Civil Economy and Organisation: Towards Ethical Business Management [1 ed.] 9783030590215, 9783030590222

Table of contents :
Preface
Research Aims and Objectives
The Civil Economy Tradition
The Structure of the Book
References
Acknowledgments
Contents
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Premise: The Civil Economy Perspective
1.1 The Civil Economy Approach: Genovesi’s Anthropological Vision of the Person and the Naples Tradition of Civil Economy
1.2 The Notion of “Unconditional Reciprocity” (Agape) in a Civil-Economic Perspective
1.3 Sen’s Capability Approach and the Concept of “Civil Happiness”
1.4 The Links Between the Aristotelian-Thomistic Tradition and Civil Economy
References
Chapter 2: Towards an Agapic Leadership
2.1 The Theological-Philosophical Notion of Agape
2.2 The Agapic Leadership
2.2.1 Method
2.2.1.1 Context and Sample
2.2.1.2 Data Analysis
2.2.2 Findings
2.2.2.1 Sharing Everything
2.2.2.2 Adoption of the Logic of Subsidiarity
2.2.2.3 Fostering Reciprocal Learning
2.3 The Agape-Based Organization
References
Chapter 3: Towards a Liberating Leadership
3.1 Sen’s Capability Approach as a Theory for Liberated Companies
3.2 The Notion of Freedom and Its Application Within Organizations
3.3 Freedom and Liberating Leadership
References
Chapter 4: Towards a Docile Relational Leadership
4.1 The Virtue of Docility in Thomas Aquinas
4.2 Virtues in Leadership Studies
4.2.1 Moral Leadership
4.2.2 Ethical Leadership
4.2.3 Spiritual Leadership
4.2.4 Servant Leadership
4.2.5 Charismatic Leadership
4.2.6 Transformational Leadership
4.2.7 Responsible Leadership
4.2.8 Contemplative Leadership
4.3 The Docile Relational Leader
4.3.1 Final Remarks: Docile Relational Leaders for VUCA and NFWO
References
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Future Research Prospects
References
Index

Citation preview

Civil Economy and Organisation Towards Ethical Business Management

Roberta Sferrazzo

Civil Economy and Organisation

Roberta Sferrazzo

Civil Economy and Organisation Towards Ethical Business Management

Roberta Sferrazzo Department of Management Audencia Business School Nantes, France

ISBN 978-3-030-59021-5    ISBN 978-3-030-59022-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59022-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Research Aims and Objectives In this book, I will try to go beyond the classic organizational and managerial logic focused exclusively on “bureaucracy,” “hierarchical control,” and “performance,” by considering these managerial leverages as instruments that are liable to generate a loss of gratuity in workers’ behaviors. Currently, several scholars are trying to re-conceptualize management assumptions in different ways (Ghoshal 2005; Gladwin et al. 1995; Hahn et al. 2010). For example, some academics are following this direction by proposing a humanistic management style (Acevedo 2012; Dierksmeier 2016; Melé 2003; Melé and Schlag 2015; Pirson 2017; Spitzech 2011), focusing on the promotion of “human dignity” in management theory. Moreover, other scholars argue that no organization can work exclusively based on contracts and that all organizations need motivation that goes beyond profit and material incentives (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005; Bruni and Smerilli 2009; Pirson 2017). People do not only follow the logic of homo oeconomicus in business organizations insofar as they are influenced not only by the aim of making profit, but also by emotions, feelings and other irrational elements (Nugent and Abolafia 2006; Simon 1955, 1957, 1987; Thaler 2016). In this book, I share the position of these academics by proposing a shift from a company based on the aforementioned traditional leverages, to another type of organization, one that is based on self-control, equality, and liberation. I used an interdisciplinary approach to achieve this, recalling some concepts belonging to other research fields, such as philosophy, v

vi 

PREFACE

sociology, anthropology and psychology. In my view, the use of an interdisciplinary approach constitutes one of the strength points both of this book and of future research on management and organization studies. I think that a “leadership and managerial revolution” is necessary to create a culture of collaboration and sharing to face the challenges of our complex, volatile and turbulent business environment. Specifically, these four book’s chapters show organizational behaviors and leadership styles that appear more coherent with the Civil Economy approach. I will examine this in further depth below.

The Civil Economy Tradition In the last decade, scholars have rediscovered the Italian tradition of Civil Economy and the different vision of the market it offers, one that is anchored on reciprocal assistance in market exchange relationships. So far, scholars are discussing Civil Economy especially in the fields of the history of economic though and in economics and philosophy (Becchetti and Cermelli 2018; Bruni 2013; Bruni and Porta 2003; Bruni and Sugden 2000, 2008; Bruni and Zamagni 2016; Pabst 2018). Nevertheless, this book proposes looking also at business ethics and organizational studies through the lens of Civil Economy, especially considering the notion of virtue provided by civil economists. In particular, I set forth an organizational model that derives from Civil Economy, i.e. the agape-based organization1 (Sferrazzo 2019, 2020). The Civil Economy Italian tradition was born in Italy in the eighteenth century, founded by Antonio Genovesi (1713–1769) after having obtained the first chair in Economics at the University of Naples. I think it is important to rediscover the thought of this Italian civil economist for business ethics and organizational studies, especially for his vision centered on “reciprocity” in market exchanges, which in my opinion can be applied also to social relations within organizations. Genovesi’s account of human nature derives from the Mediterranean tradition. Using Newtonian motifs, Genovesi argues in his Diocesina that two forces govern the social nature of humankind: “self-love (forza concentriva)” and “love of others (forza diffusiva)” (D’Onofrio 2015: 457;

1

 For more details concerning the ‘agape-based organization’ see Sferrazzo (2019, 2020).

 PREFACE 

vii

Genovesi 1973: 42–43; cf. Guasti 2006: 392–393).2 In the Lezioni, he calls these two forces the “forza coattiva” (coercive force) and “forza diffusiva” (directive force). He points out that “those who pretend that one of these forces is born from the other are mistaken […] These two forces in us are both primitive and tied together” (Genovesi 1973: 42). In fact, he stresses: “Two opposing forces are in the heart of man in all circumstances of this world, the concentrative and the diffusive… each of these forces operating alone destroys man: the concentrative force isolates him from his fellow men; the diffusive force disconnects him from himself and destroys him” (Genovesi 1779: 203–204). Therefore, Genovesi’s theory of action is based on the idea that any phenomenon, whether human, social, or physical, can be understood as an equilibrium between these two forces, namely the attractive and the repulsive. All this highlights the differences between Genovesi and both Mandeville’s and Hobbes’ egoistic conceptions of man. In fact, Genovesi argues: “Hobbes founds all on forza concentriva, and the forza diffusiva springs only from a higher degree of the concentriva, that is fear” (Genovesi 1766: 36). Moreover, in Genovesi’s view, economic relations are founded on reciprocal assistance, which means that each agent helps the others to satisfy their desires. In this manner, he emphasized economic relationships directed toward both public happiness and civic virtues, claiming: “nothing is truer: the first spring of art, opulence, happiness of every nation is the good custom and virtue” (Genovesi 1824: 210). Today, some scholars (Anderson 1993; Sandel 2012, 2013) claim that reciprocity can be achieved only in a social sphere that includes politics, family, and the volunteer sector, one that is, in short, external to the market. In the tradition of Civil Economy, the market is also considered a domain of social life, a place where people can cooperate for mutual advantage. Therefore, following the Civil Economy approach, virtues and intrinsic motivations can flourish both inside and outside the marketplace. Organizations can be seen also as places where friendly relations can spontaneously arise, and this relates to the concept of friendship as expressed in the Civil Economy tradition. Indeed, according to Genovesi, as he claims in the chapter “On Public Trust,” the concepts of reciprocal confidence, public trust, mutual assistance, and friendship are 2  The concept of contrasting force, operated also by Galileo and other scientists at that time, became the key element of Newton’s theory of mechanics, whose third law claims that for every force there is an equal and opposing force.

viii 

PREFACE

interconnected and constitute the preconditions for civil and commercial society (Genovesi 2005: 751–785). With this in mind, the aim of this book consists in discovering how leaders can help people to “flourish” within organizations. To achieve this, I have identified several paths to follow in the organizational context.

The Structure of the Book In the first chapter, I will frame the Civil Economy tradition within the Business Ethics’ field (Sferrazzo 2020). In the last decade, scholars have rediscovered the Italian tradition of Civil Economy and the different vision of the market it offers, one that is anchored on reciprocal assistance in market exchange relationships. So far, scholars are discussing Civil Economy especially in the fields of the history of economic though and in economics and philosophy. Nevertheless, this chapter proposes looking also at business ethics and organizational studies through the lens of Civil Economy, especially considering its connections with (a) the agapic form of love, (b) Sen’s capability approach and (c) the Thomistic virtue of docility. This chapter constitutes that premise to show, in the following chapters, the “agapic,” “liberating” and “docile relational” leadership styles. The second chapter explores the dynamics of love within models of leadership in organizations. In the philosophical literature, three forms of love are discussed, i.e. eros, philia and agape; here, I focus on the latter to delineate a new model of leadership: the “agapic” one. To achieve this, through an empirical study, I examine which leadership attitudes are oriented towards an agapic form of love. The study consisted of 29 semi-­ structured interviews, conducted in vivo with both leaders and managers of a French multinational company. I discovered that leaders’ agapic attitudes generate interpersonal relationships based on fraternity and gratuity moreover, they are strongly related to sharing everything, to the adoption of subsidiarity logics, and to fostering reciprocal learning. From the findings, it emerged also a strong relation between the agapic leadership style and the Christian tradition. To date, the promotion of a more humanist form of management has taken place through the adoption of “New Forms of Work Organization” (NFWO) (Longoni et al. 2014). These consist, for example, in the seminal reflections of Peters (1988, 1993), the works from Human Relations movement (e.g. McGregor 1960; Maslow 1943; Lewin 1952 or Herzberg 2008), the participatory model of management (Gilbert et al. 2017), the “third type of company” (Seriyex and Archier 1984), the adhocracy and

 PREFACE 

ix

the mission organization models (Mintzberg 1990), the model of agile management (Barrand 2012), the holacracy model (Robertson 2015), and the innovative model of “liberated companies” (Carney and Getz 2015). In the third chapter, I analyse both the organizational model of liberated companies and the liberating leadership in depth. The capability approach (CA) developed by Amartya Sen, indeed, focuses on the enhancement of people’s capabilities, i.e. their real freedom to choose a life course they have reason to value. Applying the CA to the organizational context, the focus of human resource management is transformed, shifting away from the needs of the organization to the freedom of the individual. This shift happens also inside “liberated companies,” firms with an organizational form that allows employees the complete freedom, along with the responsibility, to take any actions they decide are best. Another leadership style which appears coherent with the Civil Economy logic is the “docile relational” leadership, derived from a Thomistic virtue ethics perspective. I analyse this in the fourth chapter. Indeed, acting in a docile relational way means that leaders must be aware, on the one hand, that they can learn from their followers and, on the other hand, that they must give the possibility to their followers to learn from them. In other words, the leader has to operate with a spirit of cooperation, grounded in mutual assistance. Individuals, in fact, are aware that everyone needs each other, also within organizations. Furthermore, this is also a way to read organizational learning through the logic of reciprocity. This logic is also coherent with the perspective of Thomistic virtue ethics where the help of others is necessary to develop virtues. Aquinas emphasized the necessity of relations between master-disciple and between friends to learn virtue, regardless of context. For this reason, we can easily associate this modus operandi within organizations to docile relational leadership for the fact that prudence can be acquired only through a relationship grounded on reciprocity. Hence, within organizations, it is possible to recognize docile leadership in action in the presence of three factors: (1) when leaders help the followers in their needs; (2) when both followers and leaders are willing to learn from each other and accept their reciprocal help; (3) when both followers and leaders acquire the virtuous maturity to help others in their virtuous advancement. In the book’s conclusions, I will briefly resume all the chapters treated and discuss some future research prospects. Nantes, France

