1

Can successful leadership exist without values?

Implications of values-based leadership

Valentina Della Corte, University of Naples Federico II Giovanna Del Gaudio, University of Naples Federico II Alessandra Iavazzo, University of Naples Federico II

Giuseppina Zamparelli, University of Naples Federico II

Abstract

This paper aims at analysing conceptually spiritual leadership in organizational field. Firstly, we

identify if a relation between spirituality and leadership can exist and then if and how this

influences employer/employees reciprocal behaviour.

Some authors have tried to explain the link between spiritual leadership and religions

(Whittington et al., 2005; Pava, 2009). In the early years, the focus has changed, trying to deepen

the differences between religion and spirituality (Dean, Fornaciari, & McGee, 2003) and

emphasizing the latter as a source of success for leaders. We therefore focus on the effects of

spirituality on the system of values and on the role of values and emotions in determining a

successful leadership. Finally, we emphasize the role of values-based leadership capabilities

within strategic management, aiming at highlighting the importance of a shared system of values

in leading employees.

Keywords: values-based leadership, spirituality, trust.

1. Introduction

The importance of values in leadership has taken consideration in recent years, thanks to the

contributions on the issue in various fields, such as psychology (Tart, 1975), healthcare (Emblen,

2

1992; Armstrong, 1995; Graber, 2001; Vachon et al., 2009; Van De Geer and Wulp, 2011) and

the workplace contexts (McKnight, 1984; Guillory, 2000; Dehler and Welsh, 2003; Fry, 2003;

Markow and Klenke, 2005; Reave, 2005; Fry et al., 2011; Phipps, 2012; Pruzan, 2013).

This is due to the fact that values are at the basis of human-nature relationships. These latter

belong to the holistic system that is shaped by physical, socioeconomic, and spiritual elements

(Egri and Herman, 2000; Egri,1997). The holistic approach, indeed, includes the analysis of the

all the elemnts (physical, socioeconomic, and spiritual elements) rather than of the individual

elements.

There is a lack of contributions on the connections between value-based leadership and

spirituality, that is indeed considered to be a crucial factor in leadership (Worden, 2005).

This paper evaluates under which circumstances a leader achieves success in leadership,

analysing the match between the system of personal values and spirituality. For a leader, a

certain system of values can represent a guide in facing critical situations or in setting up

anticipation mechanisms in future perspectives. Furthermore, a successful leader is able to create

followership. According to Kelly (1988), Chaleff (1995) and Carsten (2010) essence of

followership is not dealing with the actions of followers in general, but dealing with followers on

what they do in relation to their leaders. In this direction, the behavior of followership is not

related to anything that followers do (for example, how they manage their work or relationships

with colleagues), but specifically affects their attitudes towards leaders, such as the way in which

followers assume responsibility towards their leaders, as they face problems in relation to the

leader. A follower shares a common goal with the leader, believes in what the organization seeks

to achieve, wants the success of the leader and works with determination to ensure this success.

3

The action does not coincide with the mere execution of a rule, does not mean that passive

obedience or conformity. The follower is responsible along with the leader of the achievement of

the common goal. So that, what is there behind this trustful relation?

Considering these statements, the paper is developed around three main research questions:

1) What is the role of spirituality and its relationship with leadership?

2) What are the main strategic factors in creating a successful values-based leadership?

3) Why does trust have to be considered a strategic factor for organizational success?

Literature review

In order to better understand what this system of values stands for, the current study starts

analyzing the role of spirituality in the system of values, which is conceived as the first

manifestations of spirituality (Milliman, Ferguson, Trickett, & Condemi, 1999).

The focus on spirituality comes from the assessment that the earliest forms of leadership are in

religion. Throughout history, lots of leaders have found their power on the religious influence on

the follower. This influence depends on the emotional capacities, such as empathy, emotion

regulation, and emotional intelligence (Gross, 1998) that a successful leader is able to express

and that are experienced by the referred group of people (Gross, Thompson, 2007).

Some authors define the emotion-based capacities as “emotional intelligence,” (Bar-On, 1997,

2006; Goleman, 1995; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, 2000), as the

“ability to perceive emotion in oneself and others, use emotions to facilitate thinking, understand

emotions and emotional processes, and manage the experience and expression of emotions in

oneself and others” (Gooty et al., 2010). This is extremely true in the studies on transformational

4

leadership, where leaders “arouse feelings in their followers using their own strong emotions”

(Rajah et al., 2011).

For these reasons, the first step of this work is to analyze the concept of spirituality by

investigating the assumptions that several authors have produced during the years. Furthermore,

a literature review goes on with a discussion on the relationship between spirituality and

leadership, according to the main contributions on spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003; Benefiel,

2005; Reave, 2005; Fry et al., 2011; Dent, Higgins, & Wharff, 2005; Krishnakumar, & Neck,

2002). Once the previous concept has been clarified, the third step aims at highlighting the

critical factors that determine the leaders’ system of values, a value-based leadership and

leadership success.

2.1. Spirituality as a milestone of value-based leadership

Roots of leadership are in the most ancient book of human history: the Torah. The first real

leader in the history was Moses, who saved the entire Jewish people. But which were the factors

that allowed Moses to act as a real leader? What are the main strategic factors in creating a

successful leader?

Moses was adopted and lived as Pharaoh’s son. At the age of 40s, he escaped from the Egypt and

spent his life in Midian, preparing himself to become the shepherd for the “Children” of Israel.

Then, in his final forty years, he used the learned lessons to lead the “Children” of Israel out of

Egypt and to the Jordan River (Lockyer, Herbert, 1958). He is considered an example of

leadership because of the qualities he expressed:

- his temperament and strength, probably due to his past experiences;

5

- his capability in dealing with the conflicts, with his father-in-law on a first time and with the

entire Egyptian people during the conflict in saving them;

- his ability in creating a vision for himself and for the entire Jewish people and in sharing this

vision with others with charisma, giving a dream and acting in order to make the dream of

his people become true.

Moses’ capabilities are probably not only due to his religion and faith. His dignity and legitimacy

are the result of a process in which the faith is shaped with a real system of values that comes out

of his spirituality.

In the Torah, before G-d 1 appoints Moses as a prophet, three situations and their related

incidents in Moses’ life are well described.

