Need an assistant writing Servant leadership

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320784856

The Impact of Distinct Attributes of Abrahamic Religions on Leadership

Theory

Article  in  Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings · January 2016

DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2016.14284abstract

CITATION

1 READS

1,591

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Grand Challenges & New Forms of Organizing View project

LOST (Leuphana Organization STudies)-Group View project

Ali Aslan Gümüsay

Alexander von Humboldt: Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft

32 PUBLICATIONS   492 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Aslan Gümüsay on 06 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

r Academy of Management Perspectives 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, 292–306. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0130

S Y M P O S I U M

EMBRACING RELIGIONS IN MORAL THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP

ALI ASLAN GÜMÜSAY University of Hamburg and

Vienna University of Economics and Business

Religions are social constituents of present societies that need to be integrated into theories of leadership. In this article, I outline how three distinct characteristics, par- ticularly present in Abrahamic religions, can significantly affect leadership principles and practices: a belief in the existence of and relationship to a God, the faith in and pursuit of a hereafter purpose, and the belief in and attempted adherence to a sacred scripture. Subsequently, I classify two approaches to examine their impact on leader- ship: a scripture-based lens and an empirical lens. I then highlight how the distinct characteristics of Abrahamic religions can either inform and blend into or transform and modify moral theories of leadership.

On a manager’s desk in Germany I once saw a prominently placed stone. When I asked about its meaning, the manager told me that it reminded her of the Bible verse John 8:7 (New International Version), in which Jesus says that the person who is without sin should cast the first stone. She explained that the stone symbolized her and her employees’ fallibility, which helpedhertoputthingsintoperspective.Later, during a visit to Pakistan, another manager welcomed me into his company’s prayer room, which also functioned as his office. He said that he did not want a costly office, as this world is ephemeral anyway, and he wished to be approachable for his staff.

When talking to religious leaders of secular organizations—like these two managers—about their

leadership, religion often features prominently in their reasoning for how and why they lead in certain ways. However, such explanations are not mirrored sufficiently in contemporary theories of leadership (Neubert, 2019). Religious beliefs, values, norms, and practices are still largely absent from these theoriza- tions. In this article, I therefore address the question: How do distinct characteristics of religions affect existing moral theories of leadership?

I explain that religions are a social factuality, as they arewidespread,significant,anddistinct.Subsequently, I focus on moral theories of leadership that are partic- ularlyreceptivetointegratingreligions.Thearticlethen progresses along its three contributions. First, I outline how distinct characteristics of many religions—a per- ceived relationship to a God, a hereafter pursuit, and adherence to a sacred source—affect leadership. Sec- ond, I identify a scripture-based lens and an empirical lens through which these characteristics shape leader- ship. Third, I show how these characteristics can either informandblendormorefundamentallytransformand modify existing theories. Finally, I mention limitations and areas for future research, and conclude.

RELIGIONS AS SOCIAL FACTUALITY

Including religions in theories of leadership war- rants examination for at least three reasons. Religions

I gratefully acknowledge helpful comments on earlier versions of this article from Constanze Burda, Bruno Dyck, Soufeina Hamed, Sally Maitlis, Bastian Neumann, Ben Sahlmüller, Therese Thürmer, Oliver Triebel, and partic- ularly Tobias Leipprand. I am thankful for institutional support from LEAD Academy, the Mercator Foundation, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Chair for Organization Studies at the University of Hamburg, the Institute for Organization Studies at Vienna University of Economics and Business, and Saı̈d Business School at the University of Oxford. Also, I would like to thank editor Phillip Phan and the anonymous reviewers, whose feedback has very much benefited this article.

292

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

are widespread and significant and have distinct characteristics. First, religions are social constituents of present societies. According to the Pew Research Center (2012), 84% of the world’s population is re- ligiously affiliated, and that number is expected to reach 87% by 2050 (Pew Research Center, 2015). While this does not imply that religions are pre- dominantinanindividuallife,organization,orsociety, it shows that they have an extensive reach. For Habermas (2001), we live in a postsecular society. Re- ligion is a social fact, so the metaphysical becomes a social truth. Stark (1999, p. 270) argued that the secu- larization “doctrine” should be buried in “the grave- yard of failed theories.” And in this symposium, Miller arguesthatpostsecularism“affordsaplaceforreligious voices in academic discourse” (Miller, 2019, p. 307). Guidelines for religion in leadership are important both for religious people who consider enacting them and for those who wish to comprehend leaders who are acting according to a religious paradigm.

Second, people may position a religion at the center of their lives. For some believers, their religion is holy and conceived of as an “ultimate concern” (Tillich, 1957, p. 8). In this sense, religions condition human beings’ very existence and claim ultimacy and pri- macy. They may be conceived as prevalent and situ- ated above other value systems, logics, or orders of worth (Gümüsay, 2017). This significance for some believers who are leaders, followers, and colleagues in and across organizations makes it important to consider a religious perspective on leadership.

Third, religions have certain distinct commonalities and similarities that allow a funneling into a unique approach toward leadership. Specifically, the three largestAbrahamicreligions(Judaism,Christianity,and Islam) have three commonalities (although not exclu- sively): the belief in the existence of and relationship to a God, the faith in and pursuit of a hereafter purpose, and the belief in and attempted adherence to a sacred scripture. These commonalities can shape the un- derstanding of leadership in a unique way. They also have the potential to have both a positive and a nega- tive influence on leadership behavior. Other aspects of religions, such as specific communities, institutions, traditions, or practices, may also shape leadership but are not unique categorical characteristics to such a re- ligious perspective.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam encompass around 55% of the world population, comprising roughly 31.5% Christians, 23.2% Muslims, and 0.2% Jews (Pew Research Center, 2012). They are monotheistic, divide life into this world and a hereafter, and have a specificscripture. TheTorah is thefoundational text in

Judaism; it is part of the larger set of texts known as the Tanakh. The Bible is the core book in Christianity; it consists of the Old and New Testaments. The Quran is the central text in Islam alongside hadith collections, which contain reports about the sayings and doings of Muhammad. Hinduism and Buddhism are also large faith groups: Around 15% of the world’s population is religiously affiliated to Hinduism, with fourprominent denominations (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Smartism); approximately 7.1% of the world population is Buddhist, with two dominant branches (Theravada and Mahayana) (Pew Research Center, 2012). Certain denominations of Hinduism and Buddhism entail an afterlife component and sacred sources and believe in a deity. Insights in this article are hence to some extent also applicable to these and other religions with similar characteristics.

MORAL THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP

This issue’s symposium on Faith in Management Scholarship and Practice called for an integration of faithintoscholarshipandtheorization(Neubert,2019). Given the significant social factuality of religion, I completely concur. Scholarly work has engaged with the intersection of religion and business ethics (Agle & Van Buren, 1999), religion and entrepreneurship (Busenitz & Lichtenstein, 2019; Dana, 2010; Gümüsay, 2015, 2018), and religion and work (Cash & Gray, 2000) and the interconnection between theology and man- agement (Dyck & Schroeder, 2005). Colleagues have refocused their attention on faith at work (Lynn, Naughton, & VanderVeen, 2008, 2011), religion in organizations (Chan-Serafin, Brief, & George, 2013; Dyck & Purser, 2019; Gümüsay, 2017; Gümüsay, Smets, & Morris, 2019; Lounsbury, Tracey, & Phillips, 2014; Tracey, 2012), the “theological turn” (Dyck, 2014, p. 23), and religion and leadership (Gümüsay, 2016;Hicks,2002;Kriger&Seng,2005;Worden,2005). While these streams of work acknowledge the signifi- cance of religion, they do not sufficiently capture how to integrate distinct characteristics of religions into existing theories of leadership.