Roberta Sferrazzo

x 

PREFACE



References

Acevedo, A. (2012). Personalist business ethics and humanistic management: Insights from Jacques Maritain. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 197–219. Anderson, E. (1993). Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barrand, J. (2012). Le manager agile. Agir autrement pour la survie des entreprises. Paris: Dunod. Becchetti, L., & Cermelli, M. (2018). Civil economy: Definition and strategies for sustainable well-living. International Review of Economics, 65(3), 329–357. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 18(3–4), 161–188. Bruni, L. (2013). On virtues and awards: Giacinto Dragonetti and the tradition of economia civile in enlightenment Italy. Journal of the History of Economy Thought, 35(4), 517–535. Bruni, L., & Porta, P. (2003). Economia civile and pubblica felicita in the Italian enlightenment. History of Political Economy, 35(1), 361–385. Bruni, L., & Smerilli, A. (2009). The value of vocation. The crucial role of intrinsically motivated people in values-based organizations. Review of Social Economy, 67(3), 271–288. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2000). Moral canals: Trust and social capital in the work of Hume, Smith and Genovesi. Economics & Philosophy, 16(1), 21–45. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2008). Fraternity: Why the market need not be a morally free zone. Economics & Philosophy, 24(1), 35–64. Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2016). Civil economy: Another idea of the market. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing Limited. Carney, B. M., & Getz, I. (2015). Freedom, Inc. how corporate liberation unleashes employee potential and business performance. New York: Somme Valley House. D’Onofrio, F. (2015). On the concept of ‘Felicitas Publica’ in eighteenth century political economy. Journal of the History of Economy Thought, 37(3), 449–471. Dierksmeier, C. (2016). Reframing economic ethics: The philosophical foundations of humanistic management. New York: Springer. Genovesi, A. (1779). La Logica per gli giovanetti. Venezia: Remondini. Genovesi, A. (1824 [1765–67]). Lezioni di commercio o sia di economia civile. Milan: Società Tipografica dei Classici Italiani. Genovesi, A. (1973). Della Diocesina o Sia della Filosofia Del Giusto e Dell’onesto (1766). Milan: Marzorati. Genovesi, A. (2005 [1765–67]). Delle Lezioni di Commercio o sia di Economia Civile. Naples: Instituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

 PREFACE 

xi

Gilbert, P., Teglborg, L., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2017). L’entreprise libérée, innovation radicale ou simple avatar du management participatif? Gérer et Comprendre, 127, 38–49. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907. Guasti, N. (2006). Antonio Genovesi’s Diocesina: Source of the Neapolitan enlightenment. History of European Ideas, 32(4), 385–405. Hahn, T., Kolk, A., & Winn, M. (2010). A new future for business? Rethinking management theory and business strategy. Business & Society, 49(3), 385–401. Herzberg, F. (2008). One more time: How do you motivate your employees? Harvard business review classics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), Classic readings in organizational behavior (pp.  463–469). Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Longoni, A., Golini, R., & Cagliano, R. (2014). The role of new forms of work organization in developing sustainability strategies in operations. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 147–160. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), Classic readings in organizational behavior (pp. 45–57). Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Melé, D. (2003). The challenge of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(1), 77–88. Melé, D., & Schlag, M. (2015). Christian humanism in economics and business. In Humanism in economics and business (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Springer. Mintzberg, H. (1990). Le management. Voyage au centre des organisations. Paris: Editions d’Organisation. Nugent, P. D., & Abolafia, M. (2006). The creation of trust through interaction and exchange: The role of consideration in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31, 628–650. Pabst, A. (2018). Political economy of virtue: Civil economy, happiness and public trust in the thought of Antonio Genovesi. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 25(4), 582–604. Peters, T. (1988). Le chaos management. Paris: InterEditions. Peters, T. (1993). L’entreprise libérée, Liberation Management. Paris: Dunod. Pirson, M. (2017). Humanistic management: Protecting dignity and promoting well-being. New York: Cambridge University Press. Robertson, B.  J. (2015). Holacracy: The revolutionary management system that abolishes hierarchy. London: Portfolio Penguin. Sandel, M.  J. (2012). What money cannot buy. The moral limits of the market. London: Penguin.

xii 

PREFACE

Sandel, M. (2013). Market reasoning as moral reasoning: Why economists should reengage with political philosophy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27, 121–140. Seriyex, H., & Archier, G. (1984). L’entreprise du troisième type. Le Seuil. Sferrazzo, R. (2019). Towards an agape-based organization: Should virtuous behaviors be rewarded? In EURAM proceedings (pp. 1–36). ­Portugal: ISCTE_ Instituto Universitario de Lisboa. 26–28 June. ISSN 2466-7498 and ISBN 978-2-9602195-1-7. Sferrazzo, R. (2020). Towards an agape-based organization: Does it make sense to apply civil economy to business ethics? Business & Professional Ethics Journal. https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej20207996. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational; mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. Oxford: Wiley. Simon, H.  A. (1987). Behavioural economics. In J.  Eatwell, M.  Milgate, & P.  Newman (Eds.), The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Spitzeck, H. (2011). An integrated model of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 51–62. Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioral economics: Past, present, and future. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1577–1600

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank my family, professor Renato Ruffini and father Maurizio, Novello, through which I’ve really discovered what means to be spontaneously and ethically free and true in my life.

xiii

Contents

1 Premise: The Civil Economy Perspective 1 1.1 The Civil Economy Approach: Genovesi’s Anthropological Vision of the Person and the Naples Tradition of Civil Economy  1 1.2 The Notion of “Unconditional Reciprocity” (Agape) in a Civil-Economic Perspective 6 1.3 Sen’s Capability Approach and the Concept of “Civil Happiness”12 1.4 The Links Between the Aristotelian-Thomistic Tradition and Civil Economy13 References15 2 Towards an Agapic Leadership17 2.1 The Theological-Philosophical Notion of Agape17 2.2 The Agapic Leadership19 2.2.1 Method20 2.2.2 Findings22 2.3 The Agape-Based Organization35 References38

xv

xvi 

Contents

3 Towards a Liberating Leadership43 3.1 Sen’s Capability Approach as a Theory for Liberated Companies43 3.2 The Notion of Freedom and Its Application Within Organizations45 3.3 Freedom and Liberating Leadership47 References49 4 Towards a Docile Relational Leadership53 4.1 The Virtue of Docility in Thomas Aquinas55 4.2 Virtues in Leadership Studies62 4.2.1 Moral Leadership63 4.2.2 Ethical Leadership63 4.2.3 Spiritual Leadership64 4.2.4 Servant Leadership64 4.2.5 Charismatic Leadership65 4.2.6 Transformational Leadership65 4.2.7 Responsible Leadership66 4.2.8 Contemplative Leadership66 4.3 The Docile Relational Leader68 4.3.1 Final Remarks: Docile Relational Leaders for VUCA and NFWO71 References73 5 Conclusions and Future Research Prospects83 References84 Index85

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 4.1

Overview of interview data Data coding structure Leadership styles and virtues associated

23 24 67

xvii

CHAPTER 1

Premise: The Civil Economy Perspective

In the last decade, scholars have rediscovered the Italian tradition of Civil Economy and the different vision of the market it offers, one that is anchored on reciprocal assistance in market exchange relationships. So far, scholars are discussing Civil Economy especially in the fields of the history of economic though and in economics and philosophy. Nevertheless, this book proposes looking also at business ethics and organizational studies through the lens of Civil Economy, especially considering its connections with (a) the agapic form of love, (b) Sen’s capability approach and (c) the Thomistic virtue of docility. This chapter constitutes that premise to show, in the following chapters, the “agapic,” “liberating” and “docile relational” leadership styles. These leadership styles will enable to derive the civil-economic leadership model, as stressed in the conclusions.

1.1   The Civil Economy Approach: Genovesi’s Anthropological Vision of the Person and the Naples Tradition of Civil Economy In talking about “Civil Economy,” we are referring to two main aspects: on the one hand, to a tradition of philosophical and economic thought that flourished in Italy in the eighteenth century, on the other hand, to a contemporary laboratory of knowledge, practices and experiences from the world of work, education, politics and associations.

© The Author(s) 2020 R. Sferrazzo, Civil Economy and Organisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59022-2_1

1

2 

R. SFERRAZZO

Antonio Genovesi  – holder of the first world chair of Economics in Naples in 1754 – was the founder of Civil Economy. He used and developed for his students a text entitled “Lezioni di commercio o sia di economia civile.” Some Italian scholars  – especially Stefano Zamagni and Luigino Bruni – have recently rediscovered Genovesi’s thought, revitalizing the Civil Economy topic through several articles and books. According to Genovesi – as specified in the “Lezioni” – economy can be defined as “civilized” in as much as it takes care, firstly, of the good of nations, secondly, of the good of individuals. Civil Economy, in particular, deals with wealth and power, but even with the wisdom, politeness and virtue of the nation (Genovesi 1824[1765–67]. The two things are, according to Genovesi, united by a deep bond that makes the virtue of citizens correspond to the good performance of commercial transactions and vice versa. Today, Bruni and Zamagni (2016) have enriched this definition, by pointing out that Civil Economy is a tradition of thought which, in order to save the market economy, recalls the economy to its ancient and original vocation to be an ally of the common good; to represent a place of freedom, sociality and expression of the capabilities and ‘vocations’ of people, in particular the vocation to work. Civil Economy is a tradition of thought and a study perspective on economics, which reads the whole economy in a different way from the still dominant tradition of Anglo-­ Saxon capitalism. Specifically, Civil Economy speaks to the whole economy and society, offering a criterion of judgement and action for both the government and multinationals’ choices; for consumers’ choices (critical and responsible consumption), and for responsible savers. Over time, there have been many attempts to bring the most objectionable behaviour of companies within strict ethical constraints, but even today there is still a lack of precise references to the idea that, for a company, maximising profit for shareholders is the one and only ethically responsible purpose. Civil Economy helps to read in an alternative way the current economic system, through a relational, cooperative and gratuitous key. Taking up some of the founding elements of the Civil Economy tradition, and comparing them to business economics studies, it is possible to change the current perspective, which is already known about economics. In recent years, many economists, political scientists, sociologists and philosophers (Sen, Yunus, Latouche) are proposing criticism of our capitalist system. However, such criticisms have not recounted a non-capitalist market economy yet. In reality, Civil Economy is an inclusive and open

