 4 March 2015 / Accepted: 31 July 2015 / Published online: 8 August 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract In this paper, we offer a conceptualization of

leadership as contemplative. Drawing on MacIntyre’s

perspective on virtue ethics and Levinas’ and Gilligan’s

work on the ethics of responsibility and care, we propose

contemplative leadership as virtuous activity; reflexive,

engaged, relational, and embodied practice that requires

knowledge from within context and practical wisdom.

More than simply offering another way to conceptualize

the ethics of leadership (e.g., what leaders ought to do), this

research contributes to understanding the ethics of leader-

ship in practice. Empirically, we analyze the narratives of

those in positions of formal authority and other organiza-

tional members in churches. We illustrate contemplative

leadership as driven by a good purpose, derived from the

unique organizational and broader societal context in

which leadership occurs, and grounded in an ethical con-

cern for the other. Contemplative leadership accounts for

the complexity of experience and is discerned in mundane

and everyday practices. We conclude with the implications

for leadership theory, practice, and education.

Keywords Churches � Contemplative leadership � Ethics of care � Ethics of leadership � Ethics of responsibility � Relational leadership � Virtue ethics

Introduction

The search for ethical or moral leadership continues to

receive considerable attention in the leadership literature

(e.g., Baker and Roberts 2011; Eisenbeiß and Brodbeck

2014; Lawton and Páez 2014; Levine and Boaks 2014).

Empirical research on ethical leadership, however, is

scarce (Demirtas 2015), and the questions of whether and

how the ethics of leadership play out in practice present an

important research problem. While much of the extant

literature adopts a romantic or post/heroic view, there is a

growing body of research that problematizes embedded

notions of leadership, ethical, or otherwise (e.g., Maak and

Pless 2006; Vince and Mazen 2014). In particular, Knights

and O’Leary (2006) are critical of approaches to ethical

leadership 1

that focus on virtue ethics and the building of

individual character (e.g., integrity and authenticity). Such

approaches, they infer, sustain a pre-occupation with the

self that supports the pursuit of individual wealth and sta-

tus, while undermining moral considerations in relation to

others. Moreover, de Gama et al. (2012) highlight the need

for more research on contexts and specific situations where

leaders are ‘‘being for the Other’’ (p. 105) rather than

seeing the Other as an object to do things on and where

leaders are practicing responsibility to the Other (Baker

& Gina Grandy [email protected]

Martyna Sliwa

[email protected]

1 Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina,

5th Floor, Education Bldg., 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina,

SK S4S 0A2, Canada

2 Essex Business School, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park,

Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK

1 There is a considerable body of research that adopts an instrumental

view of ethical leadership linking ethical behaviors to various

measures of leader effectiveness (e.g., Avey et al. 2012; Demirtas

2015). Much of this work uses Brown et al. (2005) 10-item ethical

leadership scale that takes into account some of the aspects of

character virtues (e.g., love, temperance, and honesty). While we too

incorporate virtue ethics into our conceptualization of contemplative

leadership, we are interested in approaching the ethics of leadership

from a different, less instrumental angle, one that links human

flourishing to a responsibility for the Other and considers how that

relates to organization purpose.

123

J Bus Ethics (2017) 143:423–440

DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2802-2

and Roberts 2011). Our interest lies in advancing these

discussions on the ethics of leadership.

In this paper, we take forward Knights and O’Leary’s

(2006) call to draw on MacIntyre’s (1985/1991) perspec-

tive on virtue ethics and Levinas’ (1969, 1985, 1998) work

on ethics of responsibility. We also look to the work of

others who have considered the ideas of MacIntyre and

Levinas (e.g., Beadle and Moore 2006; Dale 2012; Lawton

and Páez 2014; Marsh 2013; Moore 2005, 2012; Moore

and Beadle 2006; Rhodes 2012). Further, in extending

understandings of the ethics of leadership, we incorporate

the work of Gilligan (1982) on the ethics of care and build

upon the existing literature on contemplation (e.g., Nolan

2013). Specifically, to contribute to the ongoing debate on

the conceptualization of the ethics of leadership and to

address the current gap in our understanding of the practice

of ethical leadership, this paper explores the following

research questions:

1. How can leadership be conceptualized as

contemplative?

2. Can the practice of leadership be contemplative?

3. What are the implications of the conceptualization and

practice of contemplative leadership for our under-

standing of the ethics of leadership?

The paper’s contribution is both conceptual and empir-

ical. Firstly, we look to various related streams of leader-

ship theory and integrate existing work on contemplative

leadership (Nolan 2013) with the literatures on virtue ethics

and the ethics of leadership (Baker and Roberts 2011;

Beadle and Moore 2006; Knights and O’Leary 2006;

Rhodes 2012), relational leadership/ethics (Cunliffe and

Eriksen 2011; de Gama et al. 2012; Fairhurst and Uhl-Bien

2012; Maak and Pless 2006), and virtuous organizations

(Moore 2012; Whetstone 2005) to offer a comprehensive

conceptualization of contemplative leadership. We propose

that contemplative leadership is relational, engaged,

reflexive, and embodied activity that requires knowledge

from within context and practical wisdom. It is driven by a

pro-social logic grounded in a concern for the welfare of

others (Moore 2012), accounts for the ‘‘complexity of

experience’’ (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011, p. 1434), and is

discerned in the mundane and everyday experiences of

leadership.

Secondly, through our conceptualization of contempla-

tive leadership, we also advance theories on the ethics of

leadership. Concurring with those who acknowledge the

importance of context (e.g., Fairhurst 2009; Kempster et al.

2011; Maak and Pless 2006; Shotter and Tsoukas 2014),

we consider contemplative leadership as strongly linked to

organizational, broader community, and societal contexts.

Our study demonstrates how context informs understand-

ing of organizational purpose as centered on serving the

needs of others. In doing this, we advance current under-

standings of the connections and complexities of leadership

at the individual, group, and organizational levels. We

therefore follow Maak and Pless (2006) and Grint (2010)

and consider how leadership is interconnected with com-

munities. Thirdly, we empirically contribute to studies of

leadership and ethics that address the lived experiences (de

Gama et al. 2012) and everyday, ‘‘mundane and imagina-

tive’’ (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011) practice of leaders.

In what follows, we discuss the complexity of leadership

and, drawing on relevant bodies of literature, propose a

conceptualization of contemplative leadership. We then

detail the research design and our findings. To illustrate the

possibilities of contemplative leadership, our empirical

analysis explores two themes: Good Purpose/Good Lead-

ership and The Mundane of Leadership in Context. In our

discussion and conclusions, we reflect upon the theoretical

and practical contributions of our study and suggest areas

for future research. We now turn to explain the context of

our research.

A Context to the Research

This paper on contemplative leadership has developed

from a wider study which aimed to explore value creation

and competitive advantage in Christian churches in

Canada. We did not set out to theorize or empirically

explore contemplative leadership. In re-reading transcripts

of ‘leader-priests’ 2

and organizational members about their

everyday experiences, we were intrigued by what we

interpreted as both differences and similarities between

leadership in this context and in other types of organiza-

tions. Interesting, albeit not all that surprising, was that in

making sense of their leadership practices, these leader-

priests often couched their talk in theological references,

linking their own ‘‘sayings,’’ ‘‘doings,’’ ‘‘material objects’’

(Schatzki 2005), and interactions with others to a broader

and even mystical purpose. They and other organizational

members described their experiences in relation to others

and focused upon a mission of a pro-social nature. At the

same time, participants’ accounts revealed similar struggles

that leader-managers confront in most organizations such

as, how to engage and inspire members and how to manage

the finances of the organization. These insights triggered

our interest in exploring further leadership in relation to

others, driven by a ‘greater good,’ the role of context, and

2 We acknowledge that in using the terms ‘leader-priest’ and ‘leader-

manager,’ we are vulnerable to being criticized as supporting leader-

centric approaches. We use the terms to denote those who hold

positions of formal authority in organizations and do not view

leadership as that which resides, solely or at all, with those who hold

formal authority.

424 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

complexities of ‘‘doing leadership’’ (Sveningsson and

Larsson 2006) in the everyday and mundane practices. We

turned to the literatures on contemplative leadership, the

ethics of leadership, relational leadership, and virtuous

organizations to begin to unpick these insights. As a result,

the conceptualization and empirical exploration of con-

templative leadership discussed here was an iterative pro-

cess of data analysis, interpretations, and theoretical

development to explain unexpected findings (Cunliffe and

Eriksen 2011).

We propose that, from studying leadership in the reli-

gious context, there is something to be learned also about

leadership in general. We concur with Sørensen et al.

(2012) position that organization studies and practices ‘‘are

profoundly structured or informed by theological con-

cepts’’ (p. 268). Indeed, much has been written linking the

ideas of various saints and theologians to business ethics

(e.g., das Neves and Melé 2013; Klein and Laczniak 2013;

Sandelands 2009). In addition to business ethics, a number

of recent publications have looked to concepts and ideas

from theology for the purpose of theory building and to

religious organizations as an empirical site to advance

understandings in areas such as identity (Kreiner et al.

2006), work-life balance (Kreiner et al. 2009), change

(Plowman et al. 2007), and leadership (Grandy 2013). We

extend such work and take a position that theology and

religion have a lot to offer to organization studies scholars

(Ashforth and Vaidyanath 2002; Tracey 2012). 3

Against this backdrop, our study into the experiences of

church leadership provides an ‘‘extreme case’’ (Kreiner

et al. 2009) vividly bringing to light ‘good purpose’ and

concern for the Other as leadership but also the connections

between theology and leadership. We illustrate how theo-

logically rooted understandings and values, in an explicit

manner, inform leadership in a specific organizational

setting.

The Complexity of Leadership

We understand leadership as socially and discursively

constructed (Collinson 2011), whereby the relational,

contextual, and mundane are illuminated (Fairhurst 2009;

Ospina and Sorenson 2007). An exhaustive review of

leadership theory and leadership development is beyond

the scope of this paper (see Day et al. 2014 and Dinh et al.

2014 for such reviews). We do, however, want to highlight

the ‘‘complexity of experience’’ (Cunliffe and Eriksen

2011, p. 1434) that is often unaccounted for leadership

studies and how that informed our conceptualization of

contemplative leadership.

