Leadership as a philosophical attitude – a qualitative study of reflective practice in everyday working life

This article is about leadership as a philosophical attitude. Leadership touches on fundamental questions that humans ask themselves. For instance, what are the goals and purposes of humans and human organisations – and how are these achieved? Classical philosophers like Aristotle focus on the cultivation of virtuous character traits like courage, temperance, wisdom and understanding (Hackett and Wang, 2012). However, Aristotle’s virtue ethics saw humility as a weakness (Kelemen et al., 2023). Kant and his deontological ethics meant on his part that humility is an important virtue that allows individuals to have a proper perspective of themselves (Greenberg, 2005). Aristotle’s reflections about the greatness of the soul as a summit of virtues highlights remarkable human types “whose leadership resonates beyond their times” (Cusher and Menaldo, 2021, p. 94). Most leaders are normal people performing their jobs in everyday working life attempting “to navigate the pressures and temptations of organizational life by sticking to a core set of values and principles” (Gardner et al., 2021, p. 3). Employees often desire moral leadership and leaders who are skilled in making difficult ethical choices (Cusher and Menaldo, 2021). These choices, and their practical consequences, often reflect the leaders’ philosophical attitudes.

The main contribution of this study is to explore how leadership as a philosophical attitude can add new dimensions to existing theories. Traditional theories of leadership often focus on leadership as a set of skills, behaviours or traits. These theories emphasise the leader’s ability to influence, motivate and lead employees towards specific goals (Yukl and Gardner, 2020). This study offers an approach that sees leadership not just as a functional role but also as an attitude characterised by reflection, values and ethics. Leadership as a philosophical attitude implies that leaders not only act from strategic considerations (Mintzberg et al., 2009) but also from a basic set of personal values and principles (Hanson and Krishek, 2022).

The site of this study is the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). NAV’s social task is to provide social and financial security and to facilitate the transition into work and activity for the citizens of Norway (NAV, 2023). NAV was established on 1 July 2006 and administers around one-third of the state budget via schemes such as facilitated work, unemployment benefits, work assessment allowances, sickness benefits, pensions, financial and social assistance, parental benefits, child benefits and cash-for-care benefits (NAV, 2023).

Leaders’ philosophical attitudes can be decisive for effectiveness, relations with employees and overall organisational performance. Different leadership styles are categorised in the research literature, but there is a gap associated with the broader implications of leadership as a philosophical attitude. Thus, the research question is, how can leadership as a philosophical attitude contribute to a deeper understanding of leaders’ work in various contexts?

The dominant perspective on leadership is a functional one in which “the goal is to increase the efficiency, and effectiveness of leadership” (Kjellström et al., 2020, p. 437). From this perspective, the objective is organisational performance, and the leader must “build and retain leadership capability in a way that maximizes the productivity in the firm” (Mabey, 2013, p. 363).

Attitudes can be referred to as an “evaluation of an object in terms of the degree of it being favorable or unfavorable” (Lee et al., 2015, p. 911). Therefore, leadership perceptions can be seen as an attitude towards the leader (Lee et al., 2015). Recognising and reflecting on the gap between what one thinks is one’s attitude and what the attitude is can be essential for leaders deeper learning, both personally and professionally (Argyris and Schön, 1996). Policies can also be subjected to this type of evaluation and create a divergence between what is expected and what is reality (Aviram et al., 2021).

Organisations are made up of people (Mintzberg, 2023). The term “leadership” refers to a process that involves a basic view of humanity, an ethical grounded mindset and human maturation; not just the acquisition of theoretical and technical knowledge (Ellingsen et al., 2022). This process reveals a philosophical attitude to life and a search for one’s true self as Kierkegaard expresses it (Hanson and Krishek, 2022). Kirkegaard’s existentialism is practically applied by leaders’ efforts to define their leadership and how philosophical attitudes can manifest in concrete behaviours and organisational outcomes. On one hand, an existential aspiration for authenticity that indicates, despite its subjective aspects, a deeper connection to the personal and ethical dimensions of leader’s work (Lemoine et al., 2019). On the other hand, virtue ethics shown in leadership virtues such as openness, humility, self-control, forgiveness and a willingness to learn and change, who are important prerequisites for human insight and growth (Yukl and Gardner, 2020; Oc et al., 2015).

