Special Issue Guest Editors’ Introduction: Virtuous Leadership as a Complex Developmental and Contextual Dynamic

The first dynamic is development. There is a developmental side to virtues: one does not simply acquire a virtue—courage, patience, et cetera—all at once like a new coat one can simply put on. That makes inappropriate simplistic language of “having” or “not having” a particular virtue. It is not an all or nothing proposition but rather must be discussed with developmental nuance. Virtues are only acquired over time through effort of developing the requisite perceptual abilities and capacities for embodying that virtue and integrating it with the rest of one’s virtues. So, at any given moment in one’s life one can probably be said to have developed some skill with each of the virtues, which one may feel comfortable and competent to embody in some situations but not others, based on the contextual demands. Ideally, we would have a research-based conceptual language to describe the development of each virtue. A developmental view requires documenting progressively more mature forms of the virtue, similar to Piaget’s delineation of cognitive growth but, of course, in a more holistic sense. The question of mastering a virtue raises both the process question just mentioned—how does one change developmentally toward that goal; and also the question of how to best describe the ideal toward which you are aiming—what mastery actually means. We have more to say on the question of mastery in a moment, after we finish outlining the dynamics of virtuous being.

The second dynamic is contextuality. This dynamic reflects that virtues are context-defined. Virtues are not off the shelf, or store bought, but rather always freshly homemade. That is, a virtue like courage is not a standard thing that can be easily and universally defined. The exemplars of courage that may first come to mind, such as someone running into a burning building to rescue a stranger, do not in themselves well render the virtue in its variety. Context matters because it defines what kind of courage is required and there are many kinds of courage to choose from. For example, the courage needed to fight in a war is not the same courage needed to admit that you are suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and need help. The courage to speak your mind is not the same courage as that needed to admit your flaws. The courage to know yourself deeply and honestly is not the same courage as that needed to open yourself up empathetically to other people’s pain. The question of a person “having courage” as if it is a generic thing is too simplistic, as we all need to be able to embody specific kinds of courage in specific situations. The challenge, to borrow from Aristotle, is to have the right kind of courage, to the right degree, embodied in the right way, and directed toward the right ends, much of which will be defined by the context-person interplay.

The third dynamic is complexity. There is a complex interactive quality to virtues when embodying character—they codefine each other. Virtues inform one another, and in many cases cannot function except in coordination. For example, accurate discernment of whether one is truly being virtuous, whether in the domain of humility, honesty, flexibility, courage, or patience is facilitated by the presence of other virtues—such as humility, honesty, courage, flexibility, and patience. To illustrate: we need courage to really be honest because being honest can be scary. Likewise, we need honesty to accurately assess what courage means in this situation, this person-context interaction. We need flexibility to continue to be patient because our patience can be challenged in new ways. Likewise, we need patience to be able to continue being flexible as flexibility often requires accommodating others. We need humility to accurately assess our embodiment of virtues because we tend to think highly of ourselves and overlook that which challenges our ego. These are all examples where the masterful embodiment of the virtue is deeply dependent on having facility with a wide range of other virtues with their attendant skills and capacities.

The fourth dynamic we will highlight is the means of determining the virtuous from among the field of possibilities. At least since Aristotle, virtues have often been functionally defined as some kind of “happy midpoint” between extremes, often described as a golden mean. For example, too little forthrightness is cowardice, too much is foolhardiness, and “just right” is courage. We need to be careful with the use of metaphor (Lakeoff & Johnson, 1980) here as the just right position is not actually a midpoint, median, mean, average, balance, or other statistical or mathematical calculation. It is, in fact, more of a “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” children’s story—not too hot, not too cold, just right” personal assessment. We will refer to the process of discerning the virtuous position as a complex search for a multidimensional sweet spot between too much and too little of whatever virtue verb, overly engaged and not personally engaged enough, too rash or overly ponderous assessment, et cetera. Where among the field of possibilities we will find the sweet spot is highly dependent on the context, the people involved, the goals, and the ethical agent’s own virtue resources. MacIntyre (1966/1998 p. 66) notes that Aristotle did not believe there was “one and only one right choice of emotion or action, independent of circumstances.” He continues:

There are, of course, virtues and vices that cannot reasonably be defined as a sweet spot between extremes. MacIntyre notes that Aristotle, “says also that malice, shamelessness, and envy are such that their names imply that they are evil” with no positive opposite extreme (p. 65). Hence, while the sweet-spot method may be a useful illustrative model, it is “scarcely … something logically necessary to the character of a virtue” (MacIntyre, 1966/1998, p. 66).