1  PREMISE: THE CIVIL ECONOMY PERSPECTIVE 

3

process, where there is room for all those who are not satisfied with today’s financial capitalism. The Civil Economy approach is a great source of inspiration for new thinking, capable of profound questions; it is another market history, another way to market economy, different from the dominant one that is shaping the world and our minds (Bruni and Zamagni 2016). Genovesi wrote almost at the same time as Adam Smith, starting from the same question on how to achieve the common good. But the two authors read differently the same phenomenon, i.e. the exchange factor. To enter into Smith’s thought, let me start again from his famous phrase on the benevolence of merchants: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” (Smith 1869). For Adam Smith, market relations allow us to satisfy our economic needs without having to depend on others, as was the case in feudal society, characterized by few benefactors and many “dependent” on their charities. According to such a vision, friendship cannot be a characteristic of normal market relations. “Benevolence” or “sympathy,” as Smith underlines in his “Theory of moral sentiments” (1759), is a fundamental characteristic of the human being, but it is not a typical feeling of economic relations. From this perspective, it is the extension of trade that produces reputation and trust, and not vice versa, as Genovesi thought. Moreover, according to Smith, even if agents pursue personal interests and deal with economic relations only instrumentally, civil society is “providentially” (providence understood in the concept of Enlightenment deism) designed so that the overall effect resulting from individual actions is advantageous to all, but the advantageous result, namely the wealth of nations, does not require agents to include the common good among their objectives. This is Smith’s vision of the relationship between sociality and the market that emerged in the economy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Nevertheless, the Italian tradition of Civil Economy was broadly different on this point. Genovesi 1824[1765–67], indeed, saw the economic market relations as relations of “mutual assistance” and not only of mutual advantage, therefore not impersonal, nor anonymous. He understood the market as an expression of the general law of civil society, the reciprocity one, which governs the whole society, including the market, in its various forms: economic, political and ethical. Looking at Genovesi and Smith’s opinions, another difference between their thoughts can be found

4 

R. SFERRAZZO

in the aim of the economy, which has not only the objective of satisfying human needs, but also that of making people happy. In the light of the above, it is not by chance, therefore, that civil economists, in their treaties, took an interest not only in exchanges, but also in the conditions and ways in which the government should help the economy and the development of what today we call “social capital.” For Genovesi, in fact, economy as a science was inseparable from politics and the art of government, and it was not by chance that he dedicated his book to Tanucci, the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Naples. In extreme synthesis, the Civil Economy tradition combines the ethical dimension of economics with the problems of justice, the duties of government, relations between people, their motivations and their individual needs. The central idea of the Civil Economy tradition consists in conceiving the experience of human sociality as a unitary reality: friendship and genuine reciprocity are considered dimensions to be exercised within even a normal economic life. In the Civil Economy there is therefore an emphasis on the intrinsic value of social interactions: they are not, as for Smith and the liberals, essentially means for the development of the civilization of society, but they are not always exploitative relationships either; economic relationships are instead an expression of civil life. Nevertheless, Civil Economy has not become a dominant tradition in the economic thought of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, not even in Italy, where the judgment on this school pronounced by the most influential Italian economist of the nineteenth century, Francesco Ferrara, was heavy. According to Ferrara, true economic science could not be found within the Italian classics. Even Ferrara’s successors, for example Pantaleoni and Pareto, continued to look outside Italy, neglecting to develop the tradition of Civil Economy. In spite of this, the Civil Economy approach never died out and continued to live as a karstic river in Italian (and not only) economists, entrepreneurs and economic operators, who cultivated, in various ways, an idea of economy linked to civil virtues and public happiness, which does not forget the role of institutions. To continue the tradition of Civil Economy, however, were not mainly theoretical economists, but applied economists, political scientists, jurists and some exponents of the Italian tradition of business economics. But in a certain sense, the most authentic continuers of Genovesi and Dragonetti’s civil economy notions were the creators of the Italian cooperative movement and the many animators and founders of rural coffers, consumer and production cooperatives that  – without

1  PREMISE: THE CIVIL ECONOMY PERSPECTIVE 

5

perhaps ever having heard of Genovesi or Filangieri  – have constituted that incivilisation theorized by Genovesi and civil economists. Adriano Olivetti can also be counted within this tradition. Still today, in Italy, the Civil Economy is alive in cooperation, in social cooperation in fair trade, in the movement of justice budgets, in solidarity purchasing groups, in the Economy of Communion, in the Ethical Banks, in cooperative credit experiences and in all those forms that make reciprocity and internalized civil virtues their main reason for action. For Italian civil cooperation, the economy, or the market, is not at odds with genuine relationality, but economic action is rather an expression of civil virtues, and market competition is above all a “cum-petere,” or rather a search together. The main theorists of the Italian cooperative movement at the end of the nineteenth century, while criticizing the capitalist economic structure, did not oppose cooperation to the market or the price system, but saw in cooperation, like John Stuart Mill, a reform of the market and enterprise, a way to eliminate the capital-labour conflict at its root. Lamperto and many Italian civil economists tended to see cooperation as an expression of a more general phenomenon. Solidarity among workers, in this sense, which all the theorists of cooperation considered essential, is not an alternative principle to that of individual interest, but complementary. For this reason, it was particularly important for these co-­ operators to emphasize that cooperatives are essential to the development of a cooperative society. This book is also an attempt to apply the Civil Economy paradigm to the managerial field, specifically, to the leadership style. In fact, organizations are places were “human flourishing, mutual esteem, and friendship-­ based reciprocity” (Melé 2014: 463) can be created. For example, the phenomenon of interpersonal relationships in organizations sometimes is anchored on trust and mutual help; other times, it spreads within an environment of distrust and self-interest, which does not aim at the common good. A new horizon of research could consist in developing the core concepts of Civil Economy – gratuity, public trust, mutual assistance – already discussed in the literature on economics and philosophy and relating them to the organizational and managerial context.

6 

R. SFERRAZZO

1.2   The Notion of “Unconditional Reciprocity” (Agape) in a Civil-Economic Perspective Turning to the managerial sphere, it was in particular Renato Ruffini (2013) who proposed the idea of “civil management,” seen as the application of Civil Economy to managerial and organizational theory and practice. In particular, in his text entitled “Economia civile e management”, Ruffini (2013) underlines a continuity between the thought of Zappa, the father of nineteenth-century business economics in Italy, and that of Antonio Genovesi. The Italian school of business economics developed both with the complex accounting of Benedictine abbeys and, in particular, with the work of Gino Zappa (1927) with its text “Tendenze nuove negli studi di ragioneria (New trends in accounting studies).” This latter work is considered as the birth of business economics, at a time when national schools of accounting and business management were established in Europe, from Germany to Holland, to Denmark. The Italian approach to business is therefore distinct and different from the American approach of the business organization. In particular, the Italian school of business economics dwells on the institutional dimension of the company, on its being as a system or, in Zappa’s founding words: “an ongoing, established and righteous economic coordination for the satisfaction of human needs, a coordination of economic operations, of which man and wealth are vital elements” (1927: 40). Interesting in this definition of company is its reference to the satisfaction of needs as the purpose of the organization, which remains in all the classic definitions of business in the Italian tradition. Based on this vision, the Italian tradition also calls companies the family and any institution or organization. Therefore, in the Italian tradition of business economics there is no theoretical possibility of a distinction between profit and non-profit, since the purpose of the company is not profit but, as Zappa will always stress, the satisfaction of human needs. It is precisely on this point that there is a continuity between business economy and Civil Economy, and, on the other hand, a strong discontinuity in reading the reality of companies divided between for profit and non-profit. Indeed, if the purpose of the company is to satisfy the needs of the various subjects involved in the institution, it cannot be centred on the interest, or need, of the shareholders alone, or on the interest of the entrepreneur alone.

1  PREMISE: THE CIVIL ECONOMY PERSPECTIVE 

7

Economic phenomena are also investigated not abstractly, but in the concrete nature of the social institution in which they take place, the underlying motivations behind them, the dynamic relationships, the fabric of relationships that it weaves within itself and with the surrounding world (Bruni 2010). The influence of Pantaleoni and the Austrian school, as well as that of the classical Italian economic school, pre-Marginalist, Socialist and Catholic, can easily be traced in an approach of this kind, centred on the needs of people. Surely there is an assonance between Zappa’s thought and the institutionalist one, especially that of the American Commons, which also greatly influenced the Anglo-Saxon reflection on the business organization, and all that great family of neoclassical theories of business, which went from Coase to Williamson and Nelson and Winter. Moreover, during the years of Zappa’s formation, Croce’s criticism of neoclassical and Wallonian economics was strong, so much so that he left an important mark on that entire generation of Italian economists, including business economists. When Genovesi wrote his “Lezioni”, business was still a phenomenon to be invented. The birth of modern business can be dated back to the mid-nineteenth century when, in 1856, limited liability was introduced in England and when in the USA, a few decades later, in 1890, the Supreme Court recognized the right of public limited companies to be subject to a regular trial and to the impartiality of the law, in order to guarantee the freedom of individuals. Consequently, for Genovesi, the social bodies were essentially two, the family and the State, and when he analysed the economic activities of production and consumption he studied not the institutions but the activities themselves (agriculture, industry, ...) asking himself the question of how well to develop them for collective wealth. But these activities were traced back to the social bodies previously identified, and in particular, to the family. In this contiguity between the civil body and the political body it clearly emerges that for Genovesi it made no sense to differentiate between theoretical economy and economic policy; moreover, in his thought, the engine of economic activity of the civil bodies, composed of families, are people. For this reason, economic relations are not merely impersonal exchange relations, but are relations of reciprocity, because they are carried out within a system of social relations, that is, within precise civil and political bodies. Many scholars have investigated the reciprocity factor both in business ethics and organization studies. In this book, I will concentrate especially

8 

R. SFERRAZZO

on the definition provided by Luigino Bruni (2008, 2015) of “unconditional reciprocity,” as strongly connected to Genovesi’s notion of mutual assistance. Bruni, one the main exponents of the Civil Economy tradition, claim that “unconditional reciprocity” consists in that superior interest founding agape: that of building fraternity. In brief, giving something to someone in a gratuitous way means starting to create a relationship. Hence, we can consider agape acting in a logic of unconditional reciprocity (Bruni 2008; Coda 1994). Also on the way of exercising civil power, Genovesi clarifies some interesting aspects. Since the civil right and duty is that of mutual aid, then the government of civil and political bodies must also be carried out in such a way that those who command and those who are commanded are also in a necessary and reciprocal relationship, balance their personal interests. With respect to these analyses provided by Genovesi, business economics has a strong link with the Civil Economy tradition, given by the logical assimilation that can be found between the concept of “civil body” and that of “institute.” The basic assumption of business economics is in fact that economic activity is carried out by people within “institutes” and by relationship between institutes. Institutions are understood as human societies that take on the character of institutions, i.e. relatively stable rules and structures of behaviour. In this sense, institutions are families, businesses, political parties, trade unions, municipalities. In other words, the links of thought between Civil Economy and business economics can be identified from the common idea of the two founders, Genovesi and Zappa, that the economic phenomenon is not an individual phenomenon but a collective phenomenon, of people who come together to satisfy, through mutual assistance, their needs (Ruffini 2013: 82). The concept of institute constitutes the fundamental passage to understand the concept of a company; in fact, it made it possible to raise accounting from the field of techniques to that of economic sciences, simply by shifting the analysis from the individual (homo oeconomicus) to the company (economic order of an institute). This line of thought is consistent with the approach of Pareto, the main creator of a scientific vision of economics, which restricted the scope of economics to choices that arise from logical actions, governed by an instrumental and anonymous rationality. Zappa, by simply translating the object of study from the individual to the social organization in which he operates, managed to reconcile the scientific problem posed by Pareto