It is legitimate to ask if the existentialist focus on authenticity and the lived character of the leader’s perspective is compatible with the more steady and unchanging character of virtue ethics? Antich asks this question and claims that existentialism “can allow for a distinctive virtue ethics of its own” which allows us to ground virtue ethics also on “essential structures of experience” (Antich, 2023, p. 20). Experience is, however, not a guarantee for learning, but intentional and critical reflection on experiences can lead to positive learning outcomes (Fook and Askeland, 2007). A key element in leadership development is examining own experiences, thoughts, behaviours and attitudes to acknowledge problems, reassess assumptions, consider alternatives and develop new perspectives (Wei, 2024). This kind of reflective practice can bridge the lived work life of leaders and their virtues by self-assessment and self-awareness, and when used systematically, changes in behaviour and attitudes are more likely to occur (Castelli, 2016; Argyris and Schön, 1996).

Reflective practice is necessary for leaders to assess their philosophical attitudes, and decisions of principle can be an “advance in the formation of moral thinking” (Anscombe, 1958, p. 19). Authentic or servant leadership are examples of styles who “parallel reflective leadership as they rely heavily on self-awareness, mindfulness, wisdom and good judgement” (Castelli, 2016, p. 218). By integrating virtue ethics into leadership practices and interpersonal relationships, organisations can create a culture that values integrity and ethical conduct (Hackett and Wang, 2012; Scalzo et al., 2023).

Moral-oriented leadership styles emphasise ethical behaviour, integrity and a commitment to values such as fairness, justice and respect for individuals (Yukl and Gardner, 2020). These leadership styles consist of authentic, ethical and servant leadership (Lemoine et al., 2019). Kelemen et al. (2023, p. 204) propose that humble leadership is added to the framework of moral-oriented leadership approaches. Each leadership style overlaps but represents a unique philosophical attitude towards how leaders should engage with their employees, emphasising particular values, behaviours and goals (Kelemen et al., 2023).

Authentic leadership is a kind of leadership that can develop trust and commitment among employees because they perceive their leader as someone who operates with integrity and relational transparency (Bradley et al., 2022). Existentialist philosophy, rooted in the works of thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger, emphasises individual responsibility, authenticity and freedom of choice (Antich, 2023; Russo, 2021). In the context of leadership, an existential approach underscores the importance of authentic leadership in which individuals align their actions with their core values, motives, emotions and goals; fostering a sense of purpose and integrity for the benefit of the organisation (Sumanth et al., 2023; Gardner et al., 2011). Effective leaders are skilled in making decisions but are also individuals with authenticity and strong ethical foundations (Lemoine et al., 2019).

Ethical leaders not only make decisions based on ethical principles but also serve as role models, inspiring others to uphold high moral standards (Gardner et al., 2011). This type of leader attaches great importance to ethics and moral principles, maintaining compliance with normative standards in decision-making processes and daily operations (Madsen and Hasle, 2017; Lemoine et al., 2019). Nevertheless, this can be challenging given the enormous diversity in organisational cultures, subcultures and moral values (Benton and Craib, 2011). A diversity where a more relational and HR-based leadership approach alongside compliance can foster commitment and a working environment which is important for employees’ motivation, well-being and productivity (Madsen and Hasle, 2017).

The diversity and complexity in organisations can be an argument for a humbler approach to leadership. Humble leadership emphasises modesty, humility, recognising one’s limitations and valuing others’ contributions (Oc et al., 2015). This leadership style is quite like authentic leadership and focuses on the leader’s self-awareness but also “on modeling their respective leadership behaviours to followers” (Kelemen et al., 2023, p. 204). Authentic leaders do not necessarily need to be humble (Owens and Hekman, 2012). Philosophically, humble leadership reflects an attitude of continuous improvement, innovation and respect for others; promoting a culture where the team constantly seeks ways to improve processes and work methods (Zhou and Wu, 2018).

Servant leadership prioritise the needs and well-being of their employees and seek to develop and empower them, promoting their personal and professional growth in an ethical manner (Yukl and Gardner, 2020; Scalzo et al., 2023; Greenleaf, 1977). Servant leaders want to engage employees in relational, ethical, emotional and spiritual ways (Eva et al., 2019). The psychological needs of employees are a goal and servant leaders have an inner conviction to make a positive difference for them (Van Dierendonck, 2011). When leaders’ priorities their employee’s well-being and growth, they in turn are more engaged and effective in their work (Eva et al., 2019).