We have highlighted that one’s developed capacity helps determine what a virtue will mean to this person in this context. Additionally, we have highlighted that the context itself partly determines what a virtue will mean; and that virtues complexly intertwine in actual embodiment, possibly supporting each other in the process. All of these describe a process where determining the sweet spot, that is, what is truly virtuous here and now, is enabled by well-developed, well-functioning virtues of other kinds. It is this mutual support in the mastery of virtuous being that we take up now.

The fifth, and last, dynamic we wish to discuss is an extension or outcome of the others, and we call it all for one, and one for all. This dynamic addresses the question of each virtues’ dependence on other virtues for its development and/or embodiment, especially at a high level of competence. Aristotle is commonly said to have believed that in order to have any virtue one must have all the virtues. We suspect this is an oversimplification of Aristotle’s position, though we do not intend to discuss that. Rather, we describe what we see as the developmental and in-the-moment psychological implications of the dynamics we have already described here, which lead to the conclusion that to be virtuous in the truest sense one does, indeed, need a host of developed virtues.

We have noted in the dynamics named above that (a) each virtue changes developmentally (in how it is conceived by the agent and how s/he embodies it), (b) that virtues can look quite different in different contexts (i.e., all the kinds of courage noted), (c) that virtues interact complexly in ways that redefine them, and (d) that an assessment to determine the sweet spot in any given context is necessary, though it may not resemble a midpoint between undesirable extremes. We have argued that we must always determine what virtues are called for in this context, and if courage for example, what kind of courage, and if the courage of speaking your mind, how to do that appropriately and effectively given the context and who you are.

This is where the question of mastery becomes important to think about. Persons with underdeveloped virtues will have far less capacity to engage in the complicated assessments we have been describing. So, if we are asking: can a person have courage without also having compassion or patience or honesty—and by “have courage” we mean simply that the person has demonstrated some courage in some situation—then yes, obviously people are capable of exhibiting one good quality without exhibiting others. But, on the other hand, if we are asking a more sophisticated question we might give a different answer. If instead we are asking: can a person develop and embody virtue mastery in any virtue if they have not developed even basic skills in the other virtues? Far more questionable. But, perhaps this focus on individual virtues leaves us asking the wrong question. Being virtuous, we would argue, means more than having mastered one virtue, it is about one’s whole ethical performance. Being virtuous requires a masterful coordination of all aspects of one’s ethical sensibility (Sherblom, 2012) requiring excellences in a wide range of domains. All the virtues contribute something to character, and a well-developed character allows virtuous being at the level of mastery.

As one of us has illustrated previously, engaging morality is a multistep process comprising a Moral Experience Feedback Loop that informs daily and weekly shifts in your values, insight, and embodiment (Sherblom, 2015). There are virtues, and attendant skills and capacities, associated with perception and perceptivity or sensitivity—such as honesty, caring, compassion, presence and attentiveness, perspective-taking, and reason. If a person is deficient in the virtues supporting perception then their perception will suffer, thereby constraining the whole process to follow based on that misperception or missed-perception. Likewise, if the virtues, and attendant skills and capacities, associated with deliberation—such as reflection, reasoning, self-awareness, and courage—are deficient, then a person’s ability to act in a fully virtuous fashion will be constrained at that point in the process. Similarly with the virtues associated with decisionmaking—if the virtues of reasoning, discernment, and compassion are not well developed then virtuous behavior could be derailed right there. Additionally one’s embodiment of virtues may well also depend on being informed by compassion, reasoning, humility, and honesty, and without those virtues one’s embodiment may go astray and end up not being virtuous at all. Lastly, as we develop our virtues there is an ongoing learning process of trial and error, and to make the most of this, to learn from our mistakes, and learn the correct lessons, we need honesty, courage, and whatever other capacities allow you to understand how others are responding to the things you have tried, so that you know how to amend your approach (Sherblom, 2015). Again, all these examples show the extent to which it is true that ‘all for one and one for all’ is a good motto for understanding the development and masterful embodiment of virtues in truly virtuous being.