1  PREMISE: THE CIVIL ECONOMY PERSPECTIVE 

9

with a non-marginalist vision of economic science (Ruffini 2013: 87). Finally, the finalisation of the institute as a community that has its own specific aims offers the possibility of identifying the concept of economic viability of the company’s action as a constraint to be managed and not as a variable to be maximised. Economicality is thus understood as institutional performance, i.e. as the organization’s ability to achieve its goals in compliance with economic constraints/balances. In this sense, for example, it becomes clear that even for companies, profit is primarily a means and not necessarily an end. All this is consistent with Bruni’s (2010) concept of a “civil company,” within which the company civil responsibility consists in developing over time a project with the constraint of respecting certain conditions of economy and efficiency. An important element that unites the Civil Economy and the business economy is the fact that both place at the center of economic analysis the social bodies made up of individuals, and not the individuals themselves, as if they were acting in isolation from a whole system of social relations carried out within these social bodies. Zappa was fully consistent with the studies and scholars of accountancy that had preceded him, and its elaboration constituted a turning point in accountancy and in the consolidation of business economics. In this sense, the Italian accountancy discipline was born and developed in the Italian context precisely because its development was fully consistent with the peculiarities of Italian economic thought, characterized by the fact of conceiving the economy as a practical science of administration capable of affecting reality and centered on exchanges not between subjects but between social bodies in the social system, and therefore valid both for the state and for other public and private companies. Also Genovesi, in the “Lezioni,” did not forget to recall the importance of accounting and the budget in commerce, invoking the centrality of this process of control and decision making for the policies of both a house and a State. In this attention to the theme of the budget, Genovesi already centred the fundamental function of accounting as an activity of control of the development of the economic facts of the company. This idea of accounting and the balance sheet is very close to the definition of accountancy given by Besta, who did not agree with those who restricted accountancy to mere computational activity, nor with those who, like Cerboni, on the contrary, extended accountancy to its maximum boundaries, arriving at identifying it as a science of economic administration. This definition, which today is very close to the logic of Corporate Governance, did

10 

R. SFERRAZZO

not prevent us, however, from seeing accounting as a unitary activity and very connected to the evolution of the social system. In particular, Besta, when speaks of the administrative body and functions, introduces a singular and anticipatory biological metaphor on the evolution of administrative bodies, their functions and their continuous adaptation of internal relations to external relations. He states that the development of the administrative bodies goes hand in hand with the progress of the social organisation in relation to which the holding grows with the growth of the people associated with it. Speaking then of administrative organization, he recalls the need that it “must make the aggregate, whatever it may be, precisely to act as a single being” and then goes on to say that “to the extent that in the social body integration and political differentiation become greater, integration and administrative differentiation also grow. Where by administrative integration I mean the evolution that takes place through the growth of the mass, i.e. of the people who together constitute the administrative body of a company to which the growth of people is usually accompanied by an increase in assets and by administrative differentiation, the evolution that manifests itself with a distinction of administrative bodies or an increase in structure” (Besta 1920: 54). Business economics, besides the fact that it has always been characterized by a holistic vision of the company, has never methodologically distinguished between theoretical and practical aspects, and was in other words, like Civil Economy, a science that did not distinguish between the two levels. In this framework, all the authors of accountancy put themselves in line with the Italian social economists who wrote in their same period and who, distinguishing between pure and applied sciences, declared the need to have well in mind the practical aspects of the disciplines. This analysis of the relationships between Civil Economics, business economics and accountancy is functional to verify whether the study of managerial action can find a “theoretical” framework of reference alternative to the Anglo-Saxon one, both referred to classical management studies and to economic theories. According to the economists Ruffini, Bruni and Zamagni the answer is positive, both because the Civil Economy renewed in the reading of current scholars is a conceptual reference for reading the alternative economy to the current mainstream of economic analysis, and because the Civil Economy, which runs through the entire tradition of Italian economic analysis, appears to be consistent with

1  PREMISE: THE CIVIL ECONOMY PERSPECTIVE 

11

business economics, which is more specifically concerned with the methods of economic governance of organizations (Ruffini 2013: 92–93). It is also possible to highlight a coherence between the two theories, both historical and logical. The accountancy and business sciences, from the historical point of view, are in fact close to the Civil Economy because in their theoretical constructions of the nineteenth century they placed themselves in the bedrock of the Italian social economy developing a discipline peculiar to the Italian context, which differed from those developed in European countries and North America. From a logical point of view, the most important link between Civil Economy and Business Economy is given by the communitarian element of both doctrines, synthesized in the concept of social body in Genovesi and in the concept of institute in Zappa. Gift and gratuitousness are developed in practice within human communities, in institutes precisely, and economic activity, therefore, in practice is not that developed by individuals understood as entities in their own right, but by individuals understood as subjects operating in social contexts. According to the vision formulated by Luigino Bruni, we should shift from a theory of the “I” to a theory of the “we” (Bruni 2010: 175). Indeed, it is in community action that the ethos of the Civil Economy is manifested and this action is developed in daily practice within communities, institutes, social bodies that, from the economic point of view, are defined as “companies.” It is in this sense that the business economy is an important link in the Civil Economy, where the company is seen as a social institution of cooperation and not as a mere contractual system. Analyzing the economic system as an interaction between social bodies (state, enterprises, associations and families), in this vision the economic analysis of both political and microeconomic nature is brought to unity. Within this framework in which the business economy constitutes a strand of the Civil Economy, it is then appropriate to look for new interpretative models of the management activity of businesses, public administrations, ideal motive organizations or other types of organizations, trying to clarify why the logic of the Civil Economy can be useful in the search for models of management work.

12 

R. SFERRAZZO

1.3   Sen’s Capability Approach and the Concept of “Civil Happiness” According to the authors of Classical Political Economy (Adam Smith, David Ricardo) the primary motivation that determines the behaviour of individuals in the market is personal interest. At the bottom of every choice, action, decision of homo oeconomicus, there is the incessant search for one’s own profit. In this regard, Adam Smith explains that no economic agents seek the good of others (or of the common) in their actions, and it is good that things remain so. The mechanism of the market, the invisible hand, guarantees that individuals, seeking their own good, contribute unintentionally to the public good. Thanks to the desire of the brewer and the milkman to get richer, and thanks to the buyer’s desire for milk and beer, society will be richer and more prosperous. Not far from classical economists is the intuition that greater wealth automatically guarantees greater happiness. Civil economists do not entirely reject this anthropological model. Of course, personal interest is a determinant of individual choices and actions. But, as expressed by Genovesi, there is at least one other determinant to consider: the natural inclination to care for the good of others. Adopting a Newtonian lexicon, Genovesi describes two forces in action in every human being, the “concentrating” force (personal interest) and the “diffusive” force (love for others). The error of classical economists is to solve the latter in the former, seeing the diffusive force as a non-determining and basic force like the other. The person  – not the individual  – acts, always in relation, in order to satisfy not only his personal interest, but also that of the person with whom she relates, in a logic of reciprocity and mutual assistance. Mutual assistance in needs, explains the Neapolitan philosopher, is what distinguishes the natural sociality of people, making it a qualified sociality compared to that of other animals. According to Genovesi’s anthropology, it is the balance between the concentrating force and the diffusive force that makes the social body “dense” and capable of generating what today we call “civil capital.” Given this picture, it is also possible to frame Genovesi’s thought in both the Aristotelian or Neo-Aristotelian tradition. For Aristotle, indeed, humans are relational beings, i.e. social animals that need others to live and – in particular – friends. On the same line were Antonio Genovesi and St. Thomas Aquinas, who stated that man is naturally a friend of man,

1  PREMISE: THE CIVIL ECONOMY PERSPECTIVE 

13

contrary to the Hobbesian homo homini lupus, according to which human beings are constantly at odds with other individuals. Blending the Aristotelian conception of happiness, Genovesi pointed out “It is a law of the universe that one cannot make oneself happy without making others happy” (Autobiografia e lettere, 449). This conception of “civil happiness” is very close to Amartya Sen’s (2004) thought, highlighted especially through his capability approach theory. In particular, Sen’s capability approach can be considered as compatible with the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia. In addition, Sen specifies that people’s flourishing can increase to the extent to which people can choose what capabilities to develop. In Sen’s capability approach, happiness is part of a “good life,” therefore, the CA is strongly related to the aforementioned Genovesi’s definition of happiness. The capability approach – based on the premise that people should be endowed with the freedom to do and to be what they really want (Sen 1992, 1999) – can be applied both to the market and to the organizational context, as I will examine in depth in Chap. 3.

1.4   The Links Between the Aristotelian-Thomistic Tradition and Civil Economy Since the 2000s, the tradition of Civil Economy has been spreading in international literature in three main areas, thanks to the contribution of some authors. In the field of economic theory, Luigino Bruni and Robert Sugden (2000, 2008) presented an alternative concept to that of Adam Smith concerning market relations, referring to the mutual assistance of which Antonio Genovesi spoke. In particular, in one of their articles, the authors introduced the term “fraternity” to indicate those genuine social relationships that can also arise within market relationships and not only in the context of private and family life, as Adam Smith claimed. Relatedly, Luigino Bruni, Vittorio Pelligra, Tommaso Reggiani and Matteo Rizzolli (2019) have recently conducted an economic experiment on rewards and incentives, demonstrating: a. how the awarding of a prize in public has positive effects on individual motivation, even after the prize has been withdrawn; b. that monetary rewards for agency activities work well in combination with public ceremonies, suggesting that a combination of

14 

R. SFERRAZZO

s­ tandard incentives and public ceremonies can have positive effects on motivation and performance. In summary, in this experiment the authors have demonstrated how reward systems have a positive impact on workers’ performance and intrinsic motivation by fostering the construction of a relational organizational culture (a community of people who share internalized values and principles). In fact, awards act on people’s intrinsic motivation, enabling them to internalize norms and values that will be pursued even when the awards are removed. Looking at awards through the lens of the Civil Economy, they recognize that the capital of people’s virtues and virtuous behavior are less dependent on individual cost-benefit analysis; public ceremonies, in particular, allow “recognizing and rewarding virtue.” Finally, recently, Leonardo Becchetti and Massimo Cermelli (2018) presented the Civil Economy paradigm as an alternative to the current economic capitalistic system. In particular, the Civil Economy approach proposes an alternative economic paradigm when it is recognized that: 1. part of individuals move away from purely self-concerning preferences and develop relational skills that enable them to overcome social dilemmas; 2. part of the productive system moves from the profit maximization paradigm and aims to satisfy the interests of a wider range of stakeholders beyond the shareholders; 3. well-being is, beyond GDP, the stock of cultural, environmental, spiritual and economic resources that a community can enjoy. The second qualifying Civil Economy point emphasized by Becchetti and Cermelli (2018) is that the Civil Economy approach enriches the traditional paradigm of political economy, where the actions of the traditional invisible hand of the market and the visible hand of institutions in resolving failures are integrated and supported by the complementary actions of the two additional hands of popular participation of citizens and socially and environmentally responsible companies. Accordingly, the authors explain and document how these two additional hands are already at work, thus confirming that the reductionist hypothesis about individuals and society is rejected by empirical evidence. The Civil Economy paradigm, by increasing social participation and generativity of all actors, has the power to bridge the gap between the current sub-optimal situation

1  PREMISE: THE CIVIL ECONOMY PERSPECTIVE 

15

and the socially optimal sense of life (well described in the concept of “common good”). The anthropological vision of the Civil Economy, which can be extrapolated from what has just been pointed out, takes the form of the transition from the individual to the person. Rooted in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, the Civil Economy paradigm offers an alternative interpretation of Aquinas’ virtue ethics in which love and mutual assistance have a central role. Indeed, Aquinas’ idea of virtue is, at the same time, Aristotelian and beyond Aristotle, analyzing the virtues of prudence and docility. These Thomistic “revised” virtues to leadership literature, allows me to formulate a new leadership style, among the many already existing: the ‘docile relational’ leadership, which I will examine in-depth in Chap. 4. There, I will focus especially on leadership virtues, adopting a Thomistic virtue ethics. Future research could deal with the application of the Thomistic perspective even within other managerial sectors, i.e. organizational culture, remuneration system, control systems, and so on. In this way, new paths of research can be traced in the established fields of Business Ethics, Organization Studies and Management. Civil Economy is the science of “public happiness,” which means that it deals with the common good of society. At the same time, civil economists did not deny the role of self-interest and of the market as a “civilizing” factor. Enlightenment, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics: these three elements were mingled in Civil Economy and transformed to produce an (quasi) alternative theory to Classical Political Economy. The synthesis operated by civil economists can be of great interest for business ethics, where the three broad Ethics are usually separated. Regarding the market as a form of mutual assistance, the differences between Utilitarians, Virtue Ethicists and Deontologists are nuanced, even if it is unlikely that all these tensions could be reconciled. In the following chapters, I will shed light on how it is possible to adopt an ethical business management within companies, taking inspiration from several concepts (agape, freedom and docility) really close to the Civil Economy approach.