Sims (2010) is critical of extant academic and practi-

tioner leadership literature in a way that brings to surface

the absence of complexity in our understandings. He sug-

gests a shift away from trait-based leadership to under-

standing leadership as ‘‘the exercise of a complex set of

arts, usually requiring collaboration of several different sets

of skills or arts’’ (p. 258, italics added). He presents lead-

ership as an activity which, in contrast to a role or attribute,

is relationship based and involves several participants. He

proposes that ‘‘leadership is a contemplative art’’ (p. 257)

with an emphasis on self-awareness, generosity, and in

relation-to-others. In a similar way, Case et al. (2012)

ground their critique of leadership around the absence of

complexity and contemplation. While Sims (2010) adopted

an arts-based critique, Case et al. (2012) approach is rooted

in philosophy.

Case et al. (2012) argue that dominant organization

discourses are devoid of the complexity that is inherent in

organization and leadership processes. Leadership theory,

they state, has suffered from ‘‘secularization’’ which has

brought with it ‘‘the denial of layers of experience’’ (p.

347). This has resulted in a separation between lived

experience and our accounts of that experience. Moreover,

in their view, leadership theory is without contemplation,

i.e., it is characterized by the lack of seeing and knowing

beyond words. Exploring the connections between theol-

ogy and leadership, Case et al. (2012) draw from Aristotle

and Plato to trace the roots of the concept of theoria and the

loss of theoria in leadership studies. Theoria, as the direct

knowledge of the divine, is grounded in seeing, observing,

direct experience and a knowing beyond words. Such

knowing beyond words, derived from direct experience, is

difficult to express in everyday language; for example,

theologians often resort to metaphors or symbols to convey

that which is inexpressible. Case et al. (2012) propose that

through this detachment from practice, the ethical dimen-

sions of theory and, as it pertains to our interest, leadership

theory have been displaced or lost. Similarly, Flynn (2008),

in his discussion of virtue and leadership refers to the ideas

of the Catholic philosopher Pieper about leisure. Pieper

argues that the privileging of praxis, as that which ‘‘entails

the loss of wonder and contemplation’’ (Flynn 2008,

p. 366), over theoria, has resulted in a ‘‘world dominated by

work’’ (p. 366), without depth and mindful activity.

Research that pursues the possibilities of more ‘‘con-

templative engagement, in religious or philosophical

3 Historically, one of the most influential voices to draw attention to

the link between religion and organizations is Max Weber. In The

Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism Weber (1958) traces, the

influence of religion in modern organizations back to sect member-

ship as a marker of ‘‘moral qualifications and especially business

morals for the individual’’ (p. 305). More recently, other writers have

made similar arguments illustrating the relationship between salvation

and organizational practices (Dyck and Wiebe 2012), the theological

roots of accountability (Mutch 2012), and leadership (Grint 2010;

Śliwa et al. 2013).

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice 425

123

terms’’ (Case and Gosling 2009, p. 16) can provide insights

into the ethics of leadership and leadership theory more

broadly (Case et al. 2012). In the next section, we develop

a comprehensive conceptualization of contemplative lead-

ership that enriches previous work on contemplative lead-

ership and draws on the literature on the ethics of

leadership, relational leadership, and virtuous organiza-

tions. Such an approach, we argue, reconnects knowing and

practice.

Contemplative Leadership: A Conceptual Framework

Contemplation

The term ‘contemplation’ has surfaced in many guises in

the scholarly literature over the past 15–20 years. The

terms contemplation, contemplative practices, contempla-

tive person, and contemplative leadership are often high-

lighted in the spirituality of leadership/workplace

spirituality literature (e.g., Nolan 2013; Parameshwar

2005). 4

Some writers position contemplative as secular in

nature, while others frame it within religious or faith-based

principles (e.g., Schuttloffel 2013 on contemplative lead-

ership practice in Catholic school leadership). Much of the

literature focuses upon practices seen as contemplative

such as meditation, yoga, breathing exercises, silence, and

reflection. These practices are viewed as interventions to

enhance individual or organizational performance (e.g.,

Duerr 2004; see also the tree of contemplative practices,

The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society 2015). 5

While inconsistent across published works, descriptions of

contemplation and its variants emphasize reflection,

mediation, self-awareness, calling/vocation, and connec-

tion to a higher purpose, responsiveness, and being rooted

in relationships. With few exceptions (e.g., Edwards 2004;

Eggert 1998; Schuttloffel 2013), however, the importance

of the broader context in which leadership occurs and that

it is experienced in interdependent relationships are not

addressed.

Nolan’s (2013) doctoral work presents what is perhaps

the most comprehensive conceptual model of contempla-

tive leadership to date. Building upon Fry and Kriger’s

(2009) conceptual piece on the ‘‘being’’ of leadership, she

places contemplative leadership as a level II type of ‘being

leadership’ (level I is the highest level). According to

Nolan, there are eight Cs of a contemplative leader

including: calling (clear purpose/meaning); compassion

(altruism, love); care for others (sense of belonging,

interconnectedness); centered communication (balance

between emotion and reason in articulation); cultivate

stillness (engagement in contemplative practices); clarity

(wisdom, self and other awareness); currency of time

(mindfulness); and contagious joy (positive energy). While

useful in teasing out the many aspects of contemplative

leadership, there are a number of concerns with Nolan’s

work. Firstly, the model is trait-based in its description and

in this way reinforces individual-focused notions of lea-

der/ship. Secondly, while she implies that contemplative

leadership is a ‘moral’ project (i.e., calling, compassion,

care for others) and brings spiritual and servant leadership

into her conceptualization, the ethics of leadership is

mostly unaccounted for. Ethical leadership, for example, is

left as a type of level III leadership, as categorized by Fry

and Kriger (2009). Thirdly, clarity does take into account

wisdom and awareness, yet the particularities of context

(e.g., knowing what to do in a particular context—in

relation to others, in particular situations, in a broader

societal realm) are not elucidated within her conceptual-

ization. In this research, we aim to extend the existing work

on contemplative leadership in ways that overcome the

shortcomings of Nolan’s and others’ work.

We wish to steer away from a heroic, individual-based

view of leadership and focus less upon ‘leaders’ per se and

more on leadership as an activity. To do this, we look to

bring together a particular understanding of virtue ethics

and an ethics of care and responsibility.

Virtue Ethics and Ethics of Care and Responsibility

as Essential to Contemplative Leadership

Marsh (2013) and Levine and Boaks (2014) argue that

Aristotle’s virtue ethics provides a way to connect leader-

ship and ethics; grounding leadership in human flourishing

demonstrates what ‘‘virtue ethics can offer to leadership

studies’’ (Levine and Boaks 2014, p. 231). For human

flourishing, according to Aristotle, wisdom associated with

thinking about abstract truths and theories (sophia) and

practical wisdom (phronēsis) are necessary. The former is

sometimes referred to as contemplation and the latter as, in

contrast to it, knowledge ‘‘in action and not contemplation’’

4 In her work on the contemplative organization, Duerr (2004) notes,

‘‘the term ‘contemplative’ is inclusive of spirituality, but not

constrained by it’’ (p. 56). See also Nolan (2013) for a detailed

discussion of the connections between contemplation, contemplative

practice/leadership, and the spirituality of leadership/workplace

spirituality literature. 5

There is a growing but underdeveloped area of scholarly research

that looks to mindfulness and mindful leadership. Brown and Ryan

(2003) refer to mindfulness as a mode of consciousness that involves

being aware and attentive to happenings in the present moment. Much

of the work on mindfulness and mindful leadership focuses upon

contemplative practices or mindfulness-based interventions such as

meditation to reduce stress, improve interpersonal interactions, and

various other measures of leadership effectiveness (e.g., Dane and

Brummel 2014).

426 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

(Holt 2006, p. 1663). For Aristotle, virtues are likened to

habits, yet they are mindful activity (Ciulla and Forsyth

2011) and involve practical wisdom. Practical wisdom

(phronēsis) ‘‘is concerned with particulars—knowing what

to do in a particular situation—not theoretical universals’’

(Shotter and Tsoukas 2014, p. 234). It is ‘‘good, practical

moral judgement’’ (Kavanagh 2013, p. 110). We also

consider téchnē, that which we interpret as specialized,

technical or knowledge of a craft—knowledge of how to do

or make something. An awareness of the particularities of

context (associated with practical wisdom and technical

knowledge) implies a relational sensitivity. Indeed, in Ni-

comachean Ethics Aristotle (2000), in the context of dis-

cussing justice, notes that virtue exercised in relation to

oneself is temperance but virtue should also be exercised in

relation to others: ‘‘A person with general justice has both

and exercises both’’ (p. xxi). 6

In other words, ‘‘justice thus

comes to sight as something geared towards the well being

of others, a communal utility’’ (Bragues 2006, p. 349). It is

within community that individual integrity is given

meaning and an opportunity to be practiced (Solomon

2008).

However, Knights and O’Leary (2006) contend that

most writings on virtue ethics and leadership adopt an

individualistic view of morality and do not engage with

ethics as concerned with ‘‘who we are in relation to oth-

ers… our membership of organizations, communities and societies’’ (p. 133). This is true even of the literature on

altruistic leadership. The literature considers altruism as a

trait of an individual that is linked to other personality

characteristics such as honesty–humility, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, openness, emotionality, and extraver-

sion, and that makes an individual behave in ways which

provide benefit for the recipient (Furnham et al. 2014). As

Mitschow (2000) argues, as an individual-based trait

altruism can be unfocused and thus counterproductive to

the interests of others and potentially negative in its effects

on those it is supposed to help. For an understanding of the

ethics of leadership, it is therefore necessary to adopt a

conception of leadership as a relational process that occurs

in a particular context and serves a specific organizational

purpose.

To address the limitations of individual-focused notions

of leadership, Knights and O’Leary (2006) suggest com-

bining MacIntyre’s interpretation of virtue ethics and

Levinas’ ideas on ethics of responsibility. Here, we take

their suggestion forward while also incorporating the ideas

of Gilligan (1982) on the ethics of care. What follows is a

brief overview of MacIntyre’s, Levinas’ and Gilligan’s

work to highlight their key ideas that ground our devel-

opment of a comprehensive conceptualization of contem-

plative leadership.