First, as a young man, he sees an Egyptian overseer hitting a Jewish slave. This situation makes

him outraged and induces him to kill the overseer. The next day, he sees two Hebrews fighting

and tries to make them peace. In a third episode, he rises to the defense of the Midianite priest

Reuel’s seven daughters, who are being abused by the Midianite male shepherds.

In these three episodes, two principles come out: freedom and justice. Freedom is related to the

Genesis, in which we read, “G-d wants man to have freedom of choice” (Genesis, 2: 15-17). This

freedom allows men to take good or bad decisions. In his first incident, Moses acts as a free man

but acts wrongly. For this reason, the concept of freedom has to be associated with the one of

justice because only right decisions allow a leader to become a right leader. In fact, Moses

becomes a leader only when he is able to distinguish the bad decisions from the right once since

justice increasingly leads his free will behavior (Rav Barbout, 2012). The message from Torah is

1 (in this paper, the term “G-d” is written without “o” because one of the authors is Jewish and does not write His name in its fullness).

6

clear: G-d entitles Moses as a shepard for the Jewish people when he proves, over time, to use

his freedom wisely. Besides, leadership is not the result of a pre-defined situation but rather

of a process in which the leader conquers progressively his/her legitimacy. In such

perspective, spirituality (whether religious or not) plays a significant role in leadership’s success.

There are several definitions for the meaning of spirituality. The very strong personal nature and

complexity of this word (Krishnakumar, & Neck, 2002) have linked it to various contexts and

fields of study, including psychology (Tart, 1975), healthcare (Emblen, 1992; Armstrong, 1995;

Graber, 2001; Vachon et al., 2009; Van De Geer and Wulp, 2011) and the workplace contexts

(McKnight, 1984; Guillory, 2000; Dehler and Welsh, 2003; Fry, 2003; Markow and Klenke,

2005; Reave, 2005; Fry et al., 2011; Phipps, 2012; Pruzan, 2013). For these reasons, it is

important to first clarify the origins and the meaning of this word and then to analyze its

implications.

According to the main contributions on spirituality, it can be linked to the inner dimension of the

believer, his purposes, his life meaning and direction, his transcendent quality of relationship

with G-d. In this way, it is not far from the meaning of religion. Since 2000s the concept of

spirituality has gained ground also in a managerial concept of vision.

Graber (2001) underlines the non-ecclesiastical, non-denominational and non-hierarchical

connotations of spirituality, marking the boundary between spirituality and religion. Further

contributions remark the concepts of respect, listening, expressing care (Reave, 2005; Van de

Geer and Wulp, 2011) humility, charity and veracity (Fry et al., 2011) and collaboration and

refer them to oneself and others (Vachon et al., 2009). Although religion and spirituality seem to

be interconnected, it is important to highlit the distinction between these two. While spirituality

concerns “positive psychological concepts, such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance,

7

forgiveness, contentment, personal responsibility, and a sense of harmony with one’s

environment”, religiosity regards behaviours and feelings that can be translated into prayers,

rites, cerimonies and practical actions (Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten and Graafland,

2014). Therefore there are overlappings between the two concepts but not necessarily.

These contributions allow stating that a deeper self-understanding and consciousness gained

through spirituality can be really helpful in living in accordance with what one finds (Pruzan,

2013) and in gaining objectives with others.

Tab. 1 – Main contributions on spirituality

Year Author(s) Journal/editor

and field of

study

Definition of spirituality

1975 Tart Routledge (book)

Psychology

The vast realm of human potential dealing with

ultimate purposes, with higher entities, with G-d,

with life, with compassion, with purpose.

1984 McKnight Miles River

(book)

Organization

(workplace)

The animating force that inspires one toward

purposes that are beyond one’s self and that give

one’s life meaning and direction.

1988 Mauritzen Death studies

(journal)

Psychology

The human dimension that transcends the

biological, psychological, and social aspects of

living.

8

1992 Emblen Journal of

professional

noursing

Healthcare

A personal life principle which animates a

transcendent quality of relationship to G-d.

1995 Armstrong Journal of Adult

Development

Healthcare

The presence of a relationship with a higher

power that affects the way in which one operates

in the world.

2000 Guillory Leadership &

Organization

Development

Journal

Organization

(workplace)

Our inner consciousness and that which is

spiritual comes from within-beyond our

programmed beliefs and values.

2001 Graber Journal of

healthcare

management

Healthcare

Spirituality avoids the formal and ceremonial

connotations of religion; it is non-denominational,

non-hierarchical, and non-ecclesiastical.

Spirituality implies an inner search for meaning or

fulfillment that may be undertaken by anyone

regardless of religion.

2003 Dehler and

Welsh

ME Sharpe

(book)

Organization

The expression of spirit, [...] which is the form of

energy.

9

(workplace)

2003 Fry The leadership

quarterly

Organization

(workplace)

Spirituality includes two essential elements in a

person’s life: (a) transcendence of self,

manifesting in a sense of calling or destiny, and

(b) belief that one’s activities have meaning and

value beyond economic benefits or self-

gratification.

2005 Markow

and Klenke

International

Journal of

Organizational

Analysis

Organization

(workplace)

An individual level phenomenon, focusing on the

inner life, idiosyncratic experiences, and feelings

of the individual.

2005 Reave The leadership

quarterly

Organization

(workplace)

Spirituality expresses itself in the embodiment of

spiritual values (i.e., integrity, trust, ethical

influence, honest communication, and humility)

and spiritual behaviors (i.e., demonstrating

respect, treating others fairly, expressing care and

concern, listening responsively, appreciating the

contributions of others, and engaging in spiritual

practice)

2009 Vachon et Journal of A developmental and conscious process,

10

al. Palliative

Medicine

Healthcare

characterized by two movements of

transcendence; either deep within the self or

beyond the self.

2011 Van de

Geer and

Wulp

European Journal

Of Palliative Care

Healthcare

The dynamic dimension of human life that relates

to the way persons (individual and community)

experience, express and/or seek meaning, purpose

and transcendence, and the way they connect to

the moment, to self, to others, to nature, to the

significant and/or the sacred.