References Becchetti, L., & Cermelli, M. (2018). Civil economy: Definition and strategies for sustainable well-living. International Review of Economics, 65(3), 329–357. Besta, F. (1920). Ragioneria (Vol. 1). Milan: Vallardi. Bruni, L. (2008). Reciprocity, altruism and the civil society. London: Routledge.

16 

R. SFERRAZZO

Bruni, L. (2010). L’impresa civile: una via italiana all’economia di mercato. Evanston: EGEA spa. Bruni, L. (2015). Agape. In A lexicon of social well-being (pp.  5–8). London: Palgrave Pivot. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2000). Moral canals: Trust and social capital in the work of Hume, Smith and Genovesi. Economics and Philosophy, 16(1), 21–45. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2008). Fraternity: Why the market need not be a morally free zone. Economics and Philosophy, 24(1), 35–64. Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2016). Civil economy: Another idea of the market. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing Limited. Bruni, L., Pelligra, V., Reggiani, T., & Rizzolli, M. (2019). The pied piper: Prizes, incentives, and motivation crowding-in. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16. Coda, P. (1994). L’agape come grazie e libertà. Alla radice della teologia e prassi dei cristiani. Rome: Città Nuova. Genovesi, A. (1824 [1765–67]). Lezioni di commercio o sia di economia civile. Milan: Società Tipografica dei Classici Italiani. Melé, D. (2014). “Human quality treatment”: Five organizational levels. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 457–471. Ruffini, R. (2013). Economia civile e management: verso nuove relazioni nell’organizzazione aziendale. Milan: Guerini e associati. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80. Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. Reprinted in D.D. Raphael, and A.L. Macfie (Eds) (1976). Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith, 1. Smith, A. (1869). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, volume 1 (Vol. 1). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Zappa, G. (1927). Tendenze nuove negli studi di ragioneria: discorso inaugurale dell’Anno Accademico 1926–1927 nel R. Istituto superiore di scienze economiche e commerciali di Venezia. Milan: Istituto editoriale scientifico.

CHAPTER 2

Towards an Agapic Leadership

2.1   The Theological-Philosophical Notion of Agape Agape is one of the three forms of love, in addition to philia and eros (Lewis 1960). According to the protestant theologian Nygren (2009), the agapic form of love is the original fundamental conception of Christianity and constitutes the central point of Christianity. In the theological sphere, agape has been often contrasted with eros; indeed, if on the one side agape represents a spontaneous gift which does not require any form of reciprocation, eros is more oriented towards a material recognition (Nygren 2009). Another word which is often associated with agape is charity. In particular, the protestant theologian Heinrich Scholz (1929) pointed out that only the woman can bring charity and that man brings eros. According to Scholz, indeed, man and woman are what Pascal calls the reason and the heart with its reasons. Going back to Plato, it is impossible to talk about a spontaneous form of love, based on the absence of goals: eros, indeed, is not based on giving but only on desiring. What Plato calls celestial eros, means the tendency of the soul towards the top (Hackforth 1972). Blending Plato’s thought, Simmel (1921) pointed out that the Greek eros consists in a desire to possess which should finish with the possession itself. However, when eros entered within Christianity, it did not have the Platonic form, but it was strongly connected to the mysterious piety, mediated through Aristotle

© The Author(s) 2020 R. Sferrazzo, Civil Economy and Organisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59022-2_2

17

18 

R. SFERRAZZO

and the Neo-Platonism. Even through St. Augustin, eros assumed a central position within Christianity. Different positions related to the notion of agape have characterized different literature’s fields. On the one hand, Boltanski (1990) described agape as a higher form of love, compared to philia and eros, which consists in an unconditioned gift which does not require any form of reciprocation. On the other hand, other scholars, such as Luigino Bruni (2008, 2015), pointed out that there is a higher interest founding agape: that of building fraternity. Indeed, according to Bruni (2008), if a person gives something to another person gratuitously, she is looking for an unconditioned reciprocal answer from the other part. Following this latter thought line, it is possible to include the logic of reciprocity even within the concept of agape (Coda 1994). To translate the Greek word “agape,” Christians used charitas, derived from the Greek charis, which means love and gratuitousness (Bruni 2015). St. Paul described agape (charity) as the most important Christian virtue, based on that perfect harmony generated by love. Indeed, without charity, no virtue can arise (Colossians 3:14). Moreover, not only charity is a virtue in itself, but it also fosters the arising of other virtues: “Love is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4–7). Recently, Domènec Melé tried to insert the concept of agape within the business ethics’ field. In particular, blending from Aquinas’ thought, he connected the concept of agape with “love of benevolence,” claiming: “In Christian ethics, agápē not only animates and inspires other virtues, actually it is at the core of all virtues. St. Thomas Aquinas […] affirmed that charity is the ‘form’ of the virtues. This means that charity directs the acts of all other virtues to the last end, and which, consequently, also gives the form to all other acts of virtues […] for Aquinas agápē (charity) is love of benevolence” (2012: 2–3). Given this picture, we can wonder if it is possible to find agape within the organizational context. My answer is definitely yes. Indeed, starting from the Christian premise that human beings are made to love, because they are loved, therefore, they are able to exercise agapic behaviors (Sferrazzo 2019). In what follows, I will describe, first, the ideal style of agapic leadership, second, the ideal form of an agape-based organization.

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

19

2.2   The Agapic Leadership In literature, few authors have discussed “love” within organization studies (Brewis and Grey 1994); indeed, “love is a word rarely found in the modern organization literature” (Barsade and O’Neill 2014: 552). Tasselli argues that “love is avoided because it calls for a full expression of the self, something conflicting with the normative authority of organizations” (2018: 1074). Ferris defined love, in the organizational context, as “a feeling of caring or deep respect for yourself and others, of valuing and believing in yourself and others, and of helping to achieve the best of which everyone is capable. It means finding a sense of purpose, fulfillment, and fun in your work, and helping others to find these qualities in their works as well” (1988: 42–43). Here, I focus in depth on the concept of love in leadership styles. Although many studies have been conducted in the area of leadership (Anderson and Sun 2017), however, there are few studies linking leadership and love. Among these, Sanford (1998) discussed maternalistic love in leadership, and Covey (1991) pointed out that people distrust superficial human relations techniques and manipulative formulas that are separated from sincere love. Barsade and O’Neill stressed that organizational leaders “are recognizing the value of fostering companionate love as a collective, cultural phenomenon within groups of employees and in the organization as a whole” (2014: 584). Kouzes and Posner defined love as “the source of the leader’s courage and the leaders magnetic north. Leaders are in love: in love with leading, in love with their organization’s products and service, and in love with people” (1992: 483). Other scholars refer to the topic of love in leadership in a both explicit and implicit manner, in relation to: charismatic leadership (Ito and Bligh 2016; Jacobsen and House 2001; Tikhomirov and Spangler 2010); servant leadership (Autry 2001; Beck 2014; Burns 1978; Dennis and Bocarnea 2005; Flynn et al. 2016; Greenleaf 1977; Patterson 2003, Rai and Prakash 2012); spiritual leadership (Chi Vu and Gill 2018; Ferguson and Milliman 2008; Fry 2009; Fry and Cohen 2009; Yang et al. 2019); responsible leadership (Cameron 2011; Lynham and Chermack 2006); contemplative leadership (Grandy and Sliwa 2017). For example, Patterson (2003) recognizes the dimension of the “agapao love” in the servant leadership model. Specifically, agapao consists of loving in a moral and social sense (Winston 2002). This love, in particular, “causes leaders to consider each person not simply as a means to an end but as a complete person: one

20 

R. SFERRAZZO

with needs, wants and desire” (Dennis and Bocarnea 2005: 602). In reference to spiritual leadership, Ferguson and Milliman (2008) highlight that it is based on leaders’ altruistic love, consisting of care and concern for others. Connected to love in an implicit manner, Grandy and Sliwa define contemplative leadership as that “virtuous activity; reflexive, engaged, relational, and embodied practice that requires knowledge from within context and practical wisdom” (2017: 423). As far as literature is concerned, I am not aware of studies that highlight the contribution of the agapic form of love for leadership styles. To fill this gap, in this work, using the three classic categories of love (eros, philia and agape) and analyzing, in particular, the agapic ones from a Christian perspective (Melé 2012), I try to answer the following question: which behaviors of leaders are closest to the agapic form of love? To answer this question, I investigate the leadership style adopted in a renowned French multinational company. I look specifically at this French multinational company and analyse whether or not the attitudes described by interviewees reflect this sort of agapic behaviors. 2.2.1  Method 2.2.1.1 Context and Sample The study consisted of 29 semi-structured interviews (taped and transcribed), conducted in vivo with both leaders and managers of the French multinational company. This latter was founded in France by two Catholic spouses. After several years dedicated to expanding its collaborators and focusing on products related to “do it yourself” activity, it arrived in Italy at the end of 1990’s. Today, it has almost 50 stores distributed throughout Italy, with more than 6900 employees. As specified in its website, this company orients its strategic choices towards the centrality of the person (client/collaborator). It aims to create added value for citizens, collaborators and future generations, having as a mission the improvement of the dwellings and helping people to create their ideal homes. In addition to this, there are also other fundamental elements which suggest that its leadership style could be oriented to the agapic form of love described above. My initial contact for the study was the HR director of the Italian branch of the company. Based on this contact, I access to conduct an empirical investigation in the Italian branch services and stores. Upon

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

21

request, the Italian HR Director initially provided a list of employees, managers and leaders at different hierarchal levels and roles that would be well-placed to understand the company’s leadership styles. Subsequently, the HR Director provided me with names among which I chose from one to five people belonging to different hierarchical levels and roles (store leaders, HR store managers, internal communication, sector leaders, supply chain director, cashiers, HR Director, CSR manager). In conducting interviews, I ensured diversity of participants in terms of gender, age, and work experience. The sample included almost all the leadership team (the whole of the board of directors, regional middle managers, store leaders and HR store managers), as well as employees lower down in the organizational hierarchy (internal communication managers, supply chain managers and sector leaders). Interviewees sometimes suggested other people they thought I should contact. The semi-structured interviews lasted for an average duration of 90 minutes and were conducted in the subject’s personal office. The study is suited to a qualitative method of analysis as it is an open-ended exploratory study, asking both managers and leaders how they conduct their leadership activity in the organization. Other data were collected through company documents, informal meetings with employees and direct observation, in order to find coherence between leaders’ and employees’ perceptions in the organization. 2.2.1.2 Data Analysis In order to answer the research question, I asked managers and leaders to identify the specific features of their leadership style. When I conducted the semi-structured interview, I assured the interviewees that their answers would be confidential; moreover, the interviewees read and signed an informed consent form at the end of the interview questions (below the interviewees’ names are invented). I conducted all the interviews in Italian. Next, I provided a textual translation in English in order to report the findings. The interview protocol included 10 standard questions, with the aim of investigating the perception of love by managers and leaders in their daily organizational practices. I interviewed some participants more than once, to examine some relevant emergent topics in depth. I continued to collect data until I reached a point of theoretical saturation, described as the moment when ‘new information produces little or no change to the