In summary, people, even children, exhibit virtues of some quality, sometimes, in some situations. As we develop in our integrity we learn to be more consistent and embody greater excellence. For example, regarding courage, we learn to be courageous in more ways, more of the time, in more masterful embodiment. As we learn the many kinds of courage and to more consistently embody what we have learned we come to master the virtue of courage. This contributes to our ethical being generally, providing needed courage to all parts of the system: for honest self-reflection, insightful social critique, for speaking up and being heard, for making changes inside and out, and for taking ethical responsibility and action. We trust that this brief outline of some of the dynamics involved in virtue development and embodiment illustrate why we need to take a broad approach to understand the many sides of virtuous leadership—its conceptual and theoretical basis, its practice and embodiment, its training and evaluation, program development, and stories of exemplars.

In the first article—“Do Coaches Who Are Servant Leaders Promote Virtue in Their Athletes?”—author Lee Ellis explores the values and practices of Servant Leadership as an organizing framework for college coaches. The author recognizes that coaches are simultaneously leaders and character educators, promoting a particular kind of sportspersonship through their example, their explicit teaching, and their personal relationship. The virtuous leadership explicated involves teaching communication and collaboration, community service and teamwork, socioemotional competencies, and personal character. It is embodied through being a positive role model, a caring mentor, and a nurturing presence for one’s players. The caring relationship supports the growth and empowerment of each student while informing the coach as to what each needs, and what each has to offer the team. Virtuous leadership is here explored in the lived relationship of coach and athlete, illuminating how one’s conception of sportspersonship, and one’s framing of the activity of sport contest, results in behavior reflecting one’s character, for better and worse.

In the second article, “Servant Leadership and Principal Preparation: A Christian University Perspective” authors Michael Hylen and Lewis Willan report on research designed to evaluate five dispositional skills associated with servant leadership—moral/ethical integrity; spiritual sensitivity and purpose; respect and compassion for others; personal and emotional wellness; and, passion for teaching. Their focus on servant leadership equates virtuous leadership with higher levels of job satisfaction for both leader and follower, mutual trust, and general productivity within a culture of positive relationship. Study results suggest that dispositions can be strongly influenced in the areas of (1) respect and compassion for others, (2) personal and emotional wellness and vitality, (3) passion for teaching, and (4) spiritual sensitivity and purpose. This last topic—spiritual sensitivity—is often left out of discussion in nonreligious settings, but the authors suggests it includes such things as (a) feeling called to teaching, (b) being able to give good/sound advice, (c) knowing one’s purpose in life, and (d) having a mission and vision for life. As they insist, these are skills and dispositions that leaders clearly need to possess, by whatever name.

In the third article, “The Case for Considering Intellectual Virtues in Educational Leadership Preparation Program Curriculum and Pedagogy,” authors John Pijanowski and Lara Lasater argue that good science and good leadership share a need for intellectual virtue. Critiquing skill-based approaches to leadership as too rote, and hence too limiting, the authors articulate that the dynamics involved in school leadership are messy, unpredictable, and “wicked” in the sense of demanding “a multiplicity of insights, perspectives, and approaches, used intersectionally together within increasingly dynamic contexts.” This complexity requires a versatile mastery “for contextually sensitive reflection, deliberation, and judgment in the actual various and varying … contexts.” This can be accomplished, they argue, through the cultivation of intellectual virtue as a part of virtuous leadership.

In the fourth article, “Virtue as Emergence From Contemplative Practices,” authors Jing Lin, Tom Culham, and Charles Scott explore how meditative and contemplative practices form an essential practice in virtuous leadership. Virtuous leadership is here expressed in terms of developing integrity among heart, mind, and spirit resulting in one’s conscience being an embodied understanding of virtue. Virtuous leaders are said to strive for enlightening through self-cultivation—and that when virtue is perfected, wisdom emerges. In brief, virtuous behavior will flow naturally from a person embodying integrity, mindfulness, humility, and compassion. In Buddhist traditions it is emphasized that contemplation allows one to align oneself with a nondualistic awareness, much discussed by sages, more closely approximating the nature of Reality. Virtuous leadership is discussed in terms of cultivating one’s being rather than one’s doing, though engaging in practices of contemplation brings about scientifically validated changes in both the brains and the behavior of adherents. Meditation engages links between the heart and the brain, deepening the integration of one’s being, inner awareness, and compassionate self-regulation. Contemplative states, in summary, support states of consciousness and virtue integration that allow us to awaken to our truer selves, our inner goodness, and our connection to the universal Tao. This supports virtuous leadership through developing inner strength and calm.