At the heart of MacIntyre’s work is that virtues are

exercised within practices which he explains as ‘‘socially

established cooperative human activity through which

goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the

course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence

which are appropriate to… that form of activity’’ (1985/ 1991, p. 187). Through such activity (individual and col-

lective exercise) internal goods or the excellence of the

products or services and the flourishing of the individual

are extended (MacIntyre 1994a, p. 284; see also Moore

2012). For reasons which will be relevant later in this

section, it should also be noted that ‘‘to survive, practices

need to be housed within institutions which are concerned

with external goods’’ (Moore 2012, p. 365) (e.g., survival,

reputation, fame, and profits). Of particular interest to our

conceptualization of contemplative leadership is that for

MacIntyre virtue denotes capacity for judgment that

enables people to move towards their telos (purpose)

(Knights and O’Leary 2006). MacIntyre also ‘‘affirms the

essential intertwining of the individual, and his or her own

narrative quest, with the community, and its shared sense

of telos’’ (Beadle and Moore 2006, p. 333, emphasis in

original). ‘‘We discover our virtuous character only in

acting it out in relationship within community’’ (Marsh

2013, p. 567). Blum (1988) has likened Carol Gilligan’s

(1982) feminist account of moral development to MacIn-

tyre’s work on shared telos, whereby the radically situated

self is one where the self is not separate from community,

rather community/relationships are constitutive of the self.

In this way, there is potential to shift focus from the ethics

of leadership as a project on oneself to a project in relation

to and for others. Unlike those adopting deontological (e.g.,

Kant 1785) or consequentialist (e.g., Mill 1861) approaches

to ethics, MacIntyre’s view is one which sees the moral

project as intimately tied to historical and cultural con-

siderations (see MacIntyre 1994b for such a discussion).

Levinas (1969) goes further in linking the individual’s

telos to the Other and presents a particular understanding of

justice as the relationship with Other. He places emphasis

on justice as virtue exercised in relation to others. Unlike

MacIntyre, Levinas does not take a virtue ethics approach

and while he does refer to Plato’s work he does not engage

with the work of Aristotle. For Levinas, the moral project is

one tied to the responsibility for the Other and ‘‘not a

matter of character, sense of duty, own interest or sense for

consequences but something that unfolds in our approach

of otherness’’ (Corvellec 2005, p. 11). As Levinas (1969)

notes, ‘‘the I enters under judgment by the fact of being

6 We distinguish our use of Aristotle’s notion of general justice here

from that of the more commonly used interpretation of justice (or

ethics of justice) as duty, rights, or impartiality. The latter is often

associated with a deontological approach to ethics to which Kant

(1785) (e.g., categorical imperative) and Kohlberg (1958) (e.g., stages

of moral development), for example, subscribe.

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice 427

123

good. Goodness consists of taking up the position in being

such that the Other counts more than myself’’ (p. 247).

For Levinas, the responsibility for the Other is a selfless

one in that there is no expectation of reciprocity; ‘‘I am

responsible for the Other without waiting for reciprocity’’

(Levinas 1985, p. 96). Such a view is different than that

offered by servant leadership or the notion altruism, both of

which are suspect to expectations of reciprocity (Furnham

et al. 2014; Nolan 2013). Baker and Roberts (2011) refer to

Levinas’ approach as a ‘‘hugely demanding view of

responsibility’’ (p. 7) as ethics goes one way and cannot be

delegated to others. The ethical relationship is asymmet-

rical and it is this aspect that many argue distinguishes

Levinas’ ethical theory from others (see Davis 1966). Carol

Gilligan’s (1982) work on the ethics of care does, however,

offer a complementary approach to Levinas’ ethics of

responsibility. She too argues that relationships to others

cannot be explained as merely a commitment to reciprocity

(Bookman and Aboulafia 2000). Bookman and Aboulafia

(2000) argue that Gilligan’s work expands ‘‘the conversa-

tion that pits impersonal universal ethics principles against

personal ethics relations—a tension to which Levinas

commits much of his writing’’ (p. 170).

Gilligan’s agenda is different to that of Levinas in that

her work focuses upon moral development. Specifically,

she offers a feminist account of moral development, one of

an ethics of care (and responsibility). It is intended both as

a different, yet complementary account to Kohlberg’s

(1958) stages of moral development, that which is centered

upon the ethics of justice (in a Kantian sense of justice—

duty, rights). Individuals are a part of a web of ongoing

relationships, defined by historical connections. Our inter-

est is not in moral development, but the way in which

Gilligan’s work takes into account the self, other, and sit-

uation (Blum 1988) is integral to our understanding of

contemplative leadership.

Gilligan (1982) proposes a three-stage model whereby

stage one involves an overemphasis on the self, stage two

involves an overemphasis on the other (a movement from

selfishness to responsibility/attachment/connection to oth-

ers with an expectation of reciprocity), and stage three

involves a balanced or proper emphasis on self in-relation-

to other. At stage three, individuals are as ‘‘awake as

possible’’ (Gilligan 1977, p. 511), and through critical

reflection, the responsibility to self in relation to others is

reconciled, even if not necessarily fully resolved of con-

flict. The integration of Gilligan’s and Levinas’ ideas sheds

light on the question of ‘‘how can we balance self-affir-

mation with responsibility to other’’ (Bookman and

Aboulafia 2000, p. 173).

The calls for a Levinasian approach to ethics and/or

leadership are wide, yet empirical examples of it are rare.

Through a Levinasian lens, Baker and Roberts (2011) warn

us of the moral risks of strategic corporate responsibility

programs whereby managers can ‘‘deceive not just others

but themselves in relation to the exercise of responsibility’’

(p. 6). In this way, the pursuit of the ethical self can be

entangled in power relations (see Kornberger and Brown

2007). Baker and Roberts (2011) look to a case study of a

packaging company to explore how in the presence of such

programs managers come to believe they are ‘‘being seen

and/or seeing oneself’’ (p. 5) as ethical and in turn feel

morally sanctioned to pursue profits aggressively. Baker

and Roberts (2011) unpick managers’ talk about being

ethical to illuminate how talk about being ethical ‘‘should

not be confused with the practice of responsibility’’ (p. 14,

emphasis in original). De Gama et al. (2012) draw a similar

conclusion from their empirical study of HR professionals

in Canada. Combining the work of Bauman on ‘‘moral

impulse’’ and Levinas’ responsibility for the Other, they

conclude that HRM as practiced involves strategies of

moral neutralization (e.g., distancing, depersonalizing, and

dissembling) whereby practitioners and managers work on

or with Others for business ends (in MacIntyrean terms for

the pursuit of external goods), rather than for the Other. De

Gama et al. (2012) do acknowledge that many participants

in their study appeared torn in their felt responsibilities for

the organization and Others. As such, the authors end their

piece optimistically with a call to uncover contexts and

instances where HR professionals do engage in practices

and decision making that prioritize the Other. While we do

not look to HR professionals, our empirical findings offer

an example of instances where care for Other can unfold in

practice.

To better understand how context might inform a con-

cern for the Other, we consider context as central to our

conceptualization of contemplative leadership. Here, the

importance of context is recognized both in terms of the

specific organizational site, whereby exercising leadership

requires particular types of technical knowledge, and with

regard to organizational purpose, a point we elaborate on

below.

Contemplative Leadership and Organizational

Purpose

Contemplative leadership provides a means through which

to bridge individual (temperance or virtue exercised in

relation to oneself), group (virtue in relation to other), and

organization (virtuous organization) considerations of

leadership research and practice. Moreover, it illustrates

the connection between leadership and the broader societal

context. Leadership in relation to stakeholders is a con-

sideration relatively overlooked (Frisch and Huppenbauer

2014; Maak and Pless 2006). Indeed Lawton and Páez

(2014) and Kempster et al. (2011) have argued that we

428 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

need to make purpose more salient in leadership. Under-

standing ‘‘leadership as purpose’’ (Kempster et al. 2011,

p. 320), grounded in MacIntyre’s work, is helpful in

problematizing purpose as corporate goals and replacing it

with societal good. Building upon Whetstone’s (2005)

discussion of organizational virtue, the ethics of leadership

‘‘is as much an organizational issue as a personal issue’’ (p.

369) and ‘‘can provide linkage between the levels of the

individual and his society’’ (p. 369). We theorize that

contemplation informs understanding of the organization’s

purpose as centered on the ‘‘common good’’ (Arjoon

2000); it promotes a pro-social logic concerned with the

welfare of others (Tost 2011).

Drawing from the work of MacIntyre (1985/1991),

Moore (2012) contends that a virtuous organization has a

good purpose, i.e., contributes to the overriding good of the

community, and its members are driven to pursue excel-

lence in the achievement of that good purpose. Indeed, this

surfaces questions regarding how and who determines good

purpose. In addressing this, Moore (2012, p. 367) notes that

‘‘there will need to be a continuing debate within the

organization, and ideally between the organization and the

communities of which it is a part, as to what the commu-

nity’s good is and how the organization’s internal goods

contribute to it.’’

To summarize our discussion thus far, we advance an

understanding of the ethics of leadership by combining

virtue ethics, responsibility/care for the Other, relational

leadership, and virtuous organizations and offer a com-

prehensive conceptualization of contemplative leadership.

Contemplative leadership is virtuous activity in a MacIn-

tyrean sense and the practice of justice in Levinasian terms.

It denotes a commitment to mastery or excellence involv-

ing ongoing active reflexive awareness, exercised in con-

text and in relation to others, and embodied activity. Such

relational leadership involves knowledge within context

(Lawton and Páez 2014; Fairhurst 2009; Uhl-Bien 2006)

and practical wisdom—that which requires more than

technical knowledge and is grounded in a ‘‘relationally-

responsive way of thinking and acting’’ (Cunliffe and

Eriksen 2011, p. 1445). Following from Aristotle, we

propose that contemplative leadership takes into account

abstract knowledge (sophia), technical knowledge (téchnē),

and practical wisdom (phronēsis). Moreover, contempla-

tive leadership bridges individual, societal, and organiza-

tional considerations of justice and is grounded in an

appreciation of ‘‘good purpose’’ (Moore 2012).