22 

R. SFERRAZZO

codebook’ (Guest et al. 2006: 65). Hence, I stopped data collection once interviewees began re-iterating information already known. I treated this study by using the methodological protocols of inductive research (Glaser and Strauss 1967), investigating managers and leaders’ perception of love in their leadership styles. I aimed to construct a theory following a bottom-up process typical of Grounded theory: hence, starting from data collection (Gioia et al. 2013). I focused, in particular, on a “Straussian approach,” which “allows for semi-structured interview questions (Corbin and Strauss 2008”; Alammar et  al. 2018: 232). Then, I organized data around semiotic clusters (Feldman 1995), by using: (a) first-order concepts, emerging from informants’ own language (Clark et al. 2010); (b) second-order themes derived from the data interpretation; (c) third-order categories (i.e. overarching dimensions), resulting from the attempt to lift data to a higher degree of conceptual analysis. These latter categories, in my interpretation, are connected to the agapic leadership style, in as much as they are based on: sharing everything, adopting subisidiarity logics and fostering reciprocal learning. In addition to this, there are also other fundamental elements which suggest that the analysed company’s leadership styles could be oriented to the agapic form of love described above. Indeed, this organization is well known in Europe for three main reasons. First, as it adopts CSR policies without advertising them; second, it adopts the logic of “partage” (sharing); and finally, as it gives more importance to people than to numbers. Furthermore, the remuneration system is really a particular one in comparison to the classical remuneration systems adopted in other multinational companies. Indeed, the HR Director told me that the company remuneration system is based on three main mechanisms: first, the “progress award,” which can value even a maximum of 25% of people remuneration; second, the “results’ participation,” thanks to which it is possible to obtain also another monthly payment. Then, the third mechanism is based on the widespread shareholding. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show how data have been organized. 2.2.2  Findings 2.2.2.1 Sharing Everything From my empirical investigation, I discovered that the leadership model adopted in this multinational company implies a real concern for others. It

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

23

Table 2.1  Overview of interview data Interviewees

Sex

Age

Organizational level

Length (60–90 min.)

Adriana Alberto Andrea Arianna Beatrice Carlo Carmelo Edoardo Eugenio Fabiana Franca Francesco Gioia Giordana Giovanni Giulia Guglielmo Licia Martina Paolo Raffaele Rossana Sebastian Simona Teresa Tommaso Umberto Valentina Vittorio

F M M F F M M M M Fs F M F F M F M F F M M F M F F M M F M

45 49 38 39 32 46 50 39 29 41 37 33 41 34 45 51 27 35 42 31 48 50 49 57 49 48 37 44 41

Store leader Store leader Store leader Supply chain Internal communication Sector leader HR Store manager Store leader Sector leader HR Store manager Store leader Store leader Store leader Sector leader Store leader HR Store manager Sector leader Store leader HR Store manager Sector leader CSR Manager HR Store manager Store leader HR Director HR Store manager HR Store manager Store leader Store leader HR Store manager

84 92 82 72 110 88 87 89 79 94 82 90 91 78 92 85 75 84 91 81 97 95 102 115 100 93 94 97 92

is a model oriented to collaboration and sharing, based on fostering the informal exchange of personal experiences, feelings, personal and professional values, attractions, aversions, motivations, habits and relationships among employees. Building with the Company as a Whole  During the interviews, leaders revealed their desire to promote both collaborative and collective dimensions among people working in this organization. For example, Adriana (store leader) noted:

24 

R. SFERRAZZO

Table 2.2  Data coding structure First-order concepts

Second-order themes

Collaboration and participative spirit Collective as better than individual Organizational culture based on a logic of sharing Collective rituals Guaranteeing autonomy Delegating

Building with the company Sharing everything as a whole Bringing people together

Giving people freedom

Giving and receiving trust Relying on people Granting the possibility to make mistakes Explaining the sense of every action Teaching attitude Observing people’s work Training mechanisms Caring about people’s lives Relational approach Putting people first Learning through reciprocal feedback

Aggregate dimensions

Adoption of subsidiarity logics

Fostering reciprocal learning

I learned, through my experience, that a directive leadership style leads to results only in the short term. I use it only in case of emergency, for example for safety reasons. However, I understood that a non-directive leadership style leads to more effective results. In fact, my collaborators are in direct contact with the clients of the store, so they know what can satisfy our clients. For this reason, I want to collaborate with them.

This participative dimension to the decision-making process within stores has been highlighted several times during the interviews, both by leaders and followers. Even Beatrice (internal communication) emphasized the element of participation arguing: A few years ago, all workers participated in building the mission of the company. Our mission, indeed, was co-built by all workers who were part of the company. Our flag saying “every person has the right to their own ideal home” when I arrived was already created. However, all people working for this company contributed to it. This shows how the co-construction dimension is part of our agenda. This is a company that has done so much in relation to the participation and the contribution of people. Now, our challenge is to understand how we can preserve this heritage over time.

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

25

Even the preference to the collective side rather than the individual ones has been clearly underlined by some interviewees. For example, Eugenio (sector leader) stressed: One of our main principles is that the collective is better than the individual, so the collective intelligence is better than the individual one. Following this logic, you have to work in a group by putting everyone’s ideas in common. There are not stupid questions or stupid ideas, there are only different ideas and points of view. Then, it is obvious that all the collaborators’ ideas cannot be realized. But putting them together can help to achieve our aims. In fact, we try to involve all the collaborators in all the transversal activities of the store. We cannot do anything alone.

Fabiana (HR store manager) also highlighted the importance of the collective dimension for the organization: The collective intelligence is better than the individual one. It is obvious that there are times when you have to bring things to fruition. It is not like you can call the CEO at any time and shoot him all the ideas you have. You need the right time to do this. However, where ideas are shared, they can become more effective, as you can see facets that you cannot see alone.

Beyond all these considerable positive elements of collaboration, some workers highlighted the organizational slowness derived from the adoption of a collaborative logic. Simona (HR director), indeed, told me also about some limits of the collaborative mechanisms adopted: Today, we continuously search for consensus. That is, traditionally, there are a lot of meetings where people talk, talk, talk… and if we do not all agree we do not make a decision. In this manner, the decisions we make are very solid, but with this compulsion to find consent they are extremely slow.

Bringing People Together  Some of the main characteristics of this company are the application of the logic of sharing and the organizing of collective rituals. The founder of the company – who was strongly influenced by the French Catholic mentality based on “partage” (sharing) – brought this dimension into the company. Both leaders and followers highlighted, during the interviews, the significance of both ritualistic and sharing

26 

R. SFERRAZZO

moments for them and for the company as a whole. For instance, Raffaele (CSR manager) claimed: We should act for the common good, but not forgetting to make profit. Because the more profit you make, the more common good you can generate. To explain this concept, I always use the parable of the talents. Share your talents, making them available. Even the wealth of the company is one of the talents you have to share.

Moreover, Arianna (supply chain) stressed the importance to own certain values before starting to work for the company, otherwise some problems could arise in accepting the “partage” (sharing): In my opinion, the culture of sharing is in our DNA. The company has this great gift of having created an organizational culture made up of people, values and sharing. If you do not share in your life the value of transparency and a culture of both sharing and listening, it will be difficult for you to work here. Sharing represents who we are. In the sense that, in your life, either you are a person who is used to sharing or else you will not feel comfortable in this company. Because for us, everything is to be shared and to be made available.

Sebastian underlined the difference between the company and other multinational companies. This difference is based, in particular, in sharing the economic results of the company with all people working for it: Here, a sales advisor knows the economic results of the store because here we share the company results with our collaborators. Every day, all the workers of the store know how much it has made, what are the margins, they know the value of buying and selling because they must have all the tools to be able to make entrepreneurial choices … The business plan is normally done once in the lifetime of the company and it is co-built with all the shop teams, with all the teams of the entire company … The business project is a co-built project where people think about how to reach their aims, so what are the shared values and rules through which we build our business mission. It is like a shared strategic plan.

Another important element emphasized in this organizations by its employees – which expresses the logic of sharing – involves the company layout. In reference to this latter, Edoardo (store leader) pointed out:

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

27

Surely, we can work to create more comfortable areas for our collaborators. In this store, there is a game room, a break room and a dining hall. We focused on them so as to foster those moments where they can be together, confront each other. We have programmed some roundtable meetings to replicate these projects, or other similar ones, also in other shops. Then, if interesting ideas come out, we can copy them in other stores.

To sum up, sharing is a very strong term in this multinational company. It is a concept that has been spoken about for years, but also experienced inside the company. In fact, the theme of sharing belongs to the organizational culture. Another element belonging to this organization, which is an expression of the logic of sharing, is the fact that all the workers can be shareholders: There are so many traits that distinguish this company. I like the importance of the person, so putting the person at the center, both as a collaborator and as a client. As happens in many French companies, even here the collaborator is not an employee, but a shareholder. 99% of workers are shareholders, and this system creates greater engagement in the company. In fact, we are interested in the company operating both as a brand and as a company in itself (Andrea, store leader).

As well as the collaboration factor, some interviewees underlined some limits related to the logic of sharing. Franca (store leader), for instance, told me about both the pros and the cons of applying the logic of sharing in the company: The organizational culture of this company is based on sharing: sharing of power, belongings, knowledge, and it has a very strong value, very valid and very important. So this is a company that also shares its results and numbers. My first years working in this organization, I was really shocked to see the profit and loss accounts hung on the walls of the store. However, when you share too much it becomes difficult to take a position. In fact, today we are trying to share less because we lost an equilibrium, but this is difficult because everyone is used to sharing here.

In this company, this logic of sharing also finds application in fostering collective rituals for different organizational goals. For example, Giulia (HR store manager) underlined the importance of organizing collective rituals outside the workplace to reinforce workers’ collaboration:

28 

R. SFERRAZZO

In those two days I organized outside the shop I saw them (the members of the committee) bringing out many ideas. Those two days outside the workplace environment were spent in very non-stressful places: one at the cooking school, one at the golf club. I took all of our activities as an example of our working in the store: some could do 18 holes, some only nine, some were the ball … Or we set up a picnic, cooking outdoors: some were the chefs, some were the kitchen assistants, what was the stock. So I used activities that always had a parallel with their working roles. On those two days, I gave my collaborators the opportunity to write on a paper how they felt outside the workplace. This paper was hung on the wall of the shop all year, until the following year. Moreover, my collaborators asked me how they could repeat the same activities with their teams in the store.

Collective rituals are part of this company’s organizational culture. They help to strengthen relational bonds among employees, moreover, they are strategic tools to increase employees’ performance. For this reason, they are both fostered and encouraged by leaders in the stores. Valentina (store leader), told me about the various collective rituals she keeps in her store: In the morning we give a briefing during which in 10 minutes we tell collaborators something, for example the trend both of the store and of the company. These are important occasions in which generally a theme is always illustrated, and this helps us focus everything. For example, if the company wants to focus on something, we use the brief to give people constant messages ... Then there are the plenary sessions. Every four months we hold plenary progress sessions, during which the company gives a prize to the stores based on the results obtained compared to the previous year, and we all receive a bonus as a percentage of our salary. After the plenary, I organize a meeting inside the store and, whether or not there was a prize, I explain the reasons to my collaborators. Those are the moments when I never miss. Even if I participate in maybe 4 or 5 out of 6 daily brief each week, the plenary sessions are certainly a reason for me to be there... I never miss them. We usually do the summer plenary in the evening; we create a moment of celebration, we make a barbecue in the store.

Even lots of followers recognized the importance of collective rituals. For example, Beatrice (internal communication) commented: Among the rituals “imposed,” but according to me it is better to say “proposed” by the company, you understand that a ritual works by the participation of people. Some proposed rituals are the plenary sessions. We have many plenaries, both the ones of management and the quarterly plenary sessions organized both

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

29

in-store and internal services, with various agendas. The participation rate makes you see how much the physical channel (I do communication so I also look at the data from this point of view) is a privileged channel for people to talk to each other, listen, see what is there new, who arrived in the company, who left. So, beyond a newsletter, just the physical meeting together with other people wins, wins over everything... Other imposed rituals – in my opinion appreciated – are both the daily morning briefs in the store and welcoming the first customers.

2.2.2.2 Adoption of the Logic of Subsidiarity Two other core values of this multinational company, beyond both collaboration and sharing, are the mechanisms of delegating and fostering spaces of autonomy, which imply the presence of a strong spirit of trust within the organization. These mechanisms fit well with a logic of subsidiarity. Giving People Freedom  In this company, workers have complete freedom to take any actions they decide are best. One of the most used metaphors in this organization, used to illustrate the concept of delegating is the example of the child in the swimming pool. For instance, Alberto (store leader) noted: Here you bring children who have to learn to swim and you throw them in the pool, this is the way. Personal initiative is undoubtedly rewarded, people are left free to decide.

Several interviewees emphasized the benefit of independence connected to this high degree of freedom they own. Raffaele (CSR manager) declared that he enjoys full decisional autonomy in his activities: I feel totally independent in deciding. I decided everything I did. Obviously, I am talking about decisions for which you do not have to ask for investments. For example, last night we went to present a social enterprise project. Clearly, I cannot decide to do it, but I could decide to propose it to my manager.

Umberto (store leader) also stressed that one of the main elements of the organizational culture of this company is autonomy. However, he highlighted also some of the limits linked to autonomy, for instance, controlling employees’ work, in order to be oriented to a common goal to reach:

30 

R. SFERRAZZO

The organization is based on the concept of autonomy. In this company, I worked as an entrepreneur with company money, because in my shops I could follow everything. For example: I moved departments, I created new roles, I invented initiatives to increase the number of customers, I invented successful events inside the shops. I did all these things by working with my store collaborators. For example, I created a customer evening managed in a certain way, with the store open until midnight, etc. So, in my view, guaranteeing a space of autonomy is fundamental, but it also has some negative effects. Since I grant autonomy, I control people working in autonomy. In fact, the autonomy I give to my collaborators must be always linked to a common goal to reach.

Even Giordana (sector leader) claimed the necessity both of delegating, due to the circumstances, and of controlling workers’ activities: 99% of the time, I delegate. Obviously, you can delegate when you have competent sector leaders who know their profession well. I must delegate especially because I would not be able to do all the jobs inside the store. So, delegation is important to me, but also the control of delegation.

Next, Beatrice (internal communication) showed me one of the limits of delegating, which concerns the supervision process, necessary for the company’s goals: So yes, super-involvement and super-delegation, even if this has on the one hand some advantages, on the other side some disadvantages. In fact, even if the person learns super-fast, on the other hand she must be protected in my opinion… Therefore, it is necessary to have some supervision from above, or, in any case, a return provided by the manager.

Giving and Receiving Trust  Both leaders and followers told me about the trust relationships existing between them in the company. This type of relationship allows employees to feel free although they must be controlled for obvious corporate reasons. For example, Beatrice (internal communication) said: I do not see this supervision activity as a control... Here, I see managers relying totally on their collaborators.

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

31

The element of trust was well described by one of the leaders, Rossana (HR store manager), who told me about the importance of establishing a relation based on reciprocal trust with her followers: Usually my collaborators define me as a sunny person, a person who is stimulating, and this I think is the greatest gratification because it means that my role works. I am a person who trusts, but who also gains trust. I see this with my new collaborators. Indeed, people tend to come to me, also giving me important information about their lives.

Licia (store leader) was touched in remembering how her manager relied on her: I will never forget when I proposed to my manager to work on a new managerial model, and then, to involve people. When I presented it to him, at that time I had a clear idea of where I wanted to go, but it was clear only to me. So, when I tried to illustrate it, maybe I didn’t succeed in the best way to transfer exactly the content that I imagined. And I remember that he listened to me carefully and then he said to me ‘Look, I didn’t catch the point, but you believe in it so much that I tell you: let’s try!’.

A common element that both followers and leaders illustrated referred to the possibility to make mistakes in their company. In this organization, making mistakes is a normal process to be not punished, but simply to be overcome with the company’s support. Paolo (sector leader) and Tommaso (HR store manager), provided me some examples related to this process: As far as internal growth is concerned, the principle that is most dear to me is that of giving space to the collaborator to express themselves. But not only at level of communication, that is, “ok, I talk to my manager, I tell him my opinion, then he does what he says.” But just giving the collaborator the opportunity to experiment, to try out their idea, which is a very difficult thing because sometimes you are not convinced and maybe you know where it will go wrong or what this choice will involve. Sometimes there are programmed mistakes and you have to take the risk if you want your collaborators to feel like they are a part of the project (Paolo). I continuously repeat to my collaborators: ‘Dare, try, throw yourself, experiment, propose to me training courses or something that goes beyond what you do in your everyday working life, but let’s share it, let’s do it, let’s do it together.

32 

R. SFERRAZZO

Experiment, ask, do it, let’s try. Maybe your idea is wrong, who knows, but together we will find a solution.’ (Tommaso).

2.2.2.3 Fostering Reciprocal Learning A typical trait of the leadership style adopted in this company consists in its relational and teaching inclination. Leaders are able to forge strong relational bonds with their followers in order to foster growth, both in a personal and working sense. Teaching Attitude  Francesco (store leader) highlighted the importance of both training and teaching for workers’ development: We accompany people in the field. It is very important to explain the meaning of everything to people, in the sense that there must be confrontational attitudes. So when there are problems, we explain the reasons behind these problems. This will have positive effects both on our collaborators’ well-being and on customers’ well-being.’

Moreover, Carmelo (HR store manager) explained the importance of clarifying the meaning of every action: We need to explain why. It’s what my boss used to say to me a while ago: you have to “explain, explain, explain” and when you have finished, go back to explain. It is so.

Another teaching aspect illustrated by leaders consisted in observing followers’ activities. For instance, Giovanni (store leader) stressed the importance of providing feedbacks to followers, so as to give them the opportunities to grow in their work: Here the goal is to give feedback to the person, because through feedback you allow people to grow and give them the tools to be able to work…. You have to teach them how to do things, sometimes let them go wrong on their own, sometimes give them the right input to get started. They have to discover things by themselves. So we are like teachers, we have to teach. ... I report what I do with my children to the company. I love my children, but there are times when I have to scold them because they are doing something wrong. I do the same thing with my collaborators.

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

33

One of the people who has been working in the company for many years is Martina (HR store manager). She highlighted the importance of caring for people and being a teacher for them in her activity. Specifically, she emphasized how training, motivation and accompaniment helped her followers in their working life: My personal slogan is ‘people make companies.’ So, you have to take care of people. You choose them, certainly. So first you choose them, then you take care of them, which means training, motivation and accompaniment. When I meet people I worked with, they tell me ‘how useful your teachings were, they made us grow, how many things we learned from them.’ In my opinion, a manager is foremost a trainer, otherwise he is a freelancer. If you are a manager, you manage people, so you should have human relationships in your DNA. Otherwise you are a stock trader, a financial operator. Obviously you are not only a trainer as a manager, but a manager is different from a trainer because a manager leads people to achieve a goal, the trainer does not. Managers have to care about the revenue statement, the expansion of a company, the development of a business branch. They have very concrete objectives to reach. The word ‘manager’ means to manage, so they have to manage both people and objectives.

Relational Approach Leaders’ relational attitude in the company, as deducted from interviews, includes three main dimensions: caring about collaborators’ lives, putting people first and learning. First, several leaders stressed the importance of caring about collaborators’ lives, in a general sense. For example, Teresa (HR store manager), told me about her manager’s advices, and how they were important for her work: I remember that when our manager, Michele, asked us to have lunch together, someone said, “But that’s too much… is it not enough to see each other all day already?” However, Michele was very good because he did not give up. He knew that it was important for us to give ourselves this kind of ritual, because we really needed to care each other and we don’t have many opportunities to do this. When lunch happens, you create this opportunity. Because we do not talk about work, we talk about what we did the day before, or we talk a lot about food, about wine, and so on. So, we present ourselves as people and not as roles and this helps to knowing better each other.

Even Gioia (store leader) stressed the importance of caring about collaborators’ lives for the company’s organizational culture:

34 

R. SFERRAZZO

Our corporate culture is based on caring about people’s lives. In fact, we are not a company that works on serial numbers, but which works on the relationships built day by day. Therefore, sector leaders, who have been working with their teams for ten hours a day, have concern for collaborators’ life, death and miracles.

Second, other leaders underlined how fundamental it is to put people first for the company. They highlighted how it is central to focus on people’s well-being, by listening to their opinions and ideas: I have fallen in love with human resources thanks to these meetings, discovering that there are still companies – like ours – that focus on the person, and that create these collaborative situations. I perceived this during the selection process and I experienced it from the moment that I entered the company. Several years have passed and I continue to feel this (Vittorio, HR store manager). I was immediately struck by one thing when I decided to work in this company. In fact, from the first day, I saw that this is a company that focuses on people, that gives them an opportunity to express themselves and that takes into consideration every point of view, even that of the less experienced, and then tries to invest in its own collaborators over time and develop them, which can be vertical, horizontal, whatever you want, but just a development of your own competence and professional position (Guglielmo, sector leader). The collaborator must be at the center of our activity. It is thanks to the collaborators that the company has arrived where it is today. If we didn’t think that, we wouldn’t be here. Because, in general, we should always start from the assumption that we never stop learning (Carlo, sector leader).

Third, both leaders and followers recognized the importance of both providing and receiving feedback for reciprocal learning: I don’t drive my collaborators. My strategic plan is the sum of the strategic plans of my human resources collaborators. Learning from them means, for example, giving continuous feedback to the boss. So, my feedback story is the backbone of my learning (Simona, HR director). One of the things that I will implement this year and next year will be to base meetings with my collaborators on feedback, on daily feedback. If I want to use feedback for reasons of personal development, I have to build an evolved culture of feedback, so I have to start from positive actions. The problem is that leaders usually scold their collaborators, but in this manner the employees don’t learn. Instead, we can learn with positive feedback (Beatrice).

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

35

2.3   The Agape-Based Organization To build a theory starting from data collection (Gioia et  al. 2013), I needed to compare the findings to what already exists in literature. Specifically, I found three main associations, in literature, with reference to the three aggregate dimensions of Table 2.1. First, we could define the sharing and collaboration spaces of this company – favored by leaders – as liminal spaces. In the literature, several authors have focused in depth on the concept of liminality in the organizational context (see for example Garsten 1999; Czarniawska and Mazza 2003; Sturdy et  al. 2006 and Shortt 2015). This French organization – as has emerged through interviews described above – is full of liminal spaces. Some of them – discovered through the interviews’ process – are plenaries, meetings, workshops, and lunches. These moments are useful to build collective meaning. Moreover, they include a dimension of gratuity typical of the agapic form of love, allowing workers to grow into the collectivity. This spirit of gratuity emerges, for example, in the sharing of power, belongings, knowledge, information and time. In this company, people share their talents with everybody, also with the social community of the store, for example through volunteer work. All things considered, I argue that, in the examined company, the leadership style adopted fosters collective moments – definable as liminal spaces  – dwelling at the boundary between work and non-work. Second, in this company, in adopting subsidiarity logics, leaders desire to hear what their collaborators think, what they have to say, and how they feel. In other words, leaders aim to understand how their collaborators experience their working days. Building on Deal’s and Kennedy’s words (1982), leaders aspire to guarantee that collaborators ‘are not considered “kitchen help”’ (61). If a workplace is organized so that exchanges between managers and employees are frequent, the people involved understand that they are being taken seriously (Sennett 2012). Therefore, leaders see employees ‘as members of an extended family rather than as mere “human resources”’ (Ferris 1988: 42). Moreover, leaders foster the increase in productivity not through a controlling, ordering and manipulating style, but by activating logics of subsidiarity. This happens when leaders leave employees free to undertake actions they want (Sferrazzo and Ruffini 2019). In this way, they encourage empowerment and stimulate employees’ motivation, energy and creativity by giving them trust and love.

36 

R. SFERRAZZO

Third, leaders can be considered as educators. The peculiarity of this education process consists in the exchange of reciprocal feedback between leaders and followers. In the literature, managers who try to improve workers’ motivation, skills, and competencies have been defined as coaching managers (Beattie et al. 2014). Recently, Steelman and Wolfeld (2018) highlighted the high level of effectiveness obtained through an orientation towards feedback in their coaching activity. I argue that in this organization it is possible to find “unconditional reciprocity,” typical of the agapic dimension, in teaching insofar as it is bidirectional. Indeed, both followers and leaders are willing to learn from each other and accept their reciprocal help. Given this picture, these three organizational elements promoted by leaders, based on liminality, subsidiarity and education, seem to be coherent with the agapic form of love. In fact, these three dimensions are strongly related to “unconditional reciprocity,” described above as a typical trait of the agapic dimension. Specifically, in this French multinational company, leaders establish relationships with their collaborators in coherence with the agapic dimension for four main reasons. First, they both feel compassion and develop a deep interest in their followers’ wellbeing. This can be found, for instance, in the importance given to moments allowing them to have concern for their collaborators’ lives, their histories, their motivations, and their lives. Second, leaders foster the construction of fraternal relationships within organizations. They promote these kinds of relationships by proposing both collective rituals and liminal spaces, which reinforce interpersonal bonds between people working within the organization. Third, leaders are not solely oriented toward achieving results: rather, they aim to promoting collaborators’ well-being. This emerges, for example, from the slowness of procedures, which paradoxically generates positive effects in terms of effectiveness. Finally, the budget is built with a participatory mechanism called “bottom-up-bottom,” explained as a work of “power-counterpower.” Power, indeed, is not at the top of the pyramid, but at the bottom of the pyramid, i.e. in the stores. In fact, the stores make the budget and if it is validated in a particular store, it becomes the reference budget for all other stores. Summarizing what has just been said, it seems that we can define the leadership style just described as an “agapic leadership style.” Specifically, I claim that the agapic leadership style finds its roots into the Christian religion for its specific features, emerged through the case study: first in relation to the concept of charity abovementioned, and second, with

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

37

reference to the principle of subsidiarity. On the charity side, if we look at this organization through the lens of Christianity, we can argue that loving in an agapic way leads to establish organizational relationships based on compassion, help, attention, and responsibility towards others, inside and outside the organizational context. Next, in this company, the adoption of the Christian principle of subsidiarity consists of allowing employees to be more autonomous in managing their own work. Analysing the conception of love within organizations is important “because it contributes to bringing the individual back into organizational research” (Tasselli 2018: 12). This is important to better understand the phenomenon of organizations, where human behaviors do not follow the rational logic of homo oeconomicus, but are influenced by emotions, feelings, and irrational elements typical of “humans” (Nugent and Abolafia 2006). In other terms, managers could develop a non-rational dimension by not treating individuals as homines oeconomici seeking to maximize their utility (Hartman 2015), but as relational human beings living together in a community. Eros, philia and agape seem to constitute a good starting point for this type of analysis. In fact, each of these love forms creates bonds between people centered on different aspects. Synthetizing the features of the three forms of love mentioned above, we can imagine three different types of relationships within organizations. The eros-based relationships are centered on the self in relation to the other. In this context, organizational relationships could be based on competition, in the sense of its Latin etymology of cum-petere, “to strive together.” These forms of competitive collaboration may stimulate creativity and a sense of accomplishment. Next, the philia-based relationships are based on mutual trust and on growing together (Tasselli 2018). An example could be found in managers who tend to recruit their collaborators, assistants and replacements according to the similarity criterion. This intuitive attitude justifies the important role of human resource department which can “row against the stream,” adopting or suggesting evaluation criteria to managers not based on similarity between the candidate and their superiors. Finally, there are the agape-oriented relationships. I focused the empirical investigation, in particular, on understanding the features of this third form of love in the leadership model adopted in a French multinational company. I discovered that an agapic leadership style implies both a strong feeling of compassion toward followers and a deep interest in their wellbeing. Moreover, it can be considered as rooted in the Christian religion, both with reference to the concept of charity and

38 

R. SFERRAZZO

considering the importance of the principle of subsidiarity in the Christian tradition (Melé 2005). From the conceptual analysis of the case study, the importance of three main elements in the agapic leadership style emerges: promoting sharing mechanisms, adopting of subsidiarity logics and fostering reciprocal learning processes. These three elements are strongly connected with the agapic dimension described above both as they generate forms of unconditional reciprocity between people and as they do not directly focus on obtaining economic results. I identified also some limits of the leadership mechanisms oriented to the agapic dimension. As has emerged through the interview process, these limits imply, in particular, a slower process even in a constantly changing market. Moreover, in some cases, collaboration and sharing can cause difficulties in assuming responsibilities. Several interviewees complained about these two limitations. However, most of them stressed that the approach adopted offer added value for the organization. Furthermore, in some cases, workers chose this company precisely for these elements. Future research prospects could be based on exploring the leadership styles in other companies closer to the other two forms of love, i.e. eros and philia. In this manner, a comparison among the three forms can arise. Moreover, this could contribute to expanding the discussion on the connection between love and leadership styles in leadership and organization studies, even using a religious or spiritual framework.

References Alammar, F.  M., Intezari, A., Cardow, A., & Pauleen, D.  J. (2018). Grounded theory in practice: Novice researchers’ choice between Straussian and Glaserian. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 228–245. Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. T. (2017). Reviewing leadership styles: Overlaps and the need for a new ‘full-range’ theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 76–96. Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader. New York: Crown Business. Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 551–598. Beattie, R. S., Kim, S., Hagen, M. S., Egan, T. M., Ellinger, A. D., & Hamlin, R.  G. (2014). Managerial coaching: A review of the empirical literature and

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

39

development of a model to guide future practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 1–18. Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299–314. Boltanski, L. (1990). L’amour et la justice comme competences. Paris: Métailié. Brewis, J., & Grey, C. (1994). Re-eroticizing the organization: An exegesis and critique. Gender, Work and Organization, 1(2), 67–82. Bruni, L. (2008). Reciprocity, altruism and the civil society. In praise of heterogeneity. London: Routledge. Bruni, L. (2015). A lexicon of social well-being. London: Palgrave Pivot. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. In N. Pless & T. Maak (Eds.), Responsible leadership (pp. 25–35). Dordrecht: Springer. Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Transitional identity as facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 397–438. Coda, P. (1994). L’agape come grazie e libertà. Alla radice della teologia e prassi dei cristiani. Rome: Città Nuova. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle centered leadership. New York: The Free Press. Czarniawska, B., & Mazza, C. (2003). Consulting as a liminal space. Human Relations, 56(3), 267–290. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Dennis, R.  S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600–615. Feldman, M.  S. (1995). Strategies for interpreting qualitative data. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ferguson, J., & Milliman, J. (2008). Creating effective core organizational values: A spiritual leadership approach. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(4), 439–459. Ferris, R. (1988). How organizational love can improve leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 41–51. Flynn, C. B., Smither, J. W., & Walker, A. G. (2016). Exploring the relationship between leaders’ core self-evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of servant leadership: A field study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 23(3), 260–271. Fry, L. W. (2009). Spiritual leadership as a model for student inner development. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3), 79–82.

40 

R. SFERRAZZO

Fry, L. W., & Cohen, M. P. (2009). Spiritual leadership as a paradigm for organizational transformation and recovery from extended work hours cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 265–278. Garsten, C. (1999). Betwixt and between: Temporary employees as liminal subjects in flexible organizations. Organization Studies, 20(4), 601–617. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. Grandy, G., & Sliwa, M. (2017). Contemplative leadership: The possibilities for the ethics of leadership theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(3), 423–440. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. Hackforth, R. (Ed.). (1972). Plato: Phaedrus (No. 119). Cambridge University Press. Hartman, E. M. (2015). Rationality in management theory and practice: An aristotelian perspective. Philosophy of Management, 14, 5–16. Ito, A., & Bligh, M. C. (2016). Feeling vulnerable? Disclosure of vulnerability in the charismatic leadership relationship. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(3), 66–70. Jacobsen, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 75–112. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1992). Ethical leaders: An essay about being in love. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6), 479–484. Lewis, C. S. (1960). The four loves. New York: Harvest. Lynham, S.  A., & Chermack, T.  J. (2006). Responsible leadership for performance: A theoretical model and hypotheses. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(4), 73–88. Melé, D. (2005). Exploring the principle of subsidiarity in organisational forms. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 293–305. Melé, D. (2012). The Christian notion of Αγάπη (agápē): Towards a more complete view of business ethics. In G. P. Prastacos, F. Wang, & K. E. Soderquist (Eds.), Leadership through the classics (pp. 79–91). Berlin: Springer. Nugent, P. D., & Abolafia, M. Y. (2006). The creation of trust through interaction and exchange: The role of consideration in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(6), 628–650. Nygren, A. (2009). Éros et agape. Paris: Le Cerf.

2  TOWARDS AN AGAPIC LEADERSHIP 

41

Patterson, K.A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. PhD dissertation, Regent University. Rai, R., & Prakash, A. (2012). A relational perspective to knowledge creation: Role of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(2), 61–85. Sanford, K. D. (1998). Leading with love: How women (and men) can transform their organizations through maternalistic management. Olalla: Vashon Publishing. Scholz, H. (1929). Halle (Saale): Eros und Caritas. Niemeyer. Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. London: Yale University Press. Sferrazzo, R. (2019). The ‘agapic behaviors’: Reconciling organizational citizenship behavior with the reward system. Humanistic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-019-00067-5. Sferrazzo, R., & Ruffini, R. (2019). Are liberated companies a concrete application of Sen’s capability approach? Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-019-04324-3. Shortt, H. (2015). Liminality, space and the importance of ‘transitory dwelling places’ at work. Human Relations, 68(4), 633–658. Simmel, G. (1921). Fragment über die Liebe. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur.[A Fragment on Love.] Bd. X.  Tübingen: Mohr. (Posthumous Publication). Steelman, L. A., & Wolfeld, L. (2018). The manager as coach: The role of feedback orientation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 41–53. Sturdy, A., Schwarz, M., & Spicer, A. (2006). Guess who’s coming to dinner? Structures and uses of liminality in strategic management consultancy. Human Relations, 59(7), 929–960. Tasselli, S. (2018). Love and organization studies: Moving beyond the perspective of avoidance. Organization Studies, 40(7), 1073–1088. Tikhomirov, A. A., & Spangler, W. D. (2010). Neo-charismatic leadership and the fate of mergers and acquisitions: An institutional model of CEO leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 17(1), 44–60. Vu, M. C., & Gill, R