More generally, religions seem to be neglected in articles that do not directly address questions of faith. In 2005, Dent, Higgins, and Wharff (p. 642) wrote, “Our research revealed limited scholarship linking religion with leadership.” Within the recent leadership literature overview compiled by Dinh et al. (2014), religion is not mentioned at all. In their overview, a religious perspective on leadership could either form its own subcategory or be a sepa- rate yet connected stream of work under the category

2019 293Gümüsay

of emerging ethical/moral leadership theories. Al- ternatively and theoretically more auspicious, re- ligion could inform and transform existing theories of leadership.

In particular but not exclusively, moral theories of leadership would benefit from an integration of re- ligion into their theorizing. According to Dinh et al. (2014), under the category of moral theories of lead- ership fall authentic, ethical, servant, and spiritual leadership. Such theories incorporate a concern for others, values, altruism, ethics, integrity, and role modeling (Brown & Treviño, 2006). However, while moral theories of leadership offer insights into the impact of values and views on leadership behavior that can be implicitly related to religion, they do not encompass certain attributes of a religious perspec- tive. In the following, I hence outline authentic, ethical, servant, and spiritual theories of leadership and briefly relate them to religion.

Authentic Leadership

Work on authentic leadership began as a result of writings on transformational leadership by Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) and others identifying pseudo versus authentic transformational leaders (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Authentic leadership concentrates on self-aware, ethical, consistent, and transparent leader behavior. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008, p. 94) defined au- thentic leadership as “a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psy- chological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of informa- tion, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development.”

Authentic leadership effectively entails two ele- ments: leaders’ own awareness of their personalities and their values and behavior based on who they are and what they believe in (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011). They are authentic insofar as their inner values align with their outer behavior. The concept of authenticity has its roots in Greek philosophy, reflected by the Greek aphorism “know thyself” (Erickson, 1995; Harter, 2002). Authentic leaders are self-aware and harmo- nize their internal values, thoughts, and emotions with their external actions (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). They are guided by an internal moral perspective, and their actions are in accordance with their in- tentions. Authenticity refers to “one’s relationship

with oneself” (Erickson, 1995, p. 124). An authentic leader acts “in accord with the true self, expressing oneself inways that are consistent with innerthoughts and feelings” (Harter, 2002, p. 382). Religion can profoundly affect this notion of leader authenticity and also followers’ trust.

Ethical Leadership

Ethical leadership is “the demonstration of norma- tively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way com- munication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005, p. 120). Eisenbeiss (2012) developed four central normative reference points of ethical leadership: humane orientation to treat others with dignity and respect, justice orienta- tion to act fairly and consistently, responsibility and sustainability orientation to enact long-term views and consider societal and environmental welfare, and moderation orientation to be humble.

While much research focuses on the leader, recent research has zoomed in on the followers and their moral attentiveness (Fehr, Yam, & Dang, 2015; van Gils, Van Quaquebeke, van Knippenberg, van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2015). Religion offers specific views on ethics as well as reason and reasoning to adhere to it (Eisenbeiss, 2012; Kriger & Seng, 2005). It can function as a defining and binding source for ethics.

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership is an emerging research area linked to ethics, morality, and virtues (Graham, 1991; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Parris & Peachey, 2013; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008). This theory emphasizes service to others related to an ex- pected enhancement of the psychological needs of fol- lowers (Mayer, 2010; van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, de Windt, & Alkema, 2014). It was introduced through three essays by the practitioner Greenleaf (1970, 1972a, 1972b). For Greenleaf (1977, pp. 13–14):

The Servant-Leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. . . . The best test, and difficult to administer is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit, or at least not further be harmed?

294 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

Van Dierendonck (2011) developed a conceptual model of servant leadership with six key character- istics: that servant leaders empower and develop people, show humility, are authentic, accept people for who they are, provide direction, and take stew- ardship. Service of a leader may be encouraged and specified by religion. Servitude toward a higher be- ing can also shape service toward followers.

Spiritual Theories of Leadership

While there are multiple definitions of spiritual leadership (Dent et al., 2005), it is commonly about meaning, faith, and the notion of a calling. According to Ashforth and Pratt (2003), spirituality comprises a transcendence of the self, holism, and harmony as well as growth. Fry (2003, pp. 694–695) defined spiritual leadership as “comprising the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are necessary to in- trinsically motivate one’s self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership.” Spiritual leaders create a vision and value congruence toward organizational commit- ment and belonging, instilling a sense of calling and meaning as well as infusing hope, faith, and a cul- ture of altruistic love into the organization.

The concept of spirituality has produced a grow- ing body of literature (Melé & Fontrodona, 2017; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Neck & Milliman, 1994; Steingard, 2005). While some scholars relate spirituality to various religions (Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, & Kakabadse, 2002), it is not considered identical to religion (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999). King (2008, p. 220) high- lighted that researchers are encouraged toward spirituality and away from religion. Hicks (2002) critically engaged with the spirituality–religion dichotomy and pointed out that spirituality is of- ten defined in opposition to religion. For Hicks (2002, p. 380) religion is falsely contrasted with spirituality as “institutional, dogmatic, and rigid,” while “spirituality is personal, emotional, and adaptable to an individual’s needs.” Religion can shape spirituality, as it may be a source of specific spiritual practices, values, and beliefs. Spirituality is possibly a necessary condition for a religious perspective on leadership. A religious perspective on leadership could therefore be conceived as a sufficient condition for the existence of spiritual leadership. Spiritual leadership comes closest to a religious perspective with its faith-based and self-transcendence attributes. However, spiritual theories are different from religious theories of

leadership, as they do not entail a sacred scriptural source or a concept of the hereafter, or necessarily relate to a supreme being.

A RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE ON LEADERSHIP

Religion can be defined through a focus on its substantive characteristics. Worden (2005, p. 221), for instance, provided a definition of religion as “a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs, values and practices relating to the divine—a level of reality or power that is regarded as the ‘source’ or ‘ultimate’, transcending yet immanent in the realm of human experience.” Such a definition entails components that are not unique to religion but also exist outside the religious sphere, like a system of beliefs. In contrast, focusing on the unique attributes of religion offers insights into the distinct impact of religion on leadership theory. In other words, I intend to look for those characteristics that are both significant for leadership and distinctively religious, and thus conceptually complementary for existing theories of leadership to develop a religious perspective for leadership theory and practice more generally.