To further advance our theorization of leadership, we

are interested in exploring leadership within a particular

empirical setting. A focus upon the mundane offers novel

insights into leadership as ‘‘an iterative and messy social

process that is shaped by interactions with others (Sayles

1964)’’ (Uhl-Bien 2006, p. 664). As such, it has the

potential to illuminate complexity and re-surface depth that

is integral to contemplative leadership.

Method

The wider interpretivist study from which this paper is

derived adopted a primarily qualitative approach to

uncover rich descriptions and the lived experiences of

leader-priests and organizational members (de Gama et al.

2012; Eisenbeiß and Brodbeck 2014; Marsh 2013). We

align with a relational ontology (Uhl-Bien 2006) and draw

upon the traditions of qualitative research (Mason 2002).

We adopt a social constructionist approach to explore how

pieces of individuals’ lives become re-constructed, re-ne-

gotiated, related, and crafted into meaning over time

(Schwandt 2000).

Data Collection

The empirical material for the wider study on value cre-

ation and competitive advantage is drawn from 21 Chris-

tian churches located in Atlantic Canada (Anglican = 10;

United Church of Canada = 7; Roman Catholic = 2;

Baptist = 1; Wesleyan = 1). The data collection took

place over a 3-year period between 2009 and 2011 by the

first author and involved a total of 124 participants. The

research protocols were approved by a university-wide

Research Ethics Board (affiliated with the first author at the

time of the study). Collective and instrumental case studies

(Stake 1995) with three churches (68 interviews and 3

focus groups) were complemented with interviews and

focus groups with participants (20) in an additional 18

churches. The interviews/focus groups with the 28 leader-

priests from the overall participant cohort primarily inform

the analysis carried out for this paper. We also considered

accounts of organizational members in the three case study

organizations as support (or not) for the espoused leader-

ship practices of the leader-priests. To protect the anon-

ymity of participants, we are unable to provide detailed

descriptions of their profiles—all participants completed

informed consent forms prior to the collection of data. The

leader-priest group included 15 men and 13 women; three

bishops, one deacon, one retired clergy, one clergy-in-

training, and 22 pastors/priests. With the exception of the

one participant who was in training to become a priest, at

the time of data collection, participants’ experience ranged

from 5 to 53 years. The organizational-member participant

group from the three case studies was also diverse in regard

to gender, length of membership, age, and extent of

involvement. Interviews and focus groups were semi-

structured in nature and inquired into a number of broad

areas (e.g., motivations for joining the ministry and parish,

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice 429

123

culture, changes in the parish over time, governance). For

the purposes of the discussion presented here, we have

anonymized the organizations and refer to participants by

pseudonym.

Data Analysis

Analysis for the wider study was undertaken by the first

author and began with a focus on participants’ accounts

from two of the three case sites. In those two case sites the

leadership style of the priest was interpreted as contributing

to value creation and competitive advantage. At that stage

the first author interpreted that participants were describing

a unique type of shared leadership that fostered learning

and community/connectedness within and beyond the

organization. It was at this point that the first author’s

interest was piqued to look closer at leadership across the

21 churches.

Data analysis for this current study began with both

authors independently carrying out ‘‘literal readings’’

(Mason 2002) of the interview transcripts of the 28 leader-

priests (of the 21 churches). Subsequently, both performed

‘‘interpretative readings’’ (Mason 2002) on a common six

transcripts (of the leader-priests) to identify possible pat-

terns. In collaborative coding sessions, we discussed how

we were intrigued by the theological references expressed

by participants as they talked about various aspects of their

everyday experiences. Not surprising given the leadership

context, there was an aspect to their leadership experiences

informed by the mystical or supernatural and this was often

linked to a broader pro-social purpose. We talked about

how we were struck by what we interpreted as participants’

sense of responsibility to others and a ‘good’ purpose, as

well as their complex understanding of the needs of orga-

nization’s members and the broader community. At the

same time, the challenges described by participants in their

mundane and everyday activities resonated with our

understandings of leadership challenges in other organi-

zations. With these insights in mind, we undertook a more

refined literature review including the ethics of leadership,

virtuous organizations, contemplative leadership, and

relational leadership.

Following this, a process of constant comparison across

the initial six transcripts facilitated the development of

broad codes. Both authors independently and then jointly

performed interpretative readings of the rest of the 22

transcripts informed by these broad codes, while remaining

open to novel and unanticipated patterns. We then analyzed

the accounts of organizational members of the three case

studies to explore if the espoused practices of the leader-

priests (of these three organizations) were supported in

members’ experiences. This iterative process resulted in

two core themes. In the sections that follow we first

discuss, under the theme Good purpose/good leadership,

participants’ understandings of the purpose of the organi-

zation to illustrate the notion of leadership as in relation to

Other and guided by a pro-social logic. We then highlight

how the context in which leadership is practiced is unique,

yet similar to that of leadership in other organizations. This

theme, labeled The mundane of leadership in context,

illuminates how practical wisdom is informed by abstract

and technical knowledge as part of the everyday practices

of contemplative leadership. Our discussion provides

illustrations of how knowing and practice are reconnected

through contemplative leadership. Table 1 provides addi-

tional examples from the raw data coded to the two themes.

Findings

Good Purpose/Good Leadership

Similar to the ministers in Creed et al. (2010) research,

participants make sense of their experiences ‘‘in ways that

resonate with Christian meta-narratives of grace, conver-

sion and discipleship’’ (p. 1349). Based on the narratives,

there is a complexity and depth to the purpose of the

organization and how that purpose is to be lived. When

speaking about the organization’s overall mission, partici-

pants express the primary focus as caring for the commu-

nity. Purpose centered upon care for others was manifested

both through building community within the church (e.g.,

congregation) and beyond (e.g., community outreach); an

integrated stakeholder understanding of purpose (Frisch

and Huppenbauer 2014; Maak and Pless 2006). Many

participants commented that their organizations were dri-

ven by a commitment to social justice. Justin (clergy)

expresses that his understanding of ‘‘church’’ and ‘‘min-

istry,’’ that which is interpreted here as organizational

purpose, is one of ‘‘service’’ and outreach. ‘‘My look at

ministry is how do you take your message outward; you

don’t find the gospel in here [within the physical church],

you find it out there [in the community]… my concept of church is service’’ (Justin, clergy).

Justin goes further to illustrate how this somewhat

abstract purpose plays out in everyday practices. In dis-

cussing the parish’s journey to build a $2.5 million com-

munity centre, Justin draws attention to how the

organization’s purpose is manifested through the develop-

ment of this facility. He also expresses that this initiative is

the result of shared leadership (‘‘it’s not mine’’) directed

towards a pro-social cause. ‘‘I had no right to dream [about

a community center] because I hadn’t been there for years,

I had to listen to the residents of the community [survey of

900–1200 community residents]; that’s why I think this is a

community [parish members and broader community]

430 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

project—it’s not mine.’’ Following MacIntyre, Justin’s

comments offer us a glimpse into how individual flour-

ishing is intimately tied to a shared sense of community

telos; the centre was a ‘‘community project’’ where indi-

vidual and community are intertwined. Similarly, Gilli-

gan’s work provides insight into the ethics of leadership as

described by Justin, whereby ‘‘knowing what to do

involves knowing others and being connected in ways

involving both emotion and cognition’’ (Blum 1988,

p. 476).

As Justin and others in this parish describe it, coming to

a shared understanding of and living that purpose was an

embodied, relational, and sometimes challenging process.

As noted by Jane, a member of Justin’s parish, ‘living’ that

shared purpose involves a high level of engagement;

‘‘when you live it and experience it you want other people

to experience it. It’s a church that’s alive, you want to

participate’’ (Jane). Jim, another member of Justin’s parish,

expresses how such a shared pro-social purpose took years

to achieve.

Table 1 Additional data to illustrate themes

Theme Raw data to support

Good

purpose/good

leadership

What we try to be is something

authentic…the minister who is me was basically preaching a lot about

outreach and social justice. It attracted

people who had a similar interest in

being in the community but not

necessarily the same

theology…outward Christianity as opposed to inward Christianity.

However some of these people

[congregation] came from very

evangelical and traditional

backgrounds. They didn’t necessarily

agree with my sermons or my

theology but agreed with the

direction—the thrust of the church—

which was being out in the

community. It’s very interesting… that kind of dynamic situation creates

tension at times. (Sarah, clergy)

This church is not only speaking but is

actually trying to act in a way that is

consistent with a gospel that proclaims

justice in some way… this church is also very intentional about pushing the

justice question as well. For example,

it’s not enough to support a food bank

we have to ask why there is a food

bank—those kinds of questions.

(Shayne, clergy)

The ‘messy’ church project: people

connected with us person to person

and now we can connect with them.

‘My child’s crying all the time, what’s

wrong?’ ‘Well I have the same

problem.’ And so what ended up

happening was exactly what I think

God intended—to build communities

so you had complete strangers in some

respects coming to the parish hall

where we had tables set up for crafts,

snacks and of course coffee and

donuts for the parents. The kids

immediately build community, the

parents who are sipping their coffee

would eventually go closer to each

other and say ‘which one is yours?’

(Wallace, clergy)

Mundane of

leadership in

context

Most of these people in the little places

[rural communities] they’ve lost their

schools, they’ve lost everything else;

all they have is their little church and

their little church is history to them… It doesn’t matter what I want. Over at

[name of parish 1] for example they

wanted to put all new windows in the

church they did it themselves. And

now we’re getting ready to put a roof

in the church in [name of parish 2].

Ministry is so simple; you just go in

the parish and visit them when they’re

sick, you care for their souls, you pray

for them and they know you’re

praying for them, you have services

that they want—that they are

interested and not what you want.

When I go into parish if it’s Anglo-

Catholic I’m Anglo-Catholic. If it’s

Evangelical I’m Evangelical. It

doesn’t matter what I think. Why is it

that the priest is more important than

the people? That’s not what Jesus said.