Contingency approaches include situational aspects of leadership styles (Yukl and Gardner, 2020). Inclusive leadership focuses on creating an organisational environment and culture in which diversity is valued and integrated, and where marginalised social identity groups are included (Shore and Chung, 2022). This leadership style is grounded in a philosophy of equity and respect for individual differences, where leaders focus on structures, arrangements and systems to value diversity while making differences among employees possible (Roberson and Perry, 2022). Edmondson (2019) has shown how leaders can be inclusive and create an organisational environment characterised by approachability and psychological safety by being available and accessible to employees.

Democratic leadership involves shared decision-making and active participation from employees by engaging them in dialogue and communication within the frame of existing organisational structures, discourses and hierarchies (Barthold et al., 2022). Democratic leaders are preferred for managing public dilemmas because they reflect values of collaboration, equality and collective input; which also garners support from citizens (Caillier, 2020). Public sector organisations consist of many goals and tasks that are basically contradictory, requiring ambidextrous leaders whose philosophical attitudes enable them to optimise and create innovative policies, processes and services (Gieske et al., 2020).

Ambidextrous leadership balances the need for innovation with the need for efficiency (Jia et al., 2022). This leadership style is underpinned by a philosophical attitude that values adaptability while balancing different types of leadership behaviours (Zacher and Rosing, 2015). Opening leadership behaviours, which encourage independent thinking and autonomy, help to foster an empowering organisational climate. Closing leadership behaviours focusing on correctives, guidelines and goal achievement encourage a culture of sharing internal knowledge, information and tasks (Rosing et al., 2011; Jia et al., 2022). Leaders in ambidextrous organisations must balance these behaviours (Zacher and Rosing, 2015).

Leadership can also be destructive (Yukl and Gardner, 2020). Laissez-faire is a leadership style which is generally considered as ineffective and characterised by avoidance and absence of constructive behaviour (Zhang et al., 2023). Laissez-faire leaders abrogate their responsibilities and avoid making decisions. As a result, the employees can often lack direction (Robert and Vandenberghe, 2021). Despite this, laissez-faire leadership style allows freedom and might have positive effects depending on employee’s goal orientation and challenge appraisal (Zhang et al., 2023).

These examples of different leadership styles are not complementary to the entire field of leadership research, but moral-oriented leadership styles and contingency approaches is a theoretical framework which show how philosophical attitudes can be expressed in different ways. Authentic leadership focuses for instance on self-awareness, self-regulation and ethically grounded individuals, although ethical leadership is more concerned about compliance to external expectations and normative standards (Lemoine et al., 2019). Contingency approaches can have moral dimensions, but they each emphasise different situational aspects, and rely on reflective practice to make use in everyday working life (Castelli, 2016). Still, “there is a risk of yet another ideological, romantic version of the good leadership leading to all the good outcomes” (Gardner et al., 2021, p. 23; Learmont and Morrell, 2019). A way to avoid romanticisation is to consider dissensual practices in for instance democratic leadership as “the only way in which certain people and groups are able to exercise agency in the face of a power that does not recognise them as legitimate interlocutors” (Barthold et al., 2022, p. 687).

The purpose of this study is to research experiences, interactions and processes. A qualitative method was chosen to capture the opinions and experiences of the interviewees (Merriam, 2015; Creswell and Poth, 2018). This article is based on a thematic analysis of 16 qualitative research interviews with leaders within NAV from the “Leadership and client orientation in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV)” research programme from 2016 to 2018. The study was part of a series of studies within NAV that ran until 2019/2020. The project was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD, which is now a part of the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Sikt). The research design led to the use of semi-structured qualitative interviews with follow-up questions to collect and analyse the opinions and experiences of the interviewees (Merriam, 2015; Crabtree and Miller, 2022).

The sample comprises 16 qualitative interviews with leaders within NAV. The interviews were conducted with four NAV heads of office, four department leaders and eight team leaders, comprised of five men and 11 women. The leaders were recruited through a strategic selection based on two inclusion criteria: (1) being leaders within NAV; and (2) being within the age range of 35–65 years. The study did not focus on gender aspects. The interviewees in the survey come from small (5), medium-sized (3) and large (8) NAV offices in Norway.