2011 Fry,

Hanna,

Noel and

Walumbwa

The leadership

quarterly

Organization

(workplace)

The pursuit of a vision of service to others;

through humility as having the capacity to regard

oneself as an individual equal but not greater in

value to other individuals; through charity, or

altruistic love; and through veracity, which goes

beyond basic truth-telling to engage one's

capacity for seeing things exactly as they are, thus

limiting subjective distortions.

2012 Phipps Journal of

business ethics

Organization

(workplace)

Spirituality refers to the human desire for

connection with the transcendent, the desire for

integration of the self into a meaningful whole,

and the realization of one’s potential.

2013 Pruzan International An existential search for a deeper self-

11

Journal on

Spirituality and

Organization

Leadership

Organization

understanding and meaning in life – and living in

accordance with what one finds.

Source: Our elaboration.

These contributions on spirituality allow to stress the attention on some topics that will be

discussed in the paper in order to answer to the research questions and that can be synthesized as

in the figure 1.

Figure 1 – Research topics

12

Source: Our Elaboration

Starting from the definition of Zinnbauer, Pergament and Scott (1999), the “religion was

predominantly associated with formal/organizational activities, while spirituality was more often

associated with closeness with G-d and feelings of interconnectedness with the world and living

things”, the following differences spring out:

Previous theoretical lens

PSYCHOLOGY (Tart, 1975)

Emotional intelligence (Gross, 1998; Gross, Thompson,

2007)

Workplace contexts (McKnight, 1984; Fry, 2003; Reave, 2005; Fry et al., 2011; Phipps, 2012; Pruzan, 2013)

Individual and collective well-being

(Fry et al., 2011)

ORGANIZATION (McKnight, 1984; Guillory,

2000; Dehler and Welsh, 2003; Fry, 2003; Markow and Klenke,

2005; Reave, 2005; Fry et al., 2011; Phipps, 2012; Pruzan,

2013 )

HEALTHCARE (Emblen, 1992; Armstrong,

1995; Graber, 2001; Vachon et al., 2009; Van De Geer and

Wulp, 2011)

SPIRITUALITY LEADERSHIP

TRUST ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP

13

1. even when religion and spirituality co-exist, religion also refers to an external dimension

while spirituality is an individual relation with G-d. Religion is therefore linked to the

related formalized practices and ideas. Spirituality, instead, is concerned with the inner

qualities of the human spirit;

2. spirituality highlights the concept of pursuing a vision of service to others, while religion

consists of fulfilling ritual prayers, rites and ceremonies and other practices.

Starting from these points of view, we can argue that spirituality is an assumption for religion,

but not the opposite. For this reason, spirituality in workplace does not necessarily have to be

connected with religion (Fry, 2003).

Stating that spirituality is necessary in a workplace, how can it be defined?

It is important to underline that, despite of the contributions of several authors, the overall

definitions agree in referring to the individual dimension, within intimate relation with G-d or

with the proper “ego” through which people can lead their decisions, make their choices and live

their experiences.

The connection between spirituality and G-d, according to some authors (Shevack, 2015), is that

the word “G-d” is just a contraction of the word “good”. Hence, this kind of leadership explains

how to act to produce goodness where the individual is the driving force in order to obtain a

sustainable success. This latter means that leaders can continually operate in consciousness. The

sustainability comes from the believe in the truth, in the principle of unity within the groups, in

the ethical values as well as in personal relatisonships.

The existence of spiritual leadership avoids situations of collapse. These can lead to a context

where the principle of unit leaves the group and the other values expire.

14

2.2. Spirituality and its relation with leadership

Since the spirituality is assumed as a system of values, the leadership can be seen as the

expression of this system of value for a community, a group, therefore, an organization.

Giacalone & Jurkiewicz (2004) define workplace spirituality as “a framework of organizational

values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees’ experience of transcendence through

the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected in a way that provides feelings of

compassion and joy”. This vision shares the concepts of individual and organizational spirituality

and means that people engaged in their work with purpose create a more dedicated, moral and

efficient workforce that positively improves organizational performance (Fahey, 2007;

Petchsawanga, Duchon, 2012; Winston, 2013). This process creates value both for the

organization and for the people that work within it. In the same direction, Rego et al. (2013),

deepening the study on the authentic leadership theory, state that team members develop

gratitude and pride when they belong to teams characterized by trust, integrity,

compassion, and forgiveness.

For other scholars, the spirituality in the workplace can lead to some problems because it can be

used as a way to manipulate and exploit workers to materialistic objectives of some business

owners (Cavanagh, & Bandsuch, 2002; Nandesan, 1999; Reave, 2005; Karakas, 2010). Of

course, today’s organizations have introduced several lawsuits to protect themselves and their

employees against power abuses and the violation of workers freedom of religion but leaders

have to take into account the effects of their behaviors in order to maintain the ethical

requirements of leadership (Bass & Steidlmeir, 1999): moral character of the leaders, ethical

legitimacy of the values, and ethical processes and actions. Indeed, most companies can really

suffer from the implementation on spiritual leadership but, on the other side, the adoption of this

15

view allows to avoid conflicts and reduces divisions and controversies (Mitroff and Denton

1999, Benefiel et al., 2014).

On the other hand, it is important to underline that a leader must never forget his/her role

considering him/herself as “spiritual”. Moreover, he has to be inspired by his spirituality in order

to express his system of values to the others (Russell, 2001).

For the purpose of this paper, spiritual leadership has to be critically analyzed, in order to better

understand the link between leadership and the system of values in a value creation approach.

With these premises, spiritual leadership can be defined as “the collective social influence

process that engages everyone and enables groups of people to work together in meaningful

ways” (Day, 2001), where all group members meet spiritual needs and enhance organizational

commitment and performance (Fry et al., 2011).

Furthermore, spiritual leadership can be helpful in transforming the work ecosystem and in

gaining success in the learning organization because leader and followers who are oriented by

spiritual values become more organizationally committed and productive. The spiritual

component of leadership is then embedded in all values, attitudes and behaviors necessary to

intrinsically motivate oneself and others in having a sense of spiritual survival that can be

expressed through “calling and membership” (Fry, 2003). This process influences:

1. the vision, because members of the organization experience a sense of “calling” that

positively influences their meaning of life and makes a difference;

2. the social/organizational culture in which the altruistic love, care and appreciation

whereby leaders and followers and for both self and others come out (Fig. 1).

In other words, spiritual leadership implies the deploying of inspiring practices able to spread out

spiritual value and influence employee attitudes and spirituality.

16

It underpins a “less leader-centric approach” (Fry et al., 2011) as the related impact may have bi-

directional results. The first one refers to the possibility to spread out values able to influence

group members and the second concerns the existence of leaders

Recalling the model of Fry et al. (2011) that is shaped by the concepts at the basis of spiritual

leadership (vision, hope/faith, altruistic love), the spiritual well-being (sense of calling and

membership) and their outcomes (organizational commitment and performance), we outline a

new version of this model (Fig. 2).

Indeed, the vision remains linked to the key concepts of spiritual leadership, but enlarged with

the concepts of trust (rather than hope/faith) and altruism (in its broader meaning without the

acceptation of “love”). The section related to the spiritual well-being remains unaltered.

The real modification of the previous model consists in the path of the organizational outcomes

as regards the performance.

Spiritual leadership may have impact both on the process and on firm performance. It is exactly

in this direction that future works must orient their efforts. The focal point is to establish what

could be the outcomes of spiritual leadership and, more precisely, to find out the right indicators

of firm performance.

Fig. 2 – Components and dimensions of the spiritual leadership

17

Source: Our elaboration from Fry et al., 2011.

This system of components has to be expressed (Fig. 2):

- at an individual level, through the capability to dominate the events according to the proper

system of values;

- at a systemic level, by reaching the objectives through the cooperation with people on the

basis of the shared system of values;

- at an organizational level, by sharing the concept of leadership as an activity that all

members of the organization can be able to do, according to a common values-based

system of management.

A similar process is oriented to the creation of values for the organization, but it is important to

consider the risks of spiritual leadership in order to avoid them. There are three main situations

that can occur:

- a spiritual leader considers himself as the only responsible in reaching the objectives,

falling into individualism;

- a spiritual leader uses the hierarchical power to manage his work group. In this way, he/she

forgets his system of values;

18

- a spiritual leader is not able to recognize his limits. As a result, he considers himself as

“spiritual”.

Fig. 2 – Characteristics and risks of a spiritual leader

19

Source: Our elaboration.

2.3. The values-based leadership and its main strategic factors

For the purpose of this paper, the spiritual leadership has to be enriched with another recent field

of study, for which the values have a fundamental role: the so-called values-based leadership.

Starting from the assumption that values have a fundamental role in leading an organization or a

work group, the values-based leadership emphasizes the role of values, not beliefs, in order to

reach the defined objectives.

The distinction between values and beliefs helps us understand the difference between spiritual

and values-based leadership. Since beliefs refer to the past, they deal with similar situations,

values reflect the expected willingness of the future (Barrett, 2006).

Starting from this assumption, values underpin both contexts and experiences. Therefore, they

can be used to make decisions in complex situations that leaders have not experienced before.

SELF-TRUST TRUST IN PEOPLE

CAPABILITIES IN DOMINATE THE

TRUST IN ORGANIZATION

             

INDIVIDUALISM

REACHING THE DEFINED OBJECTIVES

HIERARCHICAL POWER

VALUE CREATION

SHARING LEADERSHIP

RISKS LOSS OF

SPIRITUALITY

20

Values lead then actions that are consciously oriented at creating a future that reflects willingness

and expected experience (McCuddy, 2008). Hence, values are adaptable to new situations and

independently from past situations (Mussig, 2003; McCuddy, 2008).

According to the previous definitions, values-based leadership can be applied in all workplaces

because once values are clarified and mission statements are articulated, the leader is able to

examine how subjective, interpersonal and political processes facilitate or inhibit the

actualization of an organizational vision (Prilleltensky, 1999; Marschke, Preziosi & Harrington,

2009).

With these premises, the values-based leadership produces advantages for all people it involves,

because (i) the leader respects the followers, is willing to listen to as well as to trust others, and

leads through examples, and (ii) workers follow him with trust and loyalty. A continuous

relationship with the followers allows the leader to transfer his system of values at the entire

group of employees with which he works, that, as said, is a fundamental component of a values-

based leadership (Fry, 2003; Petchsawanga, 2012).

According to all these assumptions, what are the main strategic factors of a successful values-

based leadership?

During the years, several authors have dealt with this theme trying to arrive to a unique and

whole definition. According to the major contributions, values are the results of 1) family and

childhood situations and experiences; 2) conflict situations inducing self-learning and self-

discovery; 3) major life changes and experiential learning; 4) and personal relationships with

“important” individuals (Kuczmarski & Kuczmarski, 1995). In this definition some elements are

missed. Among the others, the religion, the media, the geographic roots, the technology and the

current events (Massey, 1979).

21

These factors affect both the personal and the organizational level of leadership and contribute to

create a values-based leadership that can lead to a successful leader in the organizational context.

Values as honestly, integrity, justice and fairness, which concern the personal level, have to be

translated in organizational values, in order to consolidate the beliefs, assumptions, goals and

value of the organization’s members. These shared values can effectively contribute to the

sustained success of the organizations (Barney, 1986; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Malphurs, 1996;

Russell, 2001; Porter & Kramer, 2011) since they contribute both to the personal development of

each employee and to the success of the company, so leadership becomes “the driver for

sustainability and resilience” (Baets, 2013).

Hence, the values-based leadership highlights the existence of three main strategic factors that

allow to measure the phenomenon:

1. effectiveness, that is the possibility to evaluate the achievement of individual and common

objectives;

2. morality, that allows to understand how change affects involved parties;

3. time, that consists in a measure of the attractiveness of any goal over the long term.

2.2. Trust as an outcome of a values-based leadership

The importance of trust in leadership has been analyzed according to different theoretical lens

that encompass psychology (Chakraborty and Chakraborty, 2004; Rozuel and Ketola, 2012),

strategic management (Narayanan and Zane, 2009; Maddalena, 2012), organizational behavior

(Yousef, 2000) and other streams of research. This multidisciplinary perspective underlines the

magnitude of these issues and give a boost to find the roots of trust in leadership.

22

Starting from the question: Why does trust have to be considered as an important component for

the organizational success?, we try to track the answer into the assumption delineated by Jones

and George (1998) as they claim the difficulty in imitating or in replicating trust. Furthermore,

Fairholm (1994: 98) states that “no organization can take place without interpersonal trust, and

no organizational leader can ignore the powerful element of trust”.

The focus on trust development assumes its importance in the light of the relational landscape

both in interpersonal and organizational relationships (Sendjaya and Pekerti, 2010). Hence, the

spiritual leadership can be considered an antecedent of trust, identifying trust as an output, a

result of the deployment of a set of values embodied at individual level and spread throughout

the organization.

As regards the linkage between leadership and trust, previous works have focused their attention

on the right type of leadership that could generate trust among organizational members and

external followers, here including customers and potential employees. In this direction, some

scholars (Joseph and Winston, 2005; Sarkus, 1996; Tatum, 1995) have stated that trust is a

milestone in the servant leadership as both a result and a source (in terms of origin) of individual

and organizational trust (Greenleaf, 1977). Besides, other scholars (Bass, 1990; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996) have assumed that transformational leadership can be considered a

facilitator for the development of trust (Bartram, & Casimir, 2007). As just underlined, there are

some kinds of leadership that suppose the existence of trust as the milestone of long-term

relationships and profitable commitment toward organization (Slitterm, & Longbotham, 2012).

The central node of the linkage between leadership (in its different form) and trust is, hence, to

maintain the so created trust in the long-run period. Here is the necessity to recall the concept of

“spiritual leadership” that is found upon strong and spiritual values.

23

In order to understand the necessity of a spiritual leadership within and outside the organization,

it is important to draw the paths that lead to the creation of trust since there are some specific

contents of the spiritual leadership that shape trust according to a long-run perspective.

Indeed, values such as integrity, honesty and humility, ethic behaviors as well as respect for

others underpin the spiritual leadership claimed by Reave in 2005. These factors create “an

example of someone who can be trusted” (Reave, 2005: 663) and an example to follow.

In the same direction, Altman (2010) has coined the expression “spiritualizing an organization”

as a concept that underlines the necessity to adopt a spiritual approach within the organization

“for reflection time, for team and corporate inquiry, for appreciating and acknowledging each

other, celebrating what we have done well and challenging the problems and difficult issues”.

Furthermore, if trust is realized, the organizational environment is pervaded by harmony

(Heerman, 1995). This sense of harmony deepens its roots in the balance between values of self-

interest and physical aspects. Furthermore, trust between employees and management can

accelerate decision making processes, better communication between the members and better

focus on customers issues and innovation (Kriger, & Hanson, 1999).

To summarize, the trust generated by a spiritual leader constitutes a facilitator to mutually adjust

human resources behavior as well as to activate cooperation attitudes among the organization’s

members.

Fig. 4 – The levels of trust in values-based leadership

24

Source: Our elaboration.

3. Managerial implications: values-based leadership capabilities in strategic management

As stated above, a values-based leader considers employees not just as mere cogs in a machine

or links in the bureaucratic process, but as human capital worthy of trust and respect (Millick,

2009). In this way, all team members share a common goal, being responsible for it, believing in

what the organization seeks to achieve, ensuring that this success becomes a reality, through a

strong linkage between personal and professional life. Indeed, spirituality and all related values

derive from a dimension of the personal life to after pass throuh the family, the society that can

be considered the natural extension of the family and the workplace. All these facetes constitute

experiences where individual can act according to the trust.

Individual capabilities

Self-trust

Group capabilities

Trust in the others

Future Trust in changes

Self capabilities

Leader

TRUST

25

3.1. Values-based leadership as a fundament for a sane employer branding.

The most innovative theories about organizational seen a firm as a system (Dagnino, & Padula,

2002), where convergent interests (and goals) structures where both competitive and cooperative

issues are simultaneously present and strictly interconnected. In fact, employees could be seen as

rivals to one another. So why help rivals? Empirical researches (i.e. Hall, & Graham, 2004) have

demonstrated the stronger social infrastructure amongst the group’s membership is the happier

the members are to divulge their code-breaking secrets. Thus, “the trust, mutual understanding,

and shared values and behaviours that bind the members of human networks and make co-

operation possible” (Cohen, & Prusak, 2002). Furthermore, in this social context, involved

people tend towards a sense of generalized reciprocity (Kobayashi et al., 2007). The latter refers

to normative recognition that if someone helps another person he/she will receive help from

other people (not only from the person who is helped – applied the well-known Torah law of

acting like you want be acted) within the community or society. So reciprocity maintains a

positive loop to enhance the level of cooperation (Lubell, & Scholz, 2001). Reciprocity is the

fundamental base of social capital (Putnam, 2000; Ostrom, & Ahn, 2002) and in building social

capital (Lubell, & Scholz, 2001) that are at the basis of a sane shared values. Reciprocity

determines advancing participatory democracy that in an organization could mean a bottom-up

engagement. In a community field, social capital represents the ability of actors to secure

benefits by virtue of membership in social networks (Portes, 1998). Moreover, aimed at research

objectives, social capital plays a fundamental role. In fact, at an organizational level, social

capital could be considered as an attribute of a social unit, rather than an individual attribute

26

(e.g., Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993). Moreover, greater social capital increases

commitment to a community.

This perspective enables employees to be able to help each other (Seybold, & Marshak, 1998:

Sterne, 2000), issue that transform a firm into a real community of value connected by strong

linkages. These values can be communicated through the leader since he is the most values-

holder and sharer. “The norm of generalized reciprocity serves to reconcile self-interest and

solidarity” (Putnam, 1993). Thus, “voluntary cooperation is easier in a community that has

inherited a substantial stock of social capital, in the form of norms of reciprocity and networks of

civic engagement” (Putnam, 1993).

The creation of a community of employees has a huge impact on satisfaction. The latter often

appears a vague concept; here the parameter of satisfaction is the disconfirmation of expectations

model (Kristensen et al., 1999) where “satisfaction is an evaluative response of the (...)

experience resulting from a comparison of what was expected and what is received”. In

employer branding perspective, these factors result fundamental in order to improve job

conditions, limiting the risk of employees’ turnover.

So generated community has a flexible structure contrasting with strict bureaucratic

organisations and hierarchy (Baker, 1992; Heckscher, 1994; Heydebrand, 1989; Miles, & Snow,

1992; Nohria, & Berkley, 1994; Nohria, & Eccles, 1994; Ward et al., 2000). Reciprocity and

trust based firms erase barriers of space and time (Castells, 1996). According to Bandura (2000,

2002), people engage in a community when they feel that their participation and their

communication is both worthwhile and efficacious. Thus, people are more committed to

collective community focusing on a goal of fostering group cohesion. So, employees are invested

in the success of the organization especially if they identify with the firm and see their own

27

personal success closely linked to it. In this process, the more leaders have a strong system of

values, the more they assume the role of “facilitator”. This ethic of contribution occurs through

increasing the collective value as well as contributing to the success of others. In employer

branding perspective, this is the real commitment. Employees constantly help each other as they

each have expertise in different areas and can pool together their knowledge toward joint

problem solving. So that generated community has a spiritual and ethical shared valued in which

all members believe and proactively conform.

The effect of these spiritual linkages is facilitated when situated in a proper context (Hitt et al.,

2001). In this direction, the performance impact is also likely to be stronger in the presence of

appropriate contextual variables (Hsieh, & Tsai, 2007). Therefore, it is important to consider the

changing in the organizational structure, from directive to emergent styles of governing, in order

to avoid risk of discouraging participation. Organizations are expected to be “flatter”, with less

internal hierarchy and more fluid processes and communication patterns (Davidow, & Malone,

1992; Sproll, & Keisler, 1990). So, leadership style turns in a more consensus-based approach,

working toward common goals, sharing the same values. An emerging stream in leadership

literature views the team as a potential source of leadership (Avolio et al., 2009; Yukl, 2010).

Even more researches point to the importance of sharing leadership among members. For

example, Gibb (1954) states “Leadership is probably best conceived as a group quality, as a set

of functions which must be carried out by the group. This concept of ‘distributed leadership’ is

an important one”. But shared leadership is “still a relatively ‘primitive’ term” (Pearce et al.,

2008). As in this referred definition of shared leadership, some authors highlight that the

distribution of leadership between members of a group or community first of all influences them

in engaging in leadership activities (Carson et al., 2007). In this vein, Pearce et al. (2004) defines

28

shared leadership as a “simultaneous, ongoing mutual influence process within a team that is

characterized by ‘serial emergence’ of official as well as unofficial leaders.”

The team literature suggests that transformational leadership is a key aspect for community of

job. Burns (1978) introduces the concept of transformational leadership as a new paradigm of

leadership that pays more attention to initiating changes among followers and transforming

followers’ personal values and group and organizational cultures. Bass (1985) develops the

concept pointing on the building of a qualitatively different relationship with followers based on

personal, emotional, and inspirational exchanges. In this direction, transformational leadership fit

well with the new concepts of community involvement considering its encouragement of human

development and interaction and promotes collective motivation and outcomes (Avolio, 1999;

Bass, 1998; Yukl, 2002). By developing followers’ self-confidence, self-efficacy, and self-

esteem, transformational leaders have a strong, positive influence on their followers’ motivation

and goal achievement (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002). An extensive amount of empirical evidence now

indicates that leaders who display the components of transformational leadership are viewed as

more effective leaders and achieve higher performance than leaders who are not transformational

(i.e., Howell, & Avolio, 1993). Thus, transformational leader are able to support organisational

citizenship behaviour, enhancing a social and psychological work environment.

Transformational leaders motivate group members to internalize and prioritize a larger collective

cause over individual interests. Individuals in this collective vision may be inclined to

contribute towards achieving the shared workplace goal without personal and direct expectation.

Employees are invited to be involved by their senses of self-worth and/or self-concepts are

enhanced in making these contributions (i.e., Podsakoff, & Organ, 1986). Thus, this affects team

29

members’ ability to benefit from working with each other (Pearce, & Conger, 2003). In this

context members are motivated to (Avolio et al., 1996):

Ø question assumptions and challenge status quo (intellectual stimulation);

Ø support and encourage individual creativity (individualized consideration);

Ø “stretch” themselves (inspirational motivation);

Ø move beyond immediate self-interest (idealized influence).

In this direction, the Sivasubramaniam et al.’s (2002) findings result important. The scholars

claim that when transformational leadership is enacted collectively by the team level has no

direct impact on performance. Leadership is important for these teams since it contributes to

team continuity and success (Pearce, & Conger, 2003). Particularly the transformation of

transformational leadership in spiritual perspective of job could be referred as collective

transformational leadership (Gupta et al., 2011). The latter could be seen as the team’s capability

for collectively engaging in transformational leadership behaviours (Avolio et al., 2009). So that,

leadership becomes a collective process that influences, inspires, and motivates team members

(Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002). The implications in employer branding strategy are various.

Basically, existing employees result engaged as a result of altruism or reciprocity or to attain

higher status (Dichter, 1966; Engel et al., 1969; Gatignon, & Robertson, 1986). More deepening,

motivations to participate in the new world of network coproduction are more complex and

culturally embedded, shaped by communal interests and communicative orientations. Important

factors are personality and general communal involvement (Wang, & Fesenmaier, 2003), desire

for social interaction (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2007). In this way, the

organisational community became a sort of “cult” where transformational leaders are able to

embed values and engage people.

30

Conclusions

This bottom-up perspective of leadership leads to a crucial involvement of single employee in

the co-creation of value in employer branding field. In fact, members of a specific employment

context are intellectually stimulated, supporting and encouraging one another. This “stretch”

themselves (inspirational motivation), and move beyond immediate self-interest (idealized

influence) (Gupta et al., 2011). In such an environment, team members are able to interact with

each other without fear of criticism and ostracism, enhancing cohesion and empowering ties.

The research questions, driving the outlying of this paper, have given some insights about the

role of spirituality in its connection with leadership. Indeed, the spread of shared values that

belong to a transcendent doctrine, helps in the creation of the so-called “sense of being

connected” (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2004) with the organization. From this engagement a series

of behaviors arises that offer efficiency, dedication to the job and to the internal environment as

well as may have an influence on organizational performance. According to this view, firms

shoud pay particular attention to employees’ engagement and to their motivation since

“organizations cannot achieve competitive advantage over others just by offering products or

delivering services in which we realize human resource undoubtedly plays a vital role” (Kaya,

2015 p. 600).