We’re to be the servants. (Dwight,

clergy)

Something is definitely going to have to

give and I don’t know what the

solution is because what happens

when one point [of a multi-point

parish] closes, all of their money goes

with it. So what was their part towards

the overall gets re-distributed among

the remaining. We have four churches

and three of them are hanging on by

their nails and if they were to close,

then all their portion of the bills would

have to be paid by the one point

[which is financially healthy]. I don’t

know if [that financially healthy point]

could sustain that for any amount of

time. (Kathy, clergy)

We have a prayer group. We don’t pick

up a book and do our prayers from a

book. We have a group of people who

meet once a month. They incorporate

not only the prayers of our community

but outside of the city, even globally.

Our liturgy flows in a traditional sense

but it also incorporates people’s ideas

into the liturgy. (Erica, clergy)

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice 431

123

He [Justin] said he was here to agitate and to make

everyone change… it has taken a number of years but I think the whole congregation believes there is more

to being a member of the parish than just coming to

church on Sunday. Our congregation has been on this

journey of discovery about who we are as people of

faith and this idea of providing services [to those

outside the parish] is natural (Jim, parish member).

Similar to Jim, Celia acknowledges Justin’s role in

facilitating this shift in thinking and practice around the

organization’s purpose. We interpret that their comments

also illustrate that this shift is not merely a reflection of

Justin’s success at ‘‘sensebreaking’’ (Grint 2010) or

silencing alternative understandings of organization pur-

pose. We conclude from Celia’s comments that individuals

are less driven by self-interest (their own or their fami-

lies’); rather, they understand their moral project as con-

nected to the common good (‘‘a vision that reaches out to

all people’’). In this way, individuals ‘‘are to some extent

able to distance themselves from a localized morality… and are able to evaluate the way in which the organiza-

tion’s internal goods, derived from the core practice, gen-

uinely do contribute to the common good of the

community’’ (Moore 2012, p. 376). ‘‘The priest [Justin] has

a vision of outreach social justice. It is a vision that reaches

out to all people… he’s moved the parishioners into seeing that in a parish setting as opposed to just seeing that within

their own families’’ (Celia, parish member). The accounts

of Justin, Jane, Jim, and Celia resonate with Rhodes’

(2012) conceptual work, which stems from Levinas, in

proposing (ethical) leadership as the practice of justice.

The general message that comes across from the narratives

of participants is that they pursue an organizational purpose

‘‘inspired by an ethical concern for other people’’ (p. 1318),

and that there is a shared sense of telos between individuals

and the community.

Participants acknowledge the struggle of carrying out

the purpose of the organization so as to ensure its ‘‘au-

thenticity’’ (Wallace) while also making the experience

meaningful to members (and non-members). They see

themselves as interpreters and transferors of God’s mis-

sion, and responsive to others, combining their theologi-

cally grounded beliefs and values with the context in which

their leadership practices unfold. The commonly expressed

understanding by participants is that organizations should

not be driven by self-interest. Leadership emerges as

important but a caretaker role of a greater purpose; some-

thing more important than any one individual, an asym-

metrical relationship with the Other (Levinas 1985)

whereby ‘‘the Other counts more than myself’’ (Levinas

1969, p. 247).

For many participants, the commitment to Other extends

beyond the physical boundaries of the organization and its

current members. Tatiana (clergy) makes reference to an

ecumenical initiative where several denominations in a

particular geographical area were striving to collaborate to

provide resources to individuals and families unable to

afford to heat their homes over the winter months. In

recounting the challenges of managing different interests

and theological grounding of those leading the initiative,

she expresses a type of ongoing questioning and ‘‘mind-

fulness’’ (Marsh 2013) in relation to Others. For her,

commitment to a good purpose involves moving beyond

differences (e.g., in doctrine) to focus on a shared purpose

of helping others. We interpret that her understanding of

leadership mirrors Rhodes’ (2012, p. 1327) view of it as

‘‘affirmative, experientially contingent and other-focused,’’

yet involving a constant questioning of how to proceed

given that the needs of all cannot be met.

We’re not gonna convert one another—that’s why we

are in different denominations. We don’t need to

hammer doctrine and come to an agreement about the

big things like that but we can agree that we need to do

something for those people who haven’t got [money to

heat their houses over the winter] (Tatiana, clergy).

Knights and O’Leary (2006) argue that Levinas fails to

fully take into account ‘‘mutual interdependence and co-

constitution’’ (p. 135) when multiplicity of interests (e.g.,

third party) enters a relationship. They contend that Lev-

inas falls back to a deontological approach to resolve such

multiplicity of interests. By contrast, Gilligan’s (1982)

work offers an important insight in this regard: she implies

that such conflict is likely never fully resolved even when

individuals have developed and demonstrate the ‘proper’

balance between self and other. Tatiana’s account points to

the challenges of experiencing multiplicity in that interests

stemming from different doctrinal foundations would

likely be impossible to reconcile. She does not revert to a

rules-based approach where impartiality and universal

rules would apply or a utilitarian approach where some

interests (e.g., particular doctrines) are prioritized over

others for the ‘greater good.’ Rather she attempts to resolve

the tension by acknowledging the different interests

involved and asking the group to redirect efforts to where

interests do align—the good purpose (e.g., helping others).

We consider this as another example of contemplative

leadership whereby it involves a complexity and conscious

effort to achieve a ‘‘co-constitutive understanding of self

and others’’ (Knights and O’Leary 2006, p. 135). As

McMurray et al. (2011) argue, ‘‘with all of the others

present, any practical enactment of ethics becomes even

432 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

more complex because of the presence of competing

demands from those different others’’ (p. 545).

Following Moore (2012), not only must virtuous orga-

nizations have a good purpose, there must also be an

appreciation for the sustenance of the core practice and

continued development of individuals’ moral character.

Our empirical material provides support for Moore’s claim.

For example, Fred (clergy) maintains that members’ efforts

to sustain the good purpose of the organization (e.g., out-

reach related) are somewhat disconnected from the moral

development of internal community.

All of this outreach into the community… the church has become a flow through system; they [parish-

ioners] spend a lot of energy gathering up money,

food, goods, etc. and it just comes in and gets boxed

up and goes out the door. All of the energy just goes

through the door. The church is focused on Sunday

morning and these few outreach programs that come

up at certain times of the year and then there is

nothing happening. The thing we haven’t been good

at is keeping any of that energy to grow internally, to

become a community within a community (Fred,

clergy).

Reflecting upon Fred’s full interview, we can note

that he is not opposed to a good purpose as centered

upon outreach. Rather, his account above draws atten-

tion to an understanding that contemplative leadership

involves a commitment to good purpose and ongoing

reflexive awareness, exercised in context and in relation

to others. His account highlights how good purpose may

not be virtuous if the flourishing of members, as a col-

lective, is overlooked. His experiences also resonate

with calls for an integrated understanding of stakehold-

ers (i.e., external and internal) as it relates to the ethics

of leadership and organization purpose (see, for exam-

ple, Frisch and Huppenbauer 2014; Maak and Pless

2006).

We propose a rethinking of leadership as an embodied

and relational experience possible in organizations with a

good purpose and with individuals who possess an intimate

understanding of, and commitment to, that purpose. While

not representative of all religious institutions and their

members, the organizations under study for this research

vividly demonstrate how good purpose constitutes an

essential aspect of contemplative leadership. We now turn

to discussing the importance of the specific organizational,

broader community, and societal contexts for an under-

standing of the link between more abstract knowledge,

technical knowledge—which, in the case of participants for

this study, is rooted in Christian theology—and practical

wisdom regarding what action to take in particular

circumstances.

The Mundane of Leadership in Context

The leadership practices of participants are closely linked

to the specific context and circumstances of the parish, the

community it serves, and the broader environment within

which it operates. This requirement to possess profound

contextual knowledge points to a similarity between lead-

ership of churches and leadership of other types of orga-

nizations. In fact, participants’ concerns to a large extent do

not differ from those in other sectors: ensuring financial

stability of the organization, taking decisions regarding

construction, maintenance and/or closure of buildings,

responding to external trends, dealing with organizational

politics and conflicts, and struggling for balance between

professional and personal lives. Participants compare their

organizations to others, such as businesses, and stress

commitment to addressing the mundane issues that the

organizational circumstances—for example, the need to

cover the everyday costs associated with the parish’s

operations—present them with. The following comment by

Alessa (clergy) is illustrative of such mundane activities.

Alessa describes how budgeting involves the ‘‘education’’

of members about the operating expenses associated with

maintaining the organization; required activities to foster

the good purpose of the organization (outreach).

We’re making the budget and we’re doing a lot of

education around our envelope givings [financial

support by the congregation]. What you put on the

plate would cover our mortgage, our utilities and our

staffing, so then our fundraising can be for outreach

(Alessa, clergy).

Moreover, as with leadership of other types of organiza-

tions, verbal communication with others often constitutes

leadership action. We interpreted that participants’ talk

about specific leadership decisions which focused upon

addressing issues relevant to the particular context, draws

on more abstract concepts (sophia), through theological

references (téchnē).

The multi-site model is simply this: there is one

central board, one budget, one senior pastor and it’s

all very centralized—so the big thing the church had

to do and to be a little spiritual here. Christ had that

phrase that said if you lose your life, that’s when you

will find it—well, they [the congregations] had to

lose their life… hand it all over… in order for the work to continue… So we did the amalgamation (Eugene, clergy).

The above quote illustrates the importance of the broader

context in understanding leadership decision making; here,

a merger of parishes. In the case mentioned by Eugene, as a

result of the lack of funding, the decision was made to

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice 433

123

move to a multi-site organizational model. This implies

that, following a merger, resources that previously

belonged to and were managed by separate parishes would

be shared across a number of sites. Eugene links this

pragmatic, context-driven decision with a deeper theolog-

ical concept of sacrificing past life in order to be born to a

new life (as a Christian). His talk points to the weaving of

what should be done in a given context (phronēsis) with

more abstract knowledge (sophia) about how giving

something up can be a necessary step towards a beneficial

purpose, that which is articulated in technical language

specific to this context (theology).