In the fifth article, “Contributions of Catholic Sisters in Africa as Virtuous Leaders,” authors Sneh Akruvala, Nicole Warrick, Amara Chukwunenye, Briana Luppino, Kristina Valdez, and Victoria Kelly describe how Sisters work closely with “disadvantaged and marginalized groups facing societal challenges that exist in Africa.” This mission puts them in social situations to affect real educational and public health change, but requires a host of virtues to embody their leadership. They report that “Catholic Sisters exemplify the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance (self-control) and fortitude (courage) and the theological virtues of poverty, chastity and obedience.” Additionally, Sisters commit to the community they serve, and to improving themselves as virtuous leaders. They have developed training programs to disseminate leadership—The Sisters Leadership Development Initiative and the Higher Education for Sisters in Africa program. These “aim to enhance self-confidence, practical skills, mentorship and collaborative abilities, and empower Sisters as leaders and agents of change.” Sisters can spend up to ten years developing these virtues. Perhaps the most important thing to know about their practice, after their commitment to community is their dedication to their own continuous self-improvement.

In the sixth article, “Developing Military Leaders of Character: The Sample Case of LTG Robert Caslen,” authors Michael Matthews, Diane Ryan, and Richard Lerner review recent systemic changes in the culture of West Point regarding the development of virtuous leaders. The new focus: (1) live honorably; (2) lead honorably; and (3) demonstrate excellence, point up the holistic nature of the task at hand, ensuring practical excellence and moral excellence both. The authors articulate that West Point aims to support the students’ cognitive growth, intending to help them enter the “self-authored” stage of development, with an internalized moral compass. Great emphasis is placed in their training on the interpersonal relationships they have with teachers, mentors, and commanding officers as this approach recognizes the centrality of participating in a community of common belief. Virtuous leadership is discussed and studied, but in equal measure it is observed, and opportunities are made for each student to get practice leading. Their strong well thought-out community of practice is key to bringing to life an otherwise two-dimensional list of aspirations and code of ethics.

In the seventh article, “Rachel Carson and the Development of Earth Stewards,” author W. George Scarlett takes up the domain of virtuous leadership through illuminating Carson’s ethical-spiritual perspectives on the natural world. Carson articulated ways to assist people, even young children, in having meaningful experiences of the natural world that cultivate a sense of wonder, of awe, and ultimately of oneness with the natural world. This understanding of oneness, she argues, is more adequate, more informed, and more realistic than alternatives and important to help people avoid a sense of disconnection from the natural world. Virtuous leadership may be informed by many ways of knowing, and here the author illuminates Carson’s emphasis on intuitive understanding. A respect for intuitive understanding is necessary because an ecosystems perspective recognizes that there are too many dynamics at play to rationally capture the complexity. Lastly, the author explores Carson’s conception of being a steward of the Earth and what virtuous leadership entails with regard to this most vital responsibility.

In the eighth article, “Promoting Ethical Leaders: Designing and Structuring Undergraduate Internships With an Ethical Focus,” author Elizabeth Matteo reports that internships are one of several high impact practices related to deep learning. Emphasizing the experiential side of becoming a leader, their program support includes a professional mentor relationship to help guide the student through this journey. Another aspect of the journey to become a virtuous leader is the development of moral identity, and this curriculum is designed to engage students in a critical reassessment of all aspects of their moral identity embodied in their leadership.

In the ninth article, “To Would-Be Teachers: A Message From Booker T. Washington,” author Bret Grant conveys Washington’s articulated vision of virtuous leadership. At the heart of what he taught is the idea that persons of good character are both morally self-cultivating and willing to sacrifice for the good of the community. A significant distinction is illuminated between virtuousness requiring self-denial (a healthy constraining of ego desires in developing character) versus self-negation (an unhealthy diminishment of oneself that is disempowering). Washington’s own virtuous leadership was demonstrated through his self-sacrifice in service to others in establishing and leading the Tuskegee Institute. Perhaps the first character educator to use this metaphor, Washington framed character development as always involving the head, the heart, and the hand, thereby emphasizing the holistic and complexly real-world nature of determining and embodying virtuous behavior. Virtuous leaders are humble, he emphasized, in fact, humility is the hallmark of knowledge. Washington suggested that the more one learns, the more one can readily see how little one really knows of all there is to know. He suggested, ironically, that one should remain in school until one feels one knows nothing completely, and is therefore prepared to learn from anyone.

This introduction is not meant to summarize what is being said by these several authors regarding the many aspects of virtuous leadership raised. Rather, this is simply highlighting some of the aspects of virtuous leadership involved in the issue. We hope that this special issue draws needed attention to the conceptualization of, training in, and expectations regarding virtuous leadership.