Once recognized the importance of this kind of leadership, the paper wondered about what could

be the strategic factors at the basis of the spiritual leadership. These are a range of values (i.e.,

honestly, integrity, justice and fairness) that, even if they belong to the personal sphere, are

carried out in the organization, shared and accepted by the all members.

31

Moreover, spiritual leadership implies inter-personal relationships among the members of the

organization. In this context, the existence of “trust” becomes the milestone for the deployment

of spiritual leadership. In the light of this reflection, we question about the reason about trust is

considered a strategic factor in this field.

The answer finds its roots in the fact that it is difficult to imitate as well as to replicate it

(George, 1998). Furthermore, leadership and inter-personal relations cannot exist without trust

between the leader and its followers and among the members of the organization where the

spiritual leadership finds its application.

Hence, the ultimate effect of a values-based leadership is the creation of an environment that

positively affect on the group in terms of:

1. motivation, because existing employees feel themselves as part of a group and appreciate the

positive environment in which they work;

2. retention, because a positive environment will tend to preserve employees and to avoid the

possibility for them to find better alternatives even once they are fully trained.

3. attraction, because capable employees can be attracted from the positive environment that

the firm has created and communicate outside.

A firm with a strong identity spontaneously attracts resources that are similar with its

systems of values. In this way, its value and advantage are self-powered. Furthermore, the

system of values can be also considered as principles for spiritual leadership that promote

life-based priorities. These priorities are based upon the nature of life rather than economic

goals. Spirituality is not a precise science but spiritual leadership, through any human action

can endow organizational members with good practices and examples. Indded, leaders that

32

“promote self-determination and employees personal development (Rego et al, 2011)

generate positive effects for their followers and, hence, more committed to work.

References

Altman, Y. (2010). In search of spiritual leadership: Making a connection with transcendence.

Human Resource Management International Digest, 18(6), 35-38.

Armstrong, T. D. (1995). Exploring spirituality: The development of the Armstrong measure of

spirituality, Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological

Association, New York.

Baets, W. (2013). Value-based Leadership: The Basis for Corporate Resilience. International

Journal on Spirituality and Organization Leadership, 1(1), 220-244.

Bar-On, R., Handley, R., Fund, S. (2006). The impact of emotional intelligence on performance.

In Druskat, V.U., Mount, G., Sala, F., Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work:

Current Research Evidence With Individuals and Groups (pp. 3-20). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence

Erlbaum Associates.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional quotient inventory (EQi): a test of emotional intelligence.

Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Barney, J. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?.

Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665.

Barrett, R. (2006). Building a values-driven organization: A whole system approach to cultural

transformation. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

33

Bartram, T., & Casimir, G. (2007). The relationship between leadership and follower in-role

performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in

the leader. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 14-19.

Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision.

Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bass, B., & Steidlmeir, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership

behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 182-217.

Benefiel, M. (2005). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organizational

transformation. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 723-747.

Benefiel, M., Fry, L. W., & Geigle, D. (2014). Spirituality and religion in the workplace: History,

theory, and research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 175.

Burke, R. (2006). Leadership and spirituality. Foresight, 8(6), 14-25.

Carsten, M.J., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B.J., Patera, J.L., McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social

constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543-562.

Cavanagh, G., & Bandsuch, M. (2002). Virtue as a benchmark for spirituality in business.

Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1), 109-117.

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco,

CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Chakraborty, S. K., & Chakraborty, D. (2004). The transformed leader and spiritual psychology:

a few insights. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 194-210.

Day, D. (2001). Leadership development: a review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4),

581-613.

34

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Dean, K. L., Fornaciari, C. J., & McGee, J. J. (2003). Research in spirituality, religion, and work:

Walking the line between relevance and legitimacy. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 16(4), 378-395.

Dehler, G. E., & Welsh, M. A. (2003). The experience of work: Spirituality and the new

workplace. In R. A. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality

and Organizational Performance (pp. 108-122). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Dent, E., Higgins, M., & Wharff, D. (2005). Spirituality and leadership: An empirical review of

definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 625-653.

EAPC. (2011). Spiritual care in palliative care: working towards an EAPC task force. European

Journal of Palliative Care, 18(2), 86-89.

Egri, C.P. (1997). Spiritualconnectionswiththenatural environment. Organization &

Environment, 10, 407-431.

Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector:

Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations.

Academy of Management journal, 43(4), 571-604.

Emblen, J. D. (1992). Religion and spirituality defined according to current use in nursing

literature. Journal of Professional Nursing, 8, 41-47.

Errol, E. J., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and

organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22.

Fahey, L. (2007). Connecting strategy and competitive intelligence: refocusing intelligence to

produce critical strategy inputs. Strategy & Leadership, 35(1), 4-12.

35

Fairholm, G. (1994). Leadership and the Culture of Trust, Westport, CT: Praeger.

Fry, L. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727.

Fry, L., Hannah, S., Noel, M., & Walumbwa, O. (2011). Impact of spiritual leadership on unit

performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 259-270.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., Gupta, A. (2010). Leadership, affect and emotions: A state of

the science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 979-1004.

Graber, D. R. (2001). Spirituality and healthcare organizations. Journal of Healthcare

Management, 46(1), 39-50.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and

Greatness, New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Review of

General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299.

Gross, J.J., Thompson, R.A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J.J. Gross

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guilford Press.

Guillory, W. A. (2000). The Living Organization: Spirituality in the Workplace. Salt Lake City,

UT: Innovations International Inc.

Heerman, B. (1995). Spiritual core is essential to high performing teams. In The New Leaders,

March/April: 8. San Francisco: Sterling and Stone.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: implications for

cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531-546.

Joseph, D. L., Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and

cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78.

36

Kayaa, A. (2015). The Relationship between Spiritual Leadership and Organizational Citizenship

Behaviors: A Research on School Principals’ Behaviors. Educational Sciences: Theory &

Practice, 3, 597-606.

Karakas, F. (2010). Exploring value compasses of leaders in organizations: introducing nine

spiritual anchors. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(Supp 1), 73–92.

Kelley, R.E. (1998), Followership in a Leadership World. In L. C. Spears (ed.), Insights on

Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-leadership. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kriger, M. P., Hanson, B. J. (1999). A value based paradigm for creating truly healty

organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 302-317.

Krishnakumar, S., & Neck, C. (2002). The "what", "why" and "how" of spirituality in the

workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 153-164.

Kuczmarski, S., & Kuczmarski, T. (1995). Values-based Leadership. Paramus, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Maddalena, V. (2012). A primer on project management: The cornerstone of strategic leadership.

Leadership in Health Services, 25(2), 80-89.

Malphurs, A. (1996). Values-driven Leadership: Discovering and Developing Your Core Values

for Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Markow, F., & Klenke, K. (2005). The Effects of Personal Meaning and Calling on

Organizational Commitment: An Empirical Investigation of Spiritual Leadership. The

International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 13(1), 8-27.

37

Marschke, E., Preziosi, R., & Harrington, W. (2009). Professionals and Executives Support. A

Relationship Between Organizational Commitment and Spirituality in the Workplace. Journal of

Business & Economics Research, 7(8), 33-48.

Massey, M. (1979). The People Puzzle: Understanding Yourself and Others. Reston, VA: Reston

Publishing Company.

Mauritzen, J. (1988). Pastoral care for the dying and bereaved. Death Studies, 12, 111-122.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence:

The case for ability scales. In Bar-On, R., Parker, J. D. A. (Eds), The handbook of emotional

intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the

workplace (320-342). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten, C., Graafland, J., & Kaptein, M. (2014). Religiosity, CSR

Attitudes, and CSR Behavior: An Empirical Study of Executives’ Religiosity and CSR. Journal

of business ethics, 123(3), 437-459.

McCuddy, M. K. (2008). Fundamental Moral Orientations: Implications for Values-Based

Leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(1), 1-13.

McKnight, R. (1984). Spirituality in the workplace. In J. D. Adams (Ed.), Transforming work: A

collection of organizational transformational readings (pp. 138-153). Alexandria, VA: Miles

River.

Millick, C. A. (2009). Values-based leadership and happiness: enlightened leadership improves

the return on people. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 2(2), 1-11.

Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D., & Condemi, B. (1999). Spirit and community at

Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a spiritual values-based model. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 221-223.

38

Mitroff, I., & Denton, E. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at

spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mussig, D. (2003). A research and skills training framework for values-driven leadership.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(2), 73-79.

Nandesan, M. (1999). The discourses of corporate spiritualism and evangelical capitalism.

Management Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 3-42.

Narayanan, V. K., Zane, L. J. (2009). Inventing a future for strategic leadership: phenomenal

variety and epistemic opportunities. Journal of Strategy and Management, 2(4), 380-404.

Pava, M. L. (2009). Jewish Ethics as Dialogue: Using Spiritual Language to Re-Imagine a

Better World. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Petchsawanga, P. (2012). Workplace Spirituality, Meditation, and Work Performance. Journal of

Management, Spirituality & Religion, 9(2), 189- 208.

Petchsawanga, P., Duchon, D. (2012). Workplace spirituality, meditation and work performance.

Management Department Faculty Publications, Paper 92.

Phipps, K. A. (2012). Spirituality and Strategic Leadership: The Influence of Spiritual Beliefs on

Strategic Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 177-189.

Piryaei, S, Zare, R. (2013). Workplace Spirituality and Positive Work Attitudes: the Moderating

Role of Individual Spirituality. Indian Journal of Economics & Development, 1(4), 91-97.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review,

January-February, 1-17.

Prilleltensky, I. (1999). Value-Based Leadership in Organizations: Balancing Values, Interests,

and Power Among Citizens, Workers, and Leaders. Symposium on Ethical Leadership in

Organizations. Montreal: McGill University.

39

Pruzan, P. (2013). Integrating rationality and spirituality in leadership. International Journal on

Spirituality and Organization Leadership, 1(1), 33-46.

Rajah, R., Song, Z., Awvey, R. D. (2011). Emotionality and leadership: Taking stock of the past

decade of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1107-1119.

Rav Barbout, S. (2012). La leadership delle donne. Contribution at the course Il ruolo della

donna nelle istituzioni, Luspio University, Rome.

Rego, A., Ribeiro, N., e Cunha, M. P., & Jesuino, J. C. (2011). How happiness mediates the

organizational virtuousness and affective commitment relationship. Journal of Business

Research, 64(5), 524-532.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655-687.

Rozuel, C., & Ketola, T. (2012). A view from within: exploring the psychology of responsible

leadership. Journal of Management Development, 31(5), 444-448.

Russell, R. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 22(2), 76-84.

Sarkus, D. J. (1996). Servant-leadership in safety: advancing the cause of and practice.

Professional Safety, 41(6), 26-32.

Sendjaya, S. & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643-663.

Shevack, M. (2015). Spiritual business for sustainable sucess. Lehigh University, Pennsylvania.

Sitter, V. L., & Longbotham, G. (2013). The influence of emotional intelligence on engendering

trust and organizational citizenship behaviours in the workplace. International Journal on

Spirituality and Organization Leadership, 1(1), 186-219.

40

Tart, C. (1975). Introduction. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal psychologies (pp. 3-7). New

York: Harper & Row.

Tatum, J. B. (1995). Meditations on servant-leadership. In L.C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on

Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today's Top

Management Thinkers (pp. 308-312). New York, NY: Wiley.

Vachon, M., Fillion, L., & Achille, M. (2009). A conceptual analysis of spirituality at the end of

life. Journal of palliative medicine, 12(1), 53-59.

Van de Geer, D. C. L., Wulp, M. (2011). Spiritual care in palliative care: working towards an

EAPC Task Force. EJPC, 18, 86-89.

Whittington, J. L., Pitts, T. M., Kageler, W. V., & Goodwin, V. L. (2005). Legacy leadership:

The leadership wisdom of the Apostle Paul. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 749-770.

Winston, B. E. (2013) Spirituality at workplace: changing management paradigm. International

Journal of Spirituality and Organization Leadership, 1(1), 21-32.

Worden, S. (2005). Religion in Strategic Leadership: A Positivistic, Normative/Theological, and

Strategic Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 221–239

Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment: a mediator of the relationships of leadership

behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 15(1), 6-24.