In the narratives, we also found illustrations of how

leadership practices stem from an intersection of a close

contextual knowledge about the needs of the congrega-

tion and the clergy’s ethical concern for the other as

unique to the self (Levinas 1998). Sally and Simon

(parish members) expressed that their priest, Alexandra,

expanded the scope of church activities considerably and

challenged parishioners to ‘‘push their boundaries, how

we might do things differently, respect the dignity of

every human being and what it really takes to live that

faith’’ (Sally, parish member). These activities and

efforts served to enrich parishioners’ lives in unexpected

ways.

She [Alexandra] brought in so many activities like

Lenten talks. For example, she had Jewish people

come in and tell us about the significance of this and

that and so on. These all added to our lifestyle and

influenced our life… the whole church dimension was expanded throughout the whole week and

beyond (Simon, parish member).

Alexandra (clergy) recounts how she felt a responsibility

to make church ‘‘relevant’’ and responsive to the needs of

current and new members. Her comments offer some

context for Sally and Simon’s experiences of what we

interpret as an illustration of contemplative leadership. One

such initiative fostered by Alexandra involved introducing

a new more contemporary service on Saturday evenings

(e.g., a band instead of choir, dialog sermon) to reach

individuals unable to attend Sunday services due to other

commitments (e.g., hockey practice, shift work). She

expresses how that change and others were less about

changing the mission (or purpose) of the organization and

more about how the message was communicated and

enacted.

I had a vision of ‘what can we do for those who may

be struggling with the structure of the institutional

church, how can we do things a little bit differently so

people feel more relaxed’ … but still very Anglican. The world has changed and we want the church to be

relevant in people’s lives today where they are

dealing with children with eating disorders, families

where parents are traveling for work, blended fami-

lies… We have to be available for the changing face of ministry and of family and of community in our

world (Alexandra, clergy).

Alexandra’s leadership practice illustrates an ethics of

care (Gilligan 1982) and is characterized by what Cunliffe

and Eriksen (2011) describe as relational integrity: lead-

ership needs ‘‘to be sensitive, attuned and responsive to

moments of difference, and feel responsible for working

with those differences’’ (p. 1438). Alexandra, Sally and

Simon’s comments also support Rhodes’ (2012, p. 1322)

contention that in the pursuit of leadership as the practice

of justice there is an absence of expectations of reciprocity,

‘‘in practice there is no room for self-righteous—only for

an ongoing questioning of the self in relation to others to

whom one is responsible.’’

Others talk about introducing radical changes to tradi-

tional practices to better align with contemporary times.

William (clergy), for example, expresses that ‘‘a liberal

theology is fairly important’’ because ‘‘people are looking

for a theology that speaks to contemporary times in a way

that is not dogmatic and doctrinal.’’ His parish addresses

such needs through a ‘‘diverse theology’’ manifested in a

variety of ways including,

…an interesting study on a gospel that’s not in the bible, the gospel of Thomas… I also had a sermon called ‘Hell is for Accountants’, just abused the

notion that there is a hell and this opens up a lot of

windows for people… it stresses some but other people find it engaging (William, clergy).

To us, such changes further illustrate that the practice of

contemplative leadership is possible. William’s initiatives

inspired by the notion of diverse theology demonstrate that

he is deeply aware of the contemporary context in which

some of the traditional doctrines, such as the idea of the

existence of hell, have lost resonance with many in society,

including members of religious communities. He also

reveals an ability to reflect on the implications of this

changing context for the direction of his leadership. In

espousing a concern for the needs of others, it can be

inferred that he is capable of engaging in a relational

sensitivity in order to connect with those for whom tradi-

tional Church teachings are no longer a sufficient basis for

becoming or remaining Church members. William’s

openness to move away from a conservative model of a

Church through introducing a new format and content to

religious services supports Maak and Pless (2006) and

Grint’s (2010) calls for leadership interconnected with the

community in which it occurs.

434 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

Expressions of participants’ concern for and efforts to

connect with others point to another aspect of contempla-

tive leadership: embodiment. Victor (clergy) spoke

explicitly about how depth in experience has both ‘‘intan-

gible’’ and ‘‘tangible,’’ embodied aspects. He offers an

example of how embodiment is fostered through music.

Worship should be embodied and one of the ways to

embody it is to feel in connection with other people

through very simple rhythmic things. So what a lot of

churches do is they will have some form of percus-

sion whether that is a band or an African drum just to

accompany certain songs. If you can help people find

the rhythm that is in the music then they are much

more able to experiment. There are some intangible

things like the energy that you feel within a group and

also the tangible signs of how people are moving and

relating to the music (Victor, clergy).

Victor explains how through a simple approach of

repeating musical phrases, he aims to ‘‘find the rhythm

that’s already in every person,’’ since, in his view, through

embodiment of music and prayer the members’ experi-

ences of worship gain more depth. Victor’s example

regarding the creation of embodied experiences for mem-

bers of his parish also highlights a relational sensitivity

(Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011; Gilligan 1982) as an aspect of

contemplative leadership. In this way, morality and the

ethics of leadership, ‘‘is not only contextual but also

relational’’ (de Gama et al. 2012, p. 99). Practicing a

relational sensitivity involves getting ‘‘a feel for’’ (Cunliffe

and Eriksen 2011, p. 1442, emphasis in original) how to do

leadership through interaction with others and developing

a ‘‘knowing-from-within’’ (p. 1441) to come to some

shared meanings. For the participants in our study, paying

attention to embodiment as part of leadership practice

points to their ability to draw on knowledge that is ‘‘be-

yond words’’ (Case et al. 2012), and enables them to enrich

and deepen the experience of other organizational

members.

Clergy participants are ‘‘skillful at recognizing and

giving meaning to emerging patterns’’ (Plowman et al.

2007, p. 539), such as higher Church trends and new

external challenges. These leader-priests engage in sense-

making and sensegiving (Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991) ‘‘by

monitoring the environment, interpreting issues and events

and constructing meanings’’ (Resick et al. 2013, p. 957)

and in turn conveying the information to members in a way

that facilitates their meaning making. These meaning-

making efforts serve to enhance and enrich members’ lived

experiences of phenomena. As such, we argue they serve to

reconnect the knowing and practice of leadership in orga-

nizational life.

Discussion

Towards Contemplative Leadership

There is a complexity to the practice of leadership that is

often unaccounted for, a complexity tied to the possibilities

for the ethics of leadership. This is because, as Case et al.

(2012) argue, scholarly accounts of leadership do not give

us insights into the contemplative aspect of leadership; that

which is connected to seeing and knowing beyond words

and is inherent in leadership processes. In this paper, we

have developed a comprehensive conceptualization of

contemplative leadership. To do this, we have extended

existing work on contemplative leadership and integrated

insights from the literatures on the ethics of leadership

(virtue ethics), relational leadership, and virtuous organi-

zations. We have conceptualized contemplative leadership

as a relational practice founded in the ‘‘ethical care for

other’’ (Rhodes 2012, p. 1324), combining abstract wis-

dom, technical knowledge, and practical wisdom. We have

illustrated our conceptualization of contemplative leader-

ship with empirical examples of engaged, embodied,

everyday activities carried out by individuals who are

conscious of the purpose of the organization and of the

broader community, and socioeconomic contexts in which

leadership practices unfold. To this end, we have analyzed

the narratives of leader-priests and organizational members

about everyday practices and experiences of leadership.

This focus on the mundane has allowed us to reveal a depth

in leadership; it is concerned with felt, relational, and

embodied experiences (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011; Maak

and Pless 2006).

Existing literature documents well that leadership across

organizations involves confronting a myriad of internal and

external factors that shape everyday practices. What is more

elusive, however, is the ‘‘knowing’’ that underpins ‘‘doing

leadership’’ (Sveningsson and Larsson 2006) in a particular

context. In the theme Good purpose/good leadership, we

have illustrated that in the case of contemplative leadership,

knowing of leadership is grounded in layers of experience

tied to a complex and intimate understanding of the orga-

nizational context and commitment to good purpose. Pro-

found respect for the other (Levinas 1969, 1998) and a

commitment to the overriding good of the community

(MacIntyre 1985/1991; Moore 2012) then become critical

in redeeming the notion of contemplation for leadership

practice. Throughout the empirical analysis, we have dis-

cussed examples of how knowing and practice are inter-

twined, and how this makes for more ethical leadership.

The focus on leadership of churches has allowed us to

bring out the normative, moral aspect of leadership to

illustrate what the ethics of leadership might look like.

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice 435

123

Leadership is a practice (Rhodes 2012) and, as Holt (2006,

p. 1661) has argued, ‘‘morality itself can be understood as

an integral part of any practice.’’ As our empirical analysis

has shown, contemplative leadership—the practice of jus-

tice—exists not only as a concept, but instances of it can be

found in contemporary organizations. We propose a

rethinking of leadership as, by definition, not a-ethical or

a-moral but as activity with ethical dimensions. Con-

comitant with such a conception of leadership, we propose

problematizing the prevalent understanding of the purpose

of organizational leadership and corporations as concerned

with corporate goals and replacing it with a set of practices

that have as their overriding objective a broader commu-

nity and societal good (Kempster et al. 2011; Maak and

Pless 2006; Solomon 2008).

In the theme The mundane of leadership in context, we

highlighted how the mundane, everyday practices of

leadership are in many ways similar to leadership in other

organizations in that they involve activities such as setting

priorities, measuring performance, and managing finances.

One of the unique characteristics of our empirical setting is

that the theological training and conviction of participants

mean they possess specialized knowledge and vocabulary.

This equips them with a particular ability to articulate how

ethics—in this case, Christian ethics—is an inseparable

aspect of leadership practice. Moreover, extending Lawton

and Páez’s discussion (2014) of virtues and leadership,

leadership practices are tied to the context and circum-

stances in which they emerge, the community they serve,

and the broader environment (Maak and Pless 2006), all of

which inform the practical wisdom of leadership practices.

To date, other than indirect references and brief discussions

of the role of context in contemplative leadership, such an

appreciation of context has been absent in the literature on

contemplation. Our conceptualization and empirical

exploration of contemplative leadership more fully brings

to light the importance of context in the ethics of leader-

ship. Contemplative leadership then illuminates the link

between abstract knowledge and technical knowledge,

which in our research is grounded in theology, and prac-

tical wisdom regarding what to do in a particular context.