Through conversations with leaders, I began ex- ploring what aspects of religion affect leadership principles and practices. They mentioned multifold facets such as communities, rituals, and deities. I then distinguished those aspects that are distinctly religious. Communities and rituals, for instance, are significant attributes that are shaped by religion in the form of religious communities and sacred rit- uals. However, nonreligious leaders have similarly mentioned the significance of rituals and diverse communities. Secular organizations can even mir- ror religious beliefs and practices (Ashforth & Vaidyanath, 2002). In other words, aspects such as communities and rituals are not used exclusively in religious contexts. Ultimately, three characteristics of religion emerged that are significant for both leadership and distinctive for most religions: a deity, a hereafter purpose, and a sacred scripture.

A first distinct characteristic of a religious per- spective is the relationship with a perceived higher being. Such a deity is above and beyond the leader. In this relationship, the leader is positioned toward someone who is not led by him or her. Instead, the leader may be conceived as a follower of such a God. This affects the concept of leadership, as the leader is simultaneously a follower or servant of this supreme being, to whom the leader is ultimately accountable. It also means that leaders act and embody being

2019 295Gümüsay

servant leaders, as they do not only serve their fol- lowers but are also servant followers in relationship to their God. The fact that a higher being is above the leader and the specific characteristics and under- standings of that relationship may shape the leader- ship approach of the leader toward followers. The perceived relationship also has a potential “dark side” (Haynes, Hitt, & Campbell, 2015; Vince & Mazen, 2014); for example, when leaders abuse their power and misuse religion, claiming they act as agents of God to legitimize destructive activities. We can observe this empirically, for instance, through fundamentalist interpretations of religions (Miller, 2019).

A second distinct characteristic of a religious perspective on leadership is a hereafter pursuit and purpose. The primary objective is to draw nearer to and to please a God. This does not exclude creating or pursuing values in this world. On the contrary, religions may emphasize both, to act in this world and pursue a hereafter. However, this objective shifts the focus and purpose toward a God and life beyond this world, potentially broadening the temporal ho- rizon of a leader. This means that a leader aspires to something transcendental, otherworldly, and eter- nal. As a result, religion transmits a distinctiveness to the purpose, which makes it otherworldly or ex- traordinary. It offers a purpose beyond the finite boundaries of this world. However, it may also in- duce a neglect of this world or simplistic and dyadic categorizations of good and evil, correct and wrong.

At the same time, knowing that a leader has a certain otherworldly pursuit may shape the behavior of followers. They may, for example, reconsider the implications of the principal–agent problem, whereby the agent may be motivated to act in his own interest and contrary to the principal’s. If an organi- zation selects a leader and then faces the principal– agent problem with this leader–agent, religion may shape the leader–agent’s behavior. Such a leader might not maximize his or her utility in this world, but might rather focus on enacting his or her values and hereafter purpose. In other words, when a leader adheres to religious values, and this is recognized by followers, the leader might obtain perceived and/or actual integrity, which can resolve the principal– agent problem.

A third distinct characteristic of a religious per- spective on leadership builds on sacred scripture. Such scripture entails divine guidelines for and stories about leadership. Works have considered the leadership qualities of different key individuals in religions, such as Abraham (Fischer & Friedman,

2017), Jesus (Jones, 2001; Mabey, Conroy, Blakeley, & de Marco, 2017; Manz, 2011), Moses (Ben-Hur & Jonsen, 2012; Wildavsky, 1984), Muhammad (Beekun, 2012), Paul (Whittington, Pitts, Kageler, & Goodwin, 2005), and Solomon (Manz, Manz, Marx, & Neck, 2001). Alternatively, one can look at direct scriptural advice for leaders, such as how Moses listened to ad- vice and delegated responsibility (Exodus 18:13–27), and more generally the so-called golden rule to “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31; Matthew 7:12), to reach out to the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7-8; Psalms 41:1–3; Proverbs 28:27; 29:7), and to respect everyone (Peter 2:17). These nar- ratives, recommendations, and commandments in- spireandprescribepracticeandpurpose.Aleadermay infer how to act through the scripture, which functions as a sacred guideline and a moral or immoral compass. Scripture can thus guide and misguide leaders. The compass can offer a framework for action, which is both somewhat divinely binding to the leader and transparent for the followers.

The three distinct characteristics of certain re- ligions contribute to the development of a religious perspective on leadership. For and within each re- ligion, there are nuanced differences in their con- ceptualization and application. For instance, the Christian Trinity doctrine holds that God is the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The relationship between a leader and the Christian deity is therefore potentially influenced by the Trinity as well as the fact that Jesus is conceived as both God and man. Similarly, diverse views of an afterlife and its re- lationship to this world, as well as different scrip- tural guidelines between and within religions, including their variations and interpretations of texts, require zooming in on these nuances.

In Table 1, I use scriptural examples of the Islamic faith and illustrate how the relationship to God, the hereafter purpose, and guidelines and narratives of the sacred scripture shape leadership. Scholars have advanced our understanding of an Islamic perspective on leadership inter alia through his- torical analysis of leadership succession in early Islam (Campbell, 2008), engagement with religious sources (Abeng, 1997), and empirical analysis of Islamic organizational leadership within a Western context (Faris & Parry, 2011). Beekun and Badawi (1999) developed a normative model of Islamic leadership based on four layers of Islamic moral char- acter linked to belief, practice, God-consciousness, and love for God and five parameters of Islamic be- havior: justice, trust, righteousness, inner struggle for self-improvement, and keeping promises. The

296 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

T A B L E 1

D is ti n ct

A tt ri b u te s a n d T h ei r Im

p a ct

o n L ea

d er sh

ip F ro m

a n Is la m ic

F a it h P er sp

ec ti v e

P er ce iv ed

re la ti o n sh

ip to

G o d

H er ea

ft er

p u rs u it

A d h er en

ce to

sa cr ed

so u rc es

W h il e G o d is se lf -s u ff ic ie n t in

h is b ei n g, h u m an

s ar e

co n ce iv ed

as d ep

en d en

t an

d co

n ti n ge n t o n h im

.A ll ah

is se en

as th e o n e an

d o n ly

G o d ,w

h o is et er n al

an d ab

so lu te

(Q u ra n 1 1 2 :1 -4 ). H u m an

s ar e cr ea te d to

w o rs h ip

G o d

(Q u ra n 5 1 :5 7 ). G o d is b ey

o n d h u m an

co m p re h en

si o n ,y

et cl o se r to

h u m an

s th an

th ei r ju gu

la r v ei n (Q

u ra n 5 0 :1 6 ).

T h ro u gh

h is 9 9 n am

es ,o n e m ay

in fe r h is at tr ib u te s, su

ch as

th e A ll -C o m p as si o n at e, S u st ai n er ,A

ll -A

w ar e, L o v in g O n e,

an d A ll -P o w er fu l. In

S u ra h 2 5 ,v

er se

6 3 ,i t sa y s: “ A n d th e

se rv an

ts o ft h e M o st M er ci fu la

re th o se

w h o w al k u p o n th e

ea rt h ea si ly ,w

it h h u m il it y .” L ea d er s ar e th er eb

y se en

as se rv an

ts o fG

o d ,w

h o re fe rs

to h im

se lf as

th e M o st M er ci fu l

in th is v er se .