The interviews were conducted at the interviewee’s office or one nearby, except for four interviews that were conducted at Østfold University College, Fredrikstad Norway. The interviews were recorded as audio files using a Dictaphone. In the invitation to the interview, the interviewees received information about the study and a written declaration of consent. Before each interview, the interviewees were informed about what was going to happen. The researchers reiterated the purpose of the study and the content of the written information that the interviewees had received in advance. This meant an opportunity to withdraw at any time during the interview. The interviews were based on an interview guide, and the researchers asked follow-up questions along the way when central themes were touched upon or the interviewees were unsure of what to answer.

The interview guide comprised a mix of general questions and more detailed follow-up questions covering the following aspects of leadership within NAV (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Patton, 2015).

1. Cognitive aspects: understanding, internal logic, perception and descriptions of leadership within NAV

2. Emotional aspects: feelings and attitudes related to leadership within NAV

3. Actions related to leadership within NAV

The transcriptions of the interviews were in standard written language. Cumulatively, the interviews amount to 13 h of audio recording and 80 pages of transcribed text. I used thematic analysis to explore the transcriptions (Braun and Clarke, 2022). The interviews were read thoroughly after transcription to establish a holistic overview of the content (Crabtree and Miller, 2022). Then the interviews were read to find keywords and pieces of information that were interesting and could be important to answering the research question (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Codes that belonged together formed the main categories in a process called “analytical coding” (Merriam, 2015). After that, the categories were refined and defined, and the analyses were checked in relation to both the coded extracts and the entire dataset. Finally, the main themes were defined and named to be included in the findings of the article (Patton, 2015). An example of this process is how keywords like “reflection”, “relations” and “training” formed the category “insight into themselves” and finally the main theme “Leadership and personal development”. The relevance of the main themes was validated by presenting and discussing them with representatives of NAV. The analysis of the interviews was done as openly as possible and without a hypothesis to avoid confirmation bias (Maxwell, 2013) – so it can be said that the analysis was an inductive process (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Hart, 2018).

All of the participants were anonymised and treated confidentially. The audio recordings of the interviews were stored on an external hard drive, which was locked in a safe in the project manager’s office until they were transcribed and deleted. In accordance with the approval from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD), the transcribed material was only read by the researchers.

The findings suggest that leadership as a philosophical attitude intertwine with personal development in NAV. By embracing a leadership mindset grounded in philosophical attitudes, leaders in the study are prompted to reflect on their values, beliefs and the impact of their actions on themselves and their employees. This approach to leadership fosters self-awareness, self-improvement and a commitment to learning for both leaders and employees (Mabey, 2013; Argyris and Schön, 1996), as this quote from a research participant shows:

This kind of self-awareness and valuing others’ contributions is a philosophical attitude that is seen not only in authentic, humble and servant leadership styles but also in inclusive leadership styles, where diversity is appreciated and integrated (Oc et al., 2015; Zhou and Wu, 2018; Shore and Chung, 2022). At the same time, leaders involved in the study have expressed moral standards in their decision-making processes and daily operations when they expect employee loyalty to decisions. This loyalty can also be seen as compliance with ethics, moral principles and the organisational logic within NAV (Madsen and Hasle, 2017; Lemoine et al., 2019). On one hand, the intersection of leadership and personal development emphasises the transformative nature of philosophical attitudes. On the other hand, leaders in the study address authenticity when they create relational bonds with their employees not only to motivate them but also to develop organisational functioning and effectiveness (Kjellström et al., 2020).

The quote above shows the diversity among employees. It also shows the need for customisation to different organisational needs and different leader behaviours through elements of ambidextrous and inclusive leadership (Mintzberg, 2023; Jia et al., 2022; Edmondson, 2019). These philosophical attitudes value individual attention, adaptability and the balancing of different leader behaviours; aligning them with structures, arrangements and systems to value diversity; and making differences among employees possible (Zacher and Rosing, 2015; Roberson and Perry, 2022). Leaders who engage in self-reflection and continuously assess their values and beliefs may be better positioned for personal growth and to handle organisational diversity (Gardner et al., 2011; Benton and Craib, 2011; Shore and Chung, 2022). According to leaders in the study, this involves an ongoing process of learning, adapting and refining one’s leadership approach and impact on organisational performance within NAV. This also applies to those who have a different view of the leaders and express opposition, as this statement testifies:

The above quote also shows both dissensus and dialogic communication which is seen in a more critical perspective on democratic leadership (Barthold et al., 2022). It also shows a pragmatic view of leaders’ work where they need to get processes going and not dwell on decisions.