Moving Forward

A move towards this way of understanding leadership and

its purpose would have profound implications for how we

understand the connections between ethics and leadership

and what is considered good leadership in all types of

organizations. Admittedly, church leadership can be seen

as a ‘‘special case’’ (Harris 1998) in that participants

explicitly draw on theological references to discuss lead-

ership practices and experiences. Yet, we consider their

understandings of leadership as related and relevant to

leadership in other types of organizations. Indeed, as Sør-

ensen et al. (2012) remind us, there is a close connection

between theology and our conceptions of organization. The

theological roots of our understanding of leadership are

something we have in any case internalized but perhaps do

not consciously reflect on.

The notion of contemplative leadership, as developed

and illustrated in this paper, might seem more readily

applicable to non-profit or public sector organizations

which are expected to be driven by a good, pro-social

mission. However, we would like to see contemplative

leadership become a key model in what are at present

purely for-profit organizations. We realize that to some this

ambition might seem overly optimistic and perhaps even

utopian given the models of leadership that currently pre-

vail in organizations. We recognize that this would require

considerable change in how organizations are led and what

kind of education we, as organizational scholars and

teachers, deliver (e.g., Lim 2007). One starting point for

the exploration of how organizations might change if

contemplative leadership were to be practiced more widely

is provided by recent approaches such as shared value

(Porter and Kramer 2011) and conscious capitalism

(Mackey and Sisodia 2013). Moreover, a promising

development can be observed in the rise of social enterprise

and hybrid organizations that aim to bridge the for-profit

versus non-profit divide through combining social and

environmental missions with a for-profit focus (Haigh and

Hoffman 2012; Hoffman et al. 2012). In contrast to tradi-

tional corporate social responsibility approaches, which

place purpose and societal concerns as the peripheral rather

than the core, advocates of shared value and hybrid orga-

nizations propose a realigning of the organizational pur-

pose so that societal benefits are given as much significance

as economic benefits. While acknowledging some of the

critiques put forward about alternative approaches to

organizing within the framework of capitalism (e.g., ten-

sions between economic and social goals, see Crane et al.

2014), we contend that such a realignment might be pos-

sible through contemplative leadership.

What follows, then, is a challenge for business studies

and leadership scholars and educators to conduct further

research into contemplative leadership, studying examples

where we can see the ethics of leadership in practice both

in non-profit and for-profit organizations, and propagate

this approach among researchers and practitioners alike.

Moreover, it is necessary for us to embed the principles of

contemplative leadership in leadership education programs.

This would involve abandoning approaches to management

education that reinforce essentialist, heroic, and narcissistic

ideals, and instead working towards the ‘‘academic goal to

help practitioners in their reflective work: to develop their

phronēsis’’ (Kavanagh 2013, p. 12). Lim (2007), for

436 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

example, in her pursuit of finding ways to teaching ‘‘oth-

erness,’’ advocates for more experiential learning centered

upon intersubjectivity and corporeality (e.g., bodywork

exercises), as well as participatory identity construction

(e.g., dramaturgy, improvisation) so that students ‘‘not only

feel for others, but literally feel others’’ (p. 259, emphasis

in original) through embodiment, negotiation, dialog, and

open communication. In advancing ethical approaches to

leadership such as contemplative leadership, we are opti-

mistic that understandings and practice of leadership can be

relationally sensitive (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011; Maak

and Pless 2006), reflexive regarding the context in which

leadership practices unfold (Lawton and Páez 2014; Marsh

2013) and grounded in good purpose (MacIntyre 1985/

1991; Moore 2012) and an ethical concern for the Other

(Baker and Roberts 2011; Levinas 1969; Rhodes 2012).

One of the contributions of our conceptualization is a

shift of focus from the leader to leadership practices; the

everyday and mundane doing and being of leadership that

occurs in a particular context (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011).

Thereby, we caution that our intent is not to offer a view of

virtuous leaders, but one of the ethics of leadership as

complex and virtuous activity.

Through its emphasis on constant mindfulness of the

organizational purpose and the need for practicing justice in

relation to others, this comprehensive conceptualization of

contemplative leadership provides a means through which to

bridge individual (temperance or virtue exercised in relation

to oneself), group (virtue in relation to other), and organi-

zation (virtuous organization) considerations of leadership

research and practice. Of course, we recognize that a con-

viction in the purpose of the organization and the ability to

persuade others through references to values and an over-

riding organizational mission carry with it a danger of

manipulation and of exercising power from a place of ‘‘self-

righteousness’’ or self-interest (Vince and Mazen 2014).

Leadership practice is always ‘‘mired in the political prac-

ticalities of organizational life’’ (Rhodes 2012, p. 1327), and,

as our empirical material indicates, leader-priests are well

capable of mobilizing discourses of higher purpose, ethics,

and responsibility towards others to legitimize their actions

and to increase their own effectiveness. While undoubtedly

challenging, the contemplation of leadership practice in

every mundane aspect of it, as discussed throughout our

research, is a necessary condition in the ethics of leadership.

Where contemplation informs understanding of the organi-

zation’s purpose as centered on the needs of other people,

leadership practices follow a pro-social logic grounded in the

welfare of others (Moore 2012; Tost 2011).

Since the proposed notion of contemplative leadership

draws on Moore’s (2005, 2012) ideas, among other works,

we must also acknowledge Beadle’s (2008) critique

regarding Moore’s misplaced extension of MacIntyre’s

work to business. Beadle (2008) contends that Moore is

wrong in concluding that businesses (or all organizations)

are a type of practice in MacIntyrean terms. A practice

‘‘involves the generation of goods internal to such practices

(MacIntyre 1985/1991, pp. 189–190; 1994a, p. 284)’’

(Beadle 2008, p. 3); a cooperative activity involving a

common good. Aware of the arguments made by Beadle

(2008), we wish to clarify that we see leadership, specifi-

cally contemplative leadership as we conceptualize it, as

integral to this kind of activity aiming at the generation of a

common good. As we have argued above, for contempla-

tive leadership to become widespread, a re-framing of

organizations along a pro-social purpose would be neces-

sary. ‘Good’ purpose could indeed be considered an aspect

of a particular practice in MacIntyrean terms, and leader-

ship would play a role in orchestrating such a practice.

Conclusion

Our empirical exploration focused on the espoused accounts

of leader-priests and organizational members. The illustra-

tions we have provided show that contemplative leadership

is possible; it can be accessed through the mundane expe-

riences of leadership and involves the unraveling of the

ethical underpinnings that inform the ‘‘mundane-imagina-

tive’’ (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011) of leadership. As a result

of their theological training and socialization, the leader-

priests in our study were able to explicitly articulate these

underpinnings. Of course, this does not mean that theo-

logical training is a necessary pre-condition for the practice

of contemplative leadership. Neither does it imply that all

leadership of religious organizations is contemplative and

ethical, or that a good purpose and an intimate under-

standing of organizational context rest solely in religious

organizations. Future research should look to other profes-

sions with influential systems of professional values to

which individuals might have a felt sense of vocation, such

as medicine, law or education to explore whether such

specialized teachings contribute to contemplative leader-

ship. We also suggest that future research explores the

possibilities of the ethics of leadership by further teasing out

the connections between MacIntyre’s work and that of other

philosophers (e.g., see, for example, Nicholas 2012).

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Geoff Moore, Sandra Corlett, Peter Case, Donncha Kavanagh and Diane Holt for their

invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. We would

also like to thank the Editor, Deborah Poff, and two anonymous

reviewers for their constructive feedback during the review process.

Funding This research is funded by a grant provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Grant #

410-2009-2283].

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice 437

123

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Arjoon, S. (2000). Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business.

Journal of Business Ethics, 28(2), 159–178.

Ashforth, B., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Work organizations as secular

religions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 359–370.

Avey, J., Wernsing, T., & Palanski, M. (2012). Exploring the process

of ethical leadership: The meditating role of employee voice and

psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1),

21–34.

Baker, M., & Roberts, J. (2011). All in the mind? Ethical identity and

the allure of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,

101(1), 5–15.

Beadle, R. (2008). Why business cannot be a practice. Analyse &

Kritik, 1, 1–13.

Beadle, R., & Moore, G. (2006). MacIntyre on virtue and organiza-

tion. Organization Studies, 27(3), 323–340.

Blum, L. (1988). Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for moral

theory. Ethics, 98(3), 472–491.

Bookman, M., & Aboulafia, M. (2000). Ethics of care revisited:

Gilligan and Levinas. Philosophy Today, 44(Supplement issue),

169–174.

Bragues, G. (2006). Seek the good life, not money: The Aristotelian

approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4),

341–357.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:

Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.

Brown, M., Treviño, L., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A

social learning perspective for construct development and

testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-

cesses, 97(2), 117–134.

Case, P., French, R., & Simpson, P. (2012). From theoria to theory:

Leadership without contemplation. Organization, 19(3), 345–361.

Case, P. & Gosling, J. (2009). Where is the wisdom we have lost in

knowledge? A stoical perspective on personal knowledge

management. In Conference paper presented at the sixth

international critical management conference July 13–15, War-

wick, UK (pp. 1–20).

Ciulla, J., & Forsyth, D. (2011). Leadership ethics. In A. Bryman, D.

Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of leadership (pp. 229–241). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Collinson, D. (2011). Critical leadership studies. In A. Bryman, D.

Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of leadership (pp. 181–194). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Corvellec, H. (2005). An endless responsibility for justice—for a

Levinasian approach to managerial ethics. Paper presented at

Levinas, Business, Ethics—Centre for Philosophy and Political

Economy, University of Leicester, 27–29 October, 1–24.

Retrieved January 3, 2015 from https://www2.le.ac.uk/depart

ments/management/documents/research/research-units/cppe/con

ference-pdfs/levinas/corvellec.pdf.

Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting

the value of ‘creating shared value’. California Management

Review, 56(2), 130–153.

Creed, D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. (2010). Being the change:

Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work.

Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336–1364.

Cunliffe, A., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human

Relations, 64(11), 1425–1449.