H u m an

s ar e co

n si d er ed

tr u st ee s o r v ic e re ge n ts in

th is w o rl d

(Q u ra n 2 :3 0 ;5

7 :7 )w

it h fi n al

o w n er sh

ip b el o n gi n g to

A ll ah

(Q u ra n 2 4 :3 3 ). T h is gi v es

th em

b o th

a ro le in

th is w o rl d an

d a re la ti o n sh

ip w it h G o d .I n Is la m ,h

u m an

b ei n gs

h av

e a

p o si ti o n as

tr u st ee

o f so m et h in g fo r so m eo

n e.

A n o n -e n ac

tm en

t o f p ro p er

le ad

er sh

ip h as

d ir ec t re p er cu

ss io n s fo r th e le ad

er .G

iv en

th e co

n se q u en

ce s, th is

ca n re su

lt in

m o re

p ru d en

t b u t al so

m o re

ag gr es si v e

b eh

av io r. In

a h ad

it h (M

u sl im

1 4 2 d )

M u h am

m ad

st re ss es ,“

A ru le r w h o h as

b ee n en

tr u st ed

w it h th e af fa ir s o f th e

M u sl im

s, b u tm

ak es

n o en

d ea

v o r (f o r th ei r

m at er ia l an

d m o ra l u p li ft m en

t) an

d is n o t

si n ce re ly

co n ce rn ed

(f o r th ei r w el fa re )

w il l n o t en

te r P ar ad

is e al o n g w it h th em

.”

M u sl im

s ar e n o t su

p p o se d to

fo cu

s o n ly

o n

th e af te rl if e.

T h ey

m ay

p u rs u e “ fr o m

th e

b o u n ty

o f A ll ah

” in

th is w o rl d (Q

u ra n 6 2 :

1 0 ). H o w ev

er ,t h e u lt im

at e o b je ct iv e is

to re tu rn

to G o d (Q

u ra n 8 9 :2 8 -2 9 ). A n

af te rl if e li n k ag

e o f th e m et ap

h y si ca l

h en

ce sh

ap es

b o th

an u n d er st an

d in g

an d b eh

av io r in

th is

w o rl d an

d it s ro le

v is -à -v is

th e h er ea ft er .

A cc o rd in g to

Is la m ic

te n et s, le ad

er sh

ip is

ac k n o w le d ge d ,r eq

u ir ed

, an

d p er fo rm

ed b y ev

er y o n e in

ce rt ai n si tu at io n s. M u h am

m ad

st at es

(B u k h ar i 2 7 5 1 ), “ A ll o f y o u ar e gu

ar d ia n s an

d re sp

o n si b le

fo r y o u r ch

ar ge s. ” T h er e is ex

p li ci ta

ck n o w le d gm

en to

fl ea d er sh

ip in

th e Q u ra n in

S u ra h 4 3 ,v

er se

2 2 ,w

h er e it sa y s, “ A ll ah

h as

ra is ed

so m e o f u s ab

o v e u s in

ra n k .”

A w el l- k n o w n h ad

it h (A

b u D aw

u d

2 6 0 2 )s ta te s: “ W h en

th re e ar e o n a jo u rn ey

,t h ey

sh o u ld

ap p o in to

n e

o f th em

as th ei r co

m m an

d er .”

T h e Q u ra n en

ta il s sp

ec if ic

gu id el in es

fo r le ad

er s an

d p eo

p le

m o re

ge n er al ly ,s u ch

as to

n o t ch

ea t (Q

u ra n 1 7 :3 5 ) o r b e ar ro ga n t (3 1 :1 8 ;

5 7 :2 3 ); to

b e ri gh

te o u s (4 9 :1 3 ); to

ac t ju st ly

(5 :1 1 ;6

:1 5 2 ;3

3 :7 0 );

to b e p at ie n t (3 2 :2 4 ;4

2 :4 3 ), h u m b le

(2 5 :6 3 ), co

m p et en

t, an

d k n o w le d ge ab

le (2 8 :1 4 ); an

d to

se ek

ad v ic e an

d co

n su

lt at io n

(Q u ra n 4 2 :3 8 ). P eo

p le

ar e to ld

to gi v e ju st m ea su

re an

d w ei gh

t (1 1 :8 5 ;1

7 :3 5 ; 5 5 :9 ) an

d to

fu lf il l th ei r co

n tr ac

ts (5 :1 ). T h ey

ar e

o b li ge d to

co m p en

sa te

th ei r w o rk er s in

fu ll an

d o n ti m e (I b n M aj ah

3 :1 6 ,2

4 4 3 ;h

ad it h q u d si 2 1 ).

V ar io u s n ar ra ti v es

o ff er

in d ir ec t ad

v ic e b y il lu st ra ti n g m ai n ly ,

al th o u gh

n o t ex

cl u si v el y ,t h e le ad

er sh

ip b eh

av io r o f p ro p h et s.

F o r in st an

ce ,M

u sa

(Q u ra n 2 8 :2 6 ) an

d Y u su

f (Q

u ra n 1 2 :4 6 )

ar e d ep

ic te d as

tr u st w o rt h y .A

sp ec ia l ro le

is co

n fe rr ed

o n

M u h am

m ad

,d es cr ib ed

in th e Q u ra n as

an il lu m in at in g la m p

(3 3 :4 6 ) an

d o f gr ea t m o ra l ch

ar ac te r (3 3 :2 1 ;6

8 :4 ). T h e so -c al le d

S u n n ah

,h is d o in gs

an d sa y in gs ,a re

ex te n si v el y en

ac te d b y

M u sl im

s.

T h er e ar e al so

gu id el in es

an d n ar ra ti v es

fo r fo ll o w er sh

ip .I n o n e

h ad

it h (B u k h ar i 7 1 4 5 ), M u h am

m ad

ap p o in ts so m eo

n e as

a co

m m an

d er

o f an

ar m y u n it an

d o rd er s th e so ld ie rs

to o b ey

h im

. T h e co

m m an

d er

b ec o m es

an gr y w it h th em

d u ri n g th e ca m p ai gn

an d o rd er s th em

to co

ll ec t w o o d ,m

ak e fi re ,a n d th ro w

th em

se lv es

in to

it .T

h ey

co ll ec t w o o d an

d m ak

e a fi re ,b

u t th ey

d o n o t th ro w

th em

se lv es

in to

it ,r es p o n d in g th at

th ey

fo ll o w

th e p ro p h et

to es ca p e fr o m

th e fi re

so th ey

w il l n o t en

te r it n o w .T

h e

co m m an

d er ’s an

ge ra

b at es

an d th e fi re

is ex

ti n gu

is h ed

.M u h am

m ad

h ea rs

ab o u t th is in ci d en

t an

d re m ar k s: “ If th ey

h ad

en te re d it ,t h ey

w o u ld

n ev

er h av

e co

m e o u t o f it ,f o r o b ed

ie n ce

is re q u ir ed

o n ly

in w h at

is go

o d .” In

an o th er

h ad

it h (A

b u D aw

u d 4 3 4 4 ) M u h am

m ad

sa y s, “ T h e b es t fi gh

ti n g in

th e p at h o f A ll ah

is a w o rd

o f ju st ic e

to an

o p p re ss iv e ru le r. ” F o ll o w er sh

ip h en

ce re q u ir es

o b ed

ie n ce ,

b u t al so

cr it ic al

en ga ge m en

t w it h th e b eh

av io r o f le ad

er s.

2019 297Gümüsay

insights I contribute with this article are compati- ble with their model, as both moral character and Islamic practice are shaped by a belief in God, a hereafter purpose, and adherence to a sacred scripture. At the same time, I offer wider applica- tions and theoretical implications as well as rea- soning for the potential dark side of leadership by religious people.

A belief in a deity, a hereafter, and sacred scrip- ture may offer guidelines and narratives that help as a stable framework particularly in volatile, un- certain, complex, ambiguous, and even paradoxical (vucap) moments and times. A religious framework offers fundamental values even when fixed goals may be difficult to define. Woolfe (2002), for ex- ample, inferred leadership values from the Bible and structured them along honesty and integrity; purpose; kindness and compassion; humility; communication; performance management; team development; courage; justice and fairness; and leadership development. Religion may provide a source of and for meaning for leaders, and they can convey its values to their followers. While the in- terpretation may change over time and across space, and guidelines may be flexible, the textual core re- mains rather fixed. The values and meaning may thus offer a leader an anchor on how to lead. This is of particular significance if other potential anchors are in flux.

A religious perspective also needs to take into ac- count context—for example, communities, environ- ment, organizations, and traditions. These are not unique components of a religious perspective, but they are integral parts of religion and leadership. Synagogues, churches, mosques, and temples offer places of worship where leaders and followers can come together and form a community. The self be- comes embedded in a larger contemporary and his- toriccommunity.Equally, communities, institutions, and traditions may induce division and social dis- sonance. Leaders, followers, and their context are shaped by rituals, ceremonies, and social bonds that (dis)connect across time and space.

Followers may also be more or less religiously in- clined. They may obtain prescriptions on how to follow and how to enact their relationship with leaders. For example, in Hebrews 13:17, people are told to submit to the authority of leaders. Equally, leaders are bound by these guidelines, which are self- imposed due to their beliefs. For instance, Abu Bakr, the first caliph in Islam, said on the occasion of his first Friday sermon: “O people! I have been selected as your trustee although I am no better than anyone of

you. If I am right, obey me. If I am misguided, set me right” (Beekun & Badawi, 1999, p. 45).

It should be added that a religious perspective does not require followers or the organization to be re- ligious, nor does it necessitate the desire of the leader to make followers or the organization religious. There may be a special bond between a leader and fol- lowers if both believe in a or the same religion and acknowledge strategic issues in religious organiza- tions (Miller, 2002). However, the leadership behav- ior is not dependent on the religiousness of followers or the organizational setting. Leadership is shaped by religion if the leaders are religious to a certain extent and integrate their religious beliefs and values into their leadership practices and principles.

TWO LENSES FOR A RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE

Religions comprise both texts and context. Texts are a source for enactment in context. The religious perspective on leadership may hence be approached both conceptually and methodologically from two angles: through a scriptural lens and an empirical lens. The former moves from texts like the Torah, Bi- ble, and Quran to people and considers proscriptions and prescriptions for leadership. It derives potential practices from scripture. The latter analytically moves from people to texts looking at the enactment of re- ligious sources. It observes and analyzes the inter- preted actual practices of sacred texts by religious people.

A scriptural lens analyzes inter alia guidelines for and stories of leadership. For leadership theories, these guidelines and narratives are analyzed and understood to have an authoritative and dispositive value for leaders who are religious. Scriptural rules, narratives, and guidelines are thereby interpreted, institutionally contextualized, and finally wholly or partially enacted. Such an approach determines the selection of sacred scriptures, examines scriptural guidelines, contextualizes them, and identifies spe- cific values and practices. For leadership theory, the entire process is worth analyzing to observe how sacred scripture is transformed into practice.

Leadership advice, rules, and regulations have dif- ferent sources in scriptures. They may be direct com- mands or recommendations, which exist as indirect narratives and may be categorized in prophetic and nonprophetic stories. For example, in Exodus 18:21, Moses is advised to select a successor who possesses a fear of God, is a man of truth, and hates covetousness. In Luke 22:26, Jesus advises his apostles that a leader should be like a servant. He himself is a role model

298 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

who came to serve (Matthew 20:28). In Proverbs 29:4 a king is described as someone who gives stability to a land by justice. Hence leadership attributes can be derived through these verses.

Certainly, scripture does not stand for itself but requires interpretation. It may even offer what can seem to be incompatible guidance. For instance, when a king calls Yusuf to himself, Yusuf says in the Quran (12:55): “Appoint me over the storehouses of the land. Indeed, I will be a knowing guardian.” He emphasizes that he will be knowing (i.e., competent) and a guardian (i.e., a protector). Yusuf shows that he is able and willing to lead. We can link this to the hadith (Bukhari 1) that deeds are judged by their intentions. Inner intentions are supposed to be in line with external action. At the same time, there is also the notion in Islam that leadership should not be directly requested and desired. When two compan- ions of Muhammad ask him to appoint them as governors, he responds, “We do not assign the au- thority of ruling to those who ask for it, nor to those who are keen to have it” (Bukhari 7149).

It is also worth observing who is interpreting these scriptures and how leaders receive, comprehend, and contextualize these interpretations. They may seek expert advice or views from other leaders or interpret and contextualize the guidelines themselves. The contextualization finally leads to potential practice, which is commonly enacted only partially by leaders. Often,religiousinstitutionssuchaschurches,mosques, synagogues, and temples have a key role in this process. In addition, it is also important to know whether and how enactment traverses back to re- ligious institutions, which may shape their future guidelines or communication of guidelines.

The second of the two angles is the empirical lens, which examines actual practice. Unlike a scriptural approach, an empirical lens contemplates the en- actment of leadership by professionals in specific fields, such as religious managers in secular work- places or leaders in public organizations. Religious professionals can be interviewed and surveyed about their religious motivations and enact- ments. Leaders of organizations, such as churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples, may form a special group, as their organizations are explicitly religious. An empirical approach would analyze views and observations and incorporate these into an empirically grounded religious perspective on leadership with respect to the particular organiza- tional settings.

The scriptural and empirical lenses are inter- linked both in practice and in theory. In practice,

leaders are shaped by scripture and influence the interpretation of it. In theory, an understanding of the scripture informs empirical analysis and em- pirical observations inform a reading of the scrip- ture. In between a scriptural lens and an empirical lens could be added a focus on authoritative and contextualized documents such as the Catholic magisterium; work and practices by eminent figures such as Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and Al-Ghazali; and ser- mons offered by priests as interpretations and contextualizations of sacred sources, but not en- actments. These works, figures, and sermons offer an in-between to comprehend the role of religion in leadership. Overall, the scriptural and empirical lenses offer two different means to conceptualize theoretically and analyze methodologically the im- pact of religion on leadership. Given that this is a conceptual article, I use a scriptural lens to derive implications for theory.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY

The distinct attributes of religions shape existing theories of leadership in two ways: either informing and refining or transforming and modifying such theories. Focusing on moral theories of leadership, I illustrate how religion informs ethical and spiritual leadership theories and transforms authentic and servant leadership theories. I also briefly add its potential impact on other theories of leadership. Figure 1 presents a graphical overview.

Informing Existing Moral Theories of Leadership

Ethical leadership is both “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct” and “the promo- tion of such conduct” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). For leaders who are religious, what is deemed appropri- ate is shaped by their faith. For instance, Kriger and Seng (2005) showed how leadership is contingent on diverse inner meaning, values, vision, and morals often derived from religions. Similarly, work in ethi- cal leadership has considered the religious roots of many ethical orientations that are directly influenced by religion (Eisenbeiss, 2012). A transcendental pursuit may offer an additional normative reference point. Leaders who are religious may conceive of these reference points derived from scripture as inspirations, binding rules and commands, or rec- ommendations that inform and specify leadership principles and practices. Equally, the belief in a hereafter and a deity may form a sense of commitment

2019 299Gümüsay

for ethical as well as unethical behavior, potentially out of reasons such as love, fear, or respect.

Each religion is likely to have a particular angle that blends in a certain way with ethical leader- ship theory. For instance, Beekun (2012) identified the following core virtues to describe Muhammad’s character and behavior: truthfulness and integrity, trustworthiness, justice, benevolence, humility, kind- ness, and patience. Muslim leaders who wish to em- ulate Muhammad are guided accordingly toward virtuous and ethical behavior. For Christians, Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross is an essential component of their belief and their conceptualization of their re- lationship to God.

While scholars have engaged with the role of religion in spiritual leadership (Dent, Higgins, & Wharff, 2005; Fry, 2003; Phipps, 2011), zooming in on the distinct characteristics can offer additional insights. The spiritual is informed by the belief in a deity, the hereafter, scriptural guidelines, values, and views as well as practices and performances. Key components of spiritual leadership—namely, transcendence of the self, growth, holism, and har- mony (Ashforth & Pratt, 2003)—are qualified by re- ligions. For instance, the transcendence of the self is linked to a transcendent deity, and the objective may be to come ever closer to this deity. The calling and meaning of life is related to pleasing a God and seeking a hereafter.

At the same time, a focus on the distinct character- istics of religions may result in leaders losing sight of transcendence and tending toward institutional ri- gidity. Religion is a “double-edged sword” (Gümüsay, 2016, p. 4). On one hand, it can offer specificities for

spirituality as well as social communities, rituals, and practices that may assist in spiritual leadership. On the other hand, it can move leaders away from spiri- tuality. Either way, the distinct characteristics inform spiritual leadership principles.

Transforming Existing Moral Theories of Leadership

Authentic leadership is commonly about internal and external congruence. Authentic leaders enact their own values and beliefs not because others are observing their behavior or to attain a certain repu- tation, but because of their personal intent. At a basic level, religion may offer leaders reasons and values for authenticity. When a God is considered all-seeing and all-knowing, the inner intent of leaders becomes transparent to an external deity. The belief in a God who knows both the inner self and outer be- havior and specific religious guidelines for behavior affect an authentic leadership style. Awareness of a leader’s intent to adhere to certain values for re- ligious reasons may instill trust in followers; equally, an authentic but destructive or fanatic adherence to a religion can cause mistrust and skepticism in followers.

More profoundly, and in line with sociological work, authenticity is a matter of conformity to more or less agreed upon criteria of a particular type or category (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009). Religious beliefs and values may form such a social category. This implies that a leader conforms and commits to the religious guidelines (i.e., is authentic and con- sistent vis-à-vis these criteria, regardless of or in

FIGURE 1 Distinct Attributes, Two Interrelated Lenses, and Impact on Moral Theories of Leadership

Perceived relationship to God

Adherence to sacred sources

Hereafter pursuit scriptural

empirical

Attributes Lenses Impact on moral theories of leadership

Informing existing theories

Ethical leadership: religion as source for ethical values, narratives, and guidelines; transcendental as additional normative reference point Spiritual leadership: religion as source for inspiration, meaning, and narratives; deity as additional spiritual aspiration

Transforming existing theories

Authentic leadership: authenticity defined by religion; from internal-external consistency to novel scripture-external consistency Servant leadership: servitude depicted by religion; from single service to followers to double service to followers and God

300 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

tension with internal–external personal consis- tency), thereby fundamentally modifying authentic leadership theory. Scripture–external consistency is substituted for internal–external personal consis- tency. Followers may then use scripture to examine leader authenticity.

Servant leadership accentuates service to fol- lowers. The notion of leaders as servants often has an implicit Christian connotation and background (e.g., Matthew 20:27-28). Similarly in Islam, leader- ship “is a relational social practice, a process of in- teraction between leaders and followers which should be based on mutual engagement and trust” (Metcalfe & Mimouni, 2011, pp. 25–26). It is con- ceived as a responsibility of leaders and a trust (amanah) between leaders and followers (Ali, 2009; Beekun & Badawi, 1999; Faris & Parry, 2011).

An explicit religious perspective may add novel relationships that fundamentally modify servant leadership theory. Humans are thereby conceived as servants to their God. Servant leaders thus become double servants to both their followers and to God. These relationships can shape each other, and questions arise about their primacy and significance: Do leaders serve both their God and their followers, or is there a hierarchy that results in neglecting one for the other? Is serving a deity always compatible with serving followers, or are there instances in which leaders perceive that they have to decide to serve one instead of the other? In fact, scripture may entail narratives and guidelines not only about how to serve others but also about the structural signifi- cance and ordering of serving both a God and people. Clearly, belief in a deity increases the complexity of servant leadership theory, as it adds relationships between the higher being on one hand and the leader as well as followers on the other hand. Moreover, beliefs and guidelines shape the relationship be- tween leader and followers, too. In Christianity, the belief that Jesus interfuses these categories as both the son of God and a human being presents a unique angle on the double servitude.

Impact on Other Theories of Leadership

Religion needs to be integrated into other theories of leadership, too. For instance, transactional lead- ership (Bass, 1990) can be connected to the role of eschatological and hereafter rewards and punish- ments in religions; charismatic leadership (Conger, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977) can be evaluated through an analysis of the impact of charismatic prophets in scripture. Religion can also

provide inspiration, narratives, stories, and advice for transformational leaders, who have an idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stim- ulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1990; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Social exchange or relational theories such as leader–member exchange (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) examine the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers. Leader–member exchange (LMX) could be amplified to a triadic relationship by in- cluding a God-entity and by considering the impact of religion on the leader–member relationship. This results in a God–leader–member exchange (GLMX). The perceived existence of a God can thereby affect the leader, the members, and the exchange.

Various theories link leadership to humility (Morris, Brotheridge, & Urbanski, 2005). A leader is both humble and forceful. For Collins (2001, p. 21) a great leader combines these qualities as a “level 5 leader,” one who has a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. Religion may pro- vide a means to deal with this paradox. Inspired and motivated by religion, such a leader is leading for the sake of God, with God in mind. The leader does not provide either the ultimate guide or the value system but rather interprets and reflects them. While such a leader may act with strength and will, she or he is also ultimately not the final focal point. The ultimate entity above the leader may provide him or her with humbleness—but also potentially with arrogance and a false claim to a divine right to lead. In the face of an all-powerful God, a leader can find humility while remaining strong and willful to lead. For instance, Al-Ghazali (1983, p. 49), an influential Islamic theologian, wrote, “Humility is caused by the awareness that we are always in the sight of God, by awareness of His majesty and by awareness of our human failings.” At the same time, we should note that fundamentalists may interpret the stewardship as a divine legitimacy to use destructive force.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This article concentrates on distinct characteris- tics of religions and how these affect leadership theory and practice. While I have provided exam- ples from different religions, I have not elaborated on the intracomplexities of each religion and inter- complexities between religions. Rather, I intended to build a parsimonious conceptual understanding as a starting point. In the following, I will outline four areas I think would benefit from more conceptual and empirical work.

2019 301Gümüsay

First, we need to consider the diversity within each religion. While I argue for the uniqueness of a religious perspective, this does not imply a unique- ness of religions. We need to analyze, for instance, how the role of a God, the hereafter purpose, and the sacred source diversely affect the understanding of leadership within religious denominations and institutions. This requires a coherent analysis of intrareligious differences, such as Orthodox, Conser- vative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Judaism; Cath- olic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christianity; Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi’I Sunni, and Shia Islam; Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Smartism as Hindu denominations; and Theravada and Mahayana branches in Buddhism, as well as organizational set- tings and consequences for leadership.

Second, we need more comparative analysis on how religion affects leadership. Given the diverse specificities of religions, leadership is shaped in different manners. The role of human beings and their relationship to a God, the hereafter purpose, and the means of this pursuit, as well as the content of the sacred sources, have an interreligious di- versity. Kriger and Seng (2005) offered valuable comparative insights into leadership in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Building on these insights, we need to integrate the three distinct components of a religious per- spective on leadership identified in this article with such comparative findings. This calls for empiri- cal research into how the scripture is diversely comprehended and enacted in both religious insti- tutions and secular organizational settings.

Third, we need to identify and examine modera- tors between leadership and religion. Weaver and Agle (2002) underlined the fact that behavior in business due to religious role expectations is mod- erated by religious identity salience and religious motivational orientation. Equally, the effect of re- ligion on leadership is likely moderated by organi- zational factors. The religious diversity of workers, for instance, can affect the explicit or implicit sig- nificance of religion on leadership. More broadly, contextual factors influence and interweave with religious ones to shape management and leadership (Forster & Fenwick, 2015). Further research on the type of moderators, the process of moderation, and the size of impact is warranted.

Fourth, religious beliefs, values, guidelines, and distinct characteristics need to be further integrated into theories of leadership. Religions affect the be- havior, cognition, emotion, ethics, and identity of leaders, to name just a few aspects. I have suggested

some implications in this article, but to more accu- rately depict reality leadership theories would ben- efit from further research.

The specificities of each religion, comparative analysis of religions, moderators between religions and leadership, and integration into other leadership theories encompass a large research agenda. It ne- cessitates engagement with both the sources of re- ligions and their interpretations and enactments. This warrants both conceptual and empirical work that identifies patterns of commonalities and differ- ences and involves comprehending contextual in- fluences in two ways: First, context affects religion directly, which may shape leadership theory. Sec- ond, context may frame the setting of leadership (Gagnon & Collinson, 2014) and thus affect leader- ship alongside religion. This entails further scrutiny of how a multiplicity of value systems shape lead- ership theory and practice. In other words, we need a clearer understanding of how intrareligious, inter- religious, and intervalues systems affect leadership theories and practices.

CONCLUSION

Religions are part of social reality and shape con- temporary societies, organizational settings, and leadership behavior. They are present not only in religious institutions such as churches and organi- zational hybrids with a distinct religious focus like faith-based funds, but also in secular organizations with (some) religious managers and workers. Most religions entail a belief in and relationship to a God, a hereafter pursuit, and sacred scripture. In this article, I have considered how these affect leadership be- havior. A deity above a leader is an additional re- lationship outside formal organizational boundaries that positions a leader below another entity. A here- after purpose frames actions and activities in this world. A sacred source provides religious leaders and followers with holy guidelines and meaningful nar- ratives. Importantly, all of these characteristics can havebothnegativeandpositiveimplicationsforleader- ship behavior.

I have presented two approaches to integrating religion into leadership. On one hand, a scriptural lens looks at sacred sources—often interpreted and explained by religious institutions—and their impli- cations on leadership. On the other hand, an empirical lens considers the enactment of religious guidelines, values, and narratives by individuals and organiza- tions, deriving insights for leadership. In between, there is also the possibility of considering sermons and

302 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

other documents and practices that interpret and con- textualize scripture but do not enact it directly.

Finally, I have outlined how the distinct attributes shape theories of leadership and thus warrant in- tegration. Specifically, I have shown how they in- form ethical and spiritual leadership theories and transform authentic and servant leadership theories. Certainly, this would benefit from further research to increase our understanding of the effects of religion on leadership theory and practice. I wholeheartedly believe more is to come.

REFERENCES

Abeng, T. (1997). Business ethics in Islamic context: Per- spectives of a Muslim business leader. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(3), 47–54.

Agle, B. R., & Van Buren, H. J. I. (1999). God and Mammon: The modern relationship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(4), 563–582.

Al-Ghazali. (1983). Inner dimensions of Islamic wor- ship (M. Holland, Trans.). Leicester, UK: Islamic Foundation.

Ali, A. J. (2009). Islamic perspectives on leadership: A model. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 2(2), 160–180.

Ashforth, B. E., & Pratt, M. G. (2003). Institutionalized spirituality: An oxymoron. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spiritu- ality and organizational performance (pp. 93–107). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Ashforth, B. E., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Work organiza- tions as secular religions. Journal of Management In- quiry, 11(4), 359–370.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leader- ship development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organiza- tional Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Lead- ership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.

Beekun, R. I. (2012). Character centered leadership: Muhammad (p) as an ethical role model for CEOs. Journal of Management Development, 31(10), 1003– 1020.

Beekun, R. I., & Badawi, J. A. (1999). Leadership: An Islamic perspective. Beltsville, MD: Amana.

Ben-Hur, S., & Jonsen, K. (2012). Ethical leadership: Les- sons from Moses. Journal of Management Develop- ment, 31(9), 962–973.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Be- havior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.

Busenitz, L., & Lichtenstein, B. (2019). Faith in research: Forging new ground in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, this issue.

Campbell, R. A. (2008). Leadership succession in early Islam: Exploring the nature and role of historical pre- cedents. Leadership Quarterly, 19(4), 426–438.

Carroll, G. R., & Wheaton, D. R. (2009). The organiza- tional construction of authenticity: An examination of contemporary food and dining in the U.S. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29(Supplement C), 255–282.

Cash, K. C., & Gray, G. R. (2000). A framework for accom- modating religion and spirituality in the workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 124–133.

Chan-Serafin, S., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (2013). Perspective—how does religion matter and why? Re- ligion and the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 24(5), 1585–1600.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some compa- nies make the leap—and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins.

Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational set- tings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647.

Dana, L.-P., (Ed.). (2010). Entrepreneurship and religion. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E., & Wharff, D. M. (2005). Spiri- tuality and leadership: An empirical review of defi- nitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 625–653.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62.

Dyck, B. (2014). God on management: The world’s largest religions, the “theological turn,” and organization and management theory and practice. In P. Tracey, N. Phillips, M. Lounsbury, & B. Almond (Eds.), Religion

2019 303Gümüsay

and organization theory (pp. 23–62). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Dyck, B., & Purser, R. (2019). Faith, theoria and OMT: A Christian and a Buddhist walk into a business school. . . . Academy of Management Perspectives, this issue.

Dyck, B., & Schroeder, D. (2005). Management, theology and moral points of view: Towards an alternative to the conventional materialist-individualist ideal-type of management. Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), 705–735.

Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: Aninterdisciplinary integrative approach. Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 791–808.

Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic Interaction, 18(2), 121– 144.

Faris, N., & Parry, K. (2011). Islamic organizational lead- ership within a Western society: The problematic role of external context. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 132–151.

Fehr, R., Yam, K. C. (S.), & Dang, C. (2015). Moralized leadership: The construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 182–209.

Fischer, D., & Friedman, H. H. (2017). Tone-at-the-top lessons from Abrahamic justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(1), 209–225.

Forster, G., & Fenwick, J. (2015). The influence of Islamic values on managementpractice in Morocco. European Management Journal, 33(2), 143–156.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727.

Gagnon, S., & Collinson, D. (2014). Rethinking global leadership development programmes: The interre- lated significance of power, context and identity. Organization Studies, 35(5), 645–670.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145.

Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Right from wrong: The influence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 85–97.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader- member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain per- spective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105–119.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indian- apolis, IN: R. K. Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1972a). The institution as servant. Indian- apolis, IN: R. K. Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1972b). Trustees as servants. Indian- apolis, IN: R. K. Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Gümüsay, A. A. (2015). Entrepreneurship from an Is- lamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(1), 199–208.

Gümüsay, A. A. (2016). Religion & leadership: Ancient wisdom for a modern world. Berlin: LEAD Academy.

Gümüsay, A. A. (2017). The potential for plurality and prevalence of the religious institutional logic. Busi- ness & Society. doi:10.1177/0007650317745634

Gümüsay, A. A. (2018). Unpacking entrepreneurial oppor- tunities: An institutional logics perspective. Innova- tion: Organization & Management, 20(3), 209–222.

Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2019). “God at work”: Engaging central and incompatible institu- tional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0481

Habermas, J. (2001). Glauben und Wissen (7th ed.). Frankfort am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). New York: Oxford University Press.

Haynes, K. T., Hitt, M. A., & Campbell, J. T. (2015). The dark side of leadership: Towards a mid-range theory of hubris andgreed inentrepreneurialcontexts. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 479–505.

Hicks, D. A. (2002). Spiritual and religious diversity in the workplace: Implications for leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 379–396.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader- ship. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Jones, L. B. (2001). Jesus CEO: Using ancient wisdom for visionary leadership. New York: Hyperion.

King, J. E., Jr., (2008). (Dis)missing the obvious: Will mainstream management research ever take religion seriously? Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(3), 214–224.

304 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2002). Spirituality and leadership praxis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 165–182.

Kriger, M., & Seng, Y. (2005). Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory of leadership based on the worldviews of five religions. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 771–806.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimen- sional measure and multi-level assessment. Leader- ship Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.

Lounsbury, M., Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2014). Religion andorganizationtheory. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organiza- tional scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Lynn, M. L., Naughton, M. J., & VanderVeen, S. (2008). Faith at Work Scale (FWS): Justification, develop- ment, and validation of a measure of Judaeo-Christian religion in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 227–243.

Lynn, M. L., Naughton, M. J., & VanderVeen, S. (2011). Connecting religion and work: Patterns and influ- ences of work-faith integration. Human Relations, 64(5), 675–701.

Mabey, C., Conroy, M., Blakeley, K., & de Marco, S. (2017). Having burned the straw man of Christian spiritual leadership, what can we learn from Jesus about lead- ing ethically? Journal of Business Ethics, 145(4), 757–769.

Manz, C. C. (2011). The leadership wisdom of Jesus: Prac- tical lessons for today. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Manz, C. C., Manz, K. P., Marx, R. D., & Neck, C. P. (2001). The wisdom of Solomon at work: Ancient virtues for living and leading today. Oakland, CA: Berrett- Koehler.

Mayer, D. (2010). Servant leadership and follower need satisfaction: Where do we go from here? In D. van Dierendonck & K. A. Patterson (Eds.), Servant lead- ership: Developments in theory and research (pp. 147–154). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Melé, D., & Fontrodona, J. (2017). Christian ethics and spirituality in leading business organizations: Edito- rial introduction. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(4), 671–679.

Metcalfe, B., & Mimouni, F. (2011). Leadership develop- ment in the Middle East. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Miller, K. D. (2002). Competitive strategies of religious organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 435–456.

Miller, K. D. (2019). Responding to fundamentalism: Sec- ularism or humble faith? Academy of Management Perspectives, this issue.

Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at spirituality, re- ligion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323–1350.

Neck, C. P., & Milliman, J. F. (1994). Thought self-leadership: Finding spiritual fulfillment in organizational life. Jour- nal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 9–16.

Neubert, M. (2019). With or without spirit: Implications for scholarship and leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, this issue.

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic litera- ture review of servant leadership theory in organi- zational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393.

Pew Research Center. (2012). The global religious land- scape. Washington, DC: Author.

Pew Research Center (2015). The future of world re- ligions: Population growth projections, 2010-2050. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections- 2010-2050/

Phipps, K. A. (2011). Spirituality and strategic leader- ship: The influence of spiritual beliefs on strategic decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 177–189.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defin- ing and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424.

Stark, R. (1999). Secularization, R.I.P. Sociology of Re- ligion, 60(3), 249–273.

Steingard, D. S. (2005). Spiritually-informed management theory: Toward profound possibilities for inquiry and transformation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(3), 227–241.

Tillich, P. (1957). Dynamics of faith. New York: Harper & Row.

Tracey, P. (2012). Religion and organization: A critical re- view of current trends and future directions. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 87–134.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228– 1261.

van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the

2019 305Gümüsay

differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower out- comes. Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544–562.

van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Ethical leader- ship and follower organizational deviance: The moderating role of follower moral attentiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 190–203.

Vince, R., & Mazen, A. (2014). Violent innocence: A con- tradiction at the heart of leadership. Organization Studies, 35(2), 189–207.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based mea- sure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.

Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77–97.

Whittington, J. L., Pitts, T. M., Kageler, W. V., & Goodwin, V. L. (2005). Legacy leadership: The leadership wis- dom of the Apostle Paul. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 749–770.

Wildavsky, A. B. (1984). The nursing father: Moses as a political leader. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Woolfe, L. (2002). The Bible on leadership: From Moses to Matthew: Management lessons for contemporary leaders.New York: AmericanManagement Association.

Worden, S. (2005). Religion in strategic leadership: A positivistic, normative/theological, and strategic anal- ysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 221–239.

Ali Aslan Gümüsay ([email protected]) is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Hamburg and a research fellow at the Vienna University of Economics and Business. His work focuses on institutions, values and meaning, hybrid organizing, and novel forms of organizing and grand challenges. It has been published in journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Business & So- ciety, Innovation: Organization & Management, Journal of Business Ethics, and Research Policy.

306 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

View publication statsView publication stats