The leaders in the study express that leader training is vital to leadership and personal development. They are not so concerned with formal leader training but emphasise the importance of internal programmes within NAV that take leadership seriously and make them better able to reflect on their own actions. This, they believe, makes them empowered leaders “who dare to care”. It is an interesting finding that these leaders experience a kind of perceived procedural empowerment through internal leadership programmes.

The leaders in the study work at both small and large NAV offices, which affects their opportunities and how they interact with their employees within the frame of existing organisational structures and hierarchies (Barthold et al., 2022). Leaders from small offices find it easier to be present for their employees than leaders in large offices with many employees. One of the leaders from a small office says the following:

The leaders in all NAV offices in the study are concerned about keeping employees safe. They want to help them flourish in a way that brings out employee’s good qualities by putting them on the right tasks. That’s when they see growth and personal development (Antich, 2023; Russo, 2021). This is a kind of servant leadership where employee’s well-being and growth are prioritised (Eva et al., 2019; van Dierendonck, 2011; Greenleaf, 1977). This may seem obviously right but is also a romantic and idealistic view of the intensions with their leadership (Learmont and Morrell, 2019). Is it possible that vaster workload and high demands of production also put its mark on every day working life by the priorities and decisions being taken? Anyway, it seems like the development of leadership effectiveness and the employees’ personal development are strongly linked when individuals align their actions with their core values, motives, emotions and goals (Sumanth et al., 2023; Gardner et al., 2011; Rosing et al., 2011).

This study indicates that experienced leaders within NAV are motivated by their social responsibilities to include their employees by reflecting and finding solutions to problems they encounter, such as arrangements at the workplace to avoid sick leave. The leaders in the study want to be involved and present for their employees and in a way that contributes to a good working day. To that end, they also cultivate approachability and psychological safety (Edmondson, 2019). By emphasising their social responsibilities, they also reveal their philosophical attitudes and basic view of humanity, how they think about their employees and their human maturation both personally and as leaders (Ellingsen et al., 2022; Hackett and Wang, 2012).

Leaders in smaller offices express that presence and proximity to their employees also gets them closer to their users. The leaders show elements of democratic leadership when they talk about building a strong follow-up methodology and organisational climate while being less bureaucratic than NAV is perceived to be. This is their perception, and it can be questioned whether the users feel closer to NAV, or whether they experience dissensus and conflict, and not purely dialogic communication in the face of NAVs power, like its described also by Barthold et al. (2022, p. 687).

The leaders in the study who work at larger offices talk more about organisational development and their relations to their inner circle within the team. There seems to be some competition between teams in relation to case management and deadlines (Zhang et al., 2023). At the same time, the leaders focus on maintaining quality and having enough people to meet the deadlines. Several of the leaders express that it is important to jointly develop an organisational climate that addresses the needs of both leaders and employees to avoid turnover. One of the leaders expresses this in a good way: “I have my team who, in a way, talk upwards through me, and then I have the leaders above me who manage downwards through me as well”. This simultaneously shows the vulnerable position of middle managers and their importance to organisational performance and efficiency, as this quote also shows:

The face-to-face aspect is very important to the leaders in the study, and being close to their employees secures commitment and acceptance within the organisation. Unlike a somewhat distant relationship characterised by rationality and rule-following (Madsen and Hasle, 2017). Several of the leaders in larger offices talk about “the principle of the open door” as a way of being present for their employees, being a discussion partner in difficult matters and taking part in difficult conversations with users. A practise which can help to optimise and innovate processes and services within NAV (Gieske et al., 2020). These are also examples of the authentic and lived character of leader’s everyday life and not a romantic idealised version where all answers are obvious and leading to the good outcomes (Hanson and Krishek, 2022; Gardner et al., 2021). Still, an “open door” can also be viewed as a romantic ideal (Learmont and Morrell, 2019), and not a guarantee of good communication in itself (Barthold et al., 2022).

The quote above aligns well with a philosophical attitude that develops trust and commitment among team members by showing integrity and transparency (Bradley et al., 2022). It is also an example of how virtues are embodied by the leaders in the study (Hackett and Wang, 2012). Effective leadership based on ethically grounded decisions requires role models that inspire employees to uphold high moral standards (Gardner et al., 2011; Scalzo et al., 2023).

Beyond personal development and employee engagement, leaders in the study also see themselves as playing a role in community and societal progress, and they are dedicated to the relational side of their social mission. These aspects of the job are also described as an important reason why they applied for it as this quote shows:

When leaders talk about their jobs in these terms, they extend their influence beyond individual and organisational spheres to impact societal progress (Mintzberg, 2023; Caillier, 2020). This is an expression of a philosophical attitude where leaders act as catalysts for positive societal change. At the same time, they feel pressured by the same society to maintain high productivity and show good economic results. This is perceived as ethically challenging because they work with people, not products.

The leaders in the study specifically describe tough priorities in the gap between the social mission and user needs as one of the most difficult aspects of the job. They still show compliance with the mission they are given (Madsen and Hasle, 2017). These challenges require not only moral leadership but also integrity and transparency (Aviram et al., 2021; Bradley et al., 2022). Discussing the practical impact of difficult ethical choices within NAV shows elements of both ethical and ambidextrous leadership, which can contribute to a clearer understanding of the complexity and purpose of the work (Gardner et al., 2011; Zacher and Rosing, 2015; Jia et al., 2022). A prerequisite is that leaders reflect upon these challenges and develop insight into themselves and their relationships with their employees when priorities are tough and productivity requirements are high.

Still, it is unfair to attribute the burden of societal challenges to individuals and claim that authenticity, democracy and transparency will solve these challenges (Gardner et al., 2021; Barthold et al., 2022). Especially when situational pressures force NAV leaders to make difficult ethical choices in the gap between their social mission, economics and user needs in their everyday working life (Caillier, 2020; Sumanth et al., 2023). A gap which can be bridged by reflective practice in the intersection between experiences and the lived character of leaders working life, and the cultivation of virtuous character traits like courage, temperance, wisdom and understanding (Argyris and Schön, 1996; Fook and Askeland, 2007; Hanson and Krishek, 2022; Wei, 2024; Hackett and Wang, 2012).

The importance of reflecting upon personal and existential dimensions of leadership is vital for all leadership training, development and education (Hanson and Krishak, 2022). Leaders need to find their own personal way within the concept of leadership as a philosophical attitude, separate from the acquisition of theoretical and technical knowledge (Ellingsen et al., 2022; Barthold et al., 2022). A reflective practice where key questions are: “who am I as a leader?”, “how do I want to appear as a leader?”, “what is my personal and professional values and principles as a leader?”, “how can my philosophical attitude as a leader contribute to organisational effectiveness in the best possible way?”

Table 1 summarises the concept of leadership as a philosophical attitude in relation to moral and contingency aspects of leadership, and the findings of this study.

The ambition of this study has not been to verify whether there is a match between what the leaders say and what they do. In that sense, the study has focused on understanding social actions from the actors’ perspective and the lived character of the leader’s perspective (Patton, 2015; Hanson and Krishak, 2022). The reasons for their actions can vary and the researchers understanding, and interpretation can be predicated on that person’s knowledge and identity (Turner, 2019; Patton, 2015).

The sample comprises 16 qualitative interviews which increase the risk of overinterpretation by drawing broad and generalised conclusions beyond what the study’s findings can support (Patton, 2015). In that sense, reflections upon one’s perceptions and attitudes as a researcher have been vital to reduce this kind of bias (Denzin, 2009). The analysis was also an inductive process to minimise confirmation bias (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Maxwell, 2013). Participant bias is another possible limitation if the leaders present themselves in a favourable way (Maxwell, 2013). An example is the sometimes-romantic view of the intentions with the interviewee’s leadership. The study’s use of semi-structured qualitative interviews with follow-up and critical questions is a way of addressing this concern (Merriam, 2015; Crabtree and Miller, 2022). Despite these limitations, the findings are based on what the interviewees say, critical questions are asked and the research design has been approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD).

Leadership as a philosophical attitude highlights reflective practice in everyday working life. Future research may explore how leadership as a philosophical attitude can be further implemented in practice and its long-term effects on organisational culture, employee motivation and overall well-being at work.

Leadership is a philosophical attitude and more than just a functional role, but it is not a fixed concept. It is an ongoing reflective practice of learning, adapting and refining one’s approach and impact on organisational performance. Leadership as a philosophical attitude can be seen as a hybrid of traits, behaviours and situational aspects which incorporates moral-oriented and contingency approaches to leadership. This study indicates that leaders who reflect on their actions, who are open to different viewpoints and try to match what they do with their deeper convictions reveal their philosophical attitudes related to authenticity, transparency and ethical conduct.