Dale, K. (2012). The employee as ‘dish of the day’: The ethics of the

consuming/consumed self in human resource management.

Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 13–24.

Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014). Examining workplace mindful-

ness and its relations to job performance and turnover intention.

Human Relations, 67(1), 105–128.

das Neves, J. C., & Melé, D. (2013). Managing ethically cultural

diversity: Learning from Thomas Aquinas. Journal of Business

Ethics, 116(4), 769–780.

Davis, C. (1966). Levinas: An introduction. Notre Dame, IN:

University of Notre Dame Press.

Day, D., Fleenor, J., Atwater, L., Sturm, R., & McKee, R. (2014).

Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of

25 years of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82.

de Gama, N., McKenna, S., & Peticca-Harris, A. (2012). Ethics and

HRM: Theoretical and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business

Ethics, 111(1), 97–108.

Demirtas, O. (2015). Ethical leadership influence at organizations:

Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 273–284.

Dinh, J., Lord, R., Gardner, W., Meuser, J., Liden, R., & Hu, J.

(2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium:

Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The

Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62.

Duerr, M. (2004). The contemplative organization. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 17(1), 43–61.

Dyck, B., & Wiebe, E. (2012). Salvation, theology and organizational

practices across the centuries. Organization, 19(3), 299–324.

Edwards, M. (2004). Good for business: An integral theory perspec-

tive on spirituality in organisations. Journal of Spirituality,

Leadership and Management, 3(1), 2–11.

Eggert, N. (1998). Contemplative leadership for entrepreneurial

organizations: Paradigms, metaphors and wicked problems.

Westport, Conn: Quorum Books.

Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Brodbeck, F. (2014). Ethical and unethical

leadership: A cross-cultural and cross-sectoral analysis. Journal

of Business Ethics, 122(2), 343–359.

Fairhurst, G. (2009). Considering context in discursive leadership

research. Human Relations, 62(11), 1607–1633.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse

analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process.

Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043–1062.

Flynn, G. (2008). The virtuous manager: A vision for leadership in

business. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 359–372.

Frisch, C., & Huppenbauer, M. (2014). New insights into ethical

leadership: A qualitative investigation of the experiences of

executive ethical leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1),

23–43.

Fry, L., & Kriger, M. (2009). Towards a theory of being-centered

leadership: Multiple levels of being as context for effective

leadership. Human Relations, 62(11), 1667–1696.

Furnham, A., Treglown, L., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2014). The

bright and dark side of altruism: Demographic, personality traits,

and disorders associated with altruism. Journal of Business

Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2435-x.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self

and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481–517.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in

strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal,

12(6), 433–448.

438 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

Grandy, G. (2013). An exploratory study of strategic leadership in

churches. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

34(7), 616–638.

Grint, K. (2010). The sacred in leadership: Separation, sacrifice and

leadership. Organization Studies, 31(1), 89–107.

Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next

chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2),

126–134.

Harris, M. (1998). A special case of voluntary associations? Towards

a theory of congregational organization. British Journal of

Sociology, 49(4), 602–618.

Hoffman, A., Badiane, K. L., & Haigh, N. (2012). Hybrid organi-

zations as agents of positive social change: Bridging the for-

profit & non-profit divide. In K. Golden-Biddle & J. E. Dutton

(Eds.), Using a positive lens to explore social change and

organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation

(pp. 131–154). New York, NY: Routledge.

Holt, R. (2006). Principals and practice: Rhetoric and the moral

character of managers. Human Relations, 59(12), 1659–1680.

Kant, I. (1785). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals (J. W. Elling-

ton, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

Kavanagh, D. (2013). Problematizing practice: MacIntyre and

management. Organization, 20(1), 103–115.

Kempster, S., Jackson, B., & Conroy, M. (2011). Leadership as

purpose: Exploring the role of purpose in leadership practice.

Leadership, 7(3), 317–334.

Klein, T. A., & Laczniak, G. R. (2013). Implications of Caritas in

Veritate for marketing and business ethics. Journal of Business

Ethics, 112(4), 641–651.

Knights, D., & O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, ethics and respon-

sibility to the other. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 125–137.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of thinking and

choices in years 10 to 16. PhD Thesis, University of Chicago,

Chicago, IL.

Kornberger, M., & Brown, A. (2007). Ethics as a discursive resource

for identity work. Human Relations, 60(3), 497–518.

Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. (2006). Where is the ‘‘me’’

among the ‘‘we’’? Identity work and the search for optimal

balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057.

Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. (2009). Balancing borders

and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary

work tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 704–730.

Lawton, A., & Páez, I. (2014). Developing a framework for ethical

leadership. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-

2244-2.

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne

University Press.

Levinas, E. (1985). Ethics and infinity—conversations with Philippe

Nemo. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Levinas, E. (1998). On thinking-of-the-other: Entre nous. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Levine, M., & Boaks, J. (2014). What does ethics have to do with

leadership? Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 225–242.

Lim, M. (2007). The ethics of alterity and the teaching of otherness.

Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(3), 251–263.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder

society—a relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics,

66(1), 99–115.

MacIntyre, A. (1985/1991). After virtue. London: Duckworth.

MacIntyre, A. (1994a). A partial response to my critics. In J. Horton

& S. Mendus (Eds.), After MacIntyre (pp. 283–304). Cambridge:

Polity Press.

MacIntyre, A. (1994b). Truthfulness, lies and moral philosophers:

What can we learn from Mill and Kant?. In The tanner lectures

on human values (pp. 307–361). Princeton: Princeton University.

Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2013). Conscious capitalism: Liberating

the spirit of business. Boston: Harvard Business School

Publishing.

Marsh, C. (2013). Business executives’ perceptions of ethical

leadership and its development. Journal of Business Ethics,

114(3), 565–582.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.

McMurray, R., Pullen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2011). Ethical subjectivity

and politics in organizations. Organization, 18(4), 541–561.

Mill, J. S. (1861/1998). Utilitarianism (edited with an introduction by

R. Crisp). New York: Oxford University Press.

Mitschow, M. (2000). Unfocused altruism. Journal of Business

Ethics, 23(1), 73–82.

Moore, G. (2005). Corporate character: Modern virtue ethics and the

virtuous corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4), 659–685.

Moore, G. (2012). Virtue in business: Alliance boots and an empirical

exploration of MacIntyre’s conceptual framework. Organization

Studies, 33(3), 363–387.

Moore, G., & Beadle, R. (2006). In search of organizational virtue in

business: Agents, goods, practices, institutions and environ-

ments. Organization Studies, 27(3), 369–389.

Mutch, A. (2012). Theology, accountability and management:

Exploring the contributions of Scottish Presbyterianism. Orga-

nization, 19(3), 363–379.

Nicholas, J. (2012). Reason, tradition, and the good: MacIntyre’s

tradition-constituted reason and Frankfurt school critical theory.

Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Nolan, K. (2013). Laughing Buddhas: The everyday embodiment of

contemplative leadership. PhD thesis. Yellow Springs, OH:

Antioch University.

Ospina, S., & Sorenson, G. (2007). A constructionist lens on

leadership. In G. Goethals & G. Sorenson (Eds.), The quest for

a general theory of leadership (pp. 188–204). Cheltenham, UK:

Edward Elgar.

Parameshwar, S. (2005). Spiritual leadership through ego-transcen-

dence: Exceptional responses to challenging circumstances. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655–687.

Plowman, D., Baker, L., Beck, T., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S., &

Travis, D. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence

and amplification of small change. Academy of Management

Journal, 50(3), 515–543.

Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard

Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

Resick, C., Hargis, M., Shao, P., & Dust, S. (2013). Ethical

leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace

behavior. Human Relations, 66(7), 951–972.

Rhodes, C. (2012). Ethics, alterity and the rationality of leadership

justice. Human Relations, 65(10), 1311–1331.

Sandelands, L. (2009). The business of business is the human

person: Lessons from the catholic social tradition. Journal of

Business Ethics, 85(1), 93–101.

Sayles, L. (1964). Managerial behavior: Administration in complex

organizations. New York: McGraw Hill.

Schatzki, T. (2005). Peripheral vision: The sites of organizations.

Organization Studies, 26(3), 465–484.

Schuttloffel, M. (2013). Contemplative leadership practice: The

influences of character on Catholic school leadership. Catholic

Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 17(1), 80–103.

Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative

inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social construction-

ism. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of

qualitative research (pp. 189–214). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Shotter, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2014). In search of phronēsis: Leadership

and the art of judgment. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 13(2), 224–243.

Contemplative Leadership: The Possibilities for the Ethics of Leadership Theory and Practice 439

123

Sims, D. (2010). Looking for the key to leadership under the lamp

post. European Management Journal, 28(4), 253–259.

Śliwa, M., Spoelstra, S., Sørensen, B., & Land, C. (2013). Profaning

the sacred in leadership studies: A reading of Murakami’s ‘A

Wild Sheep Chase’. Organization, 20(6), 860–880.

Solomon, R. (2008). Aristotle, ethics and business organizations.

Organization Studies, 25(6), 1021–1043.

Sørensen, B., Spoelstra, S., Höpfl, H., & Critchley, S. (2012).

Introduction. Theology and organization. Organization, 19(3),

267–279.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Sveningsson, S., & Larsson, M. (2006). Fantasies of leadership:

Identity work. Leadership, 2(2), 203–224.

The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. (2015). The tree of

contemplative practices. Retrieved July 15, 2015 from http://

www.contemplativemind.org/practices/tree.

Tost, L. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments.

Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686–710.

Tracey, P. (2012). Religion and organization: A critical review of

current trends and future directions. Academy of Management

Annals, 6(1), 87–134.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the

social process of leadership and organizing. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.

Vince, R., & Mazen, A. (2014). Violent innocence: A contradiction at

the heart of leadership. Organization Studies, 35(2), 189–207.

Weber, M. (1958). The protestant sects and the spirit of capitalism. In

H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in

sociology (pp. 302–322). New York, NY: Galaxy Book.

Whetstone, J. T. (2005). A framework for organizational virtue: The

interrelationship of mission, culture and leadership. Business

Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 367–378.

440 G. Grandy, M. Sliwa

123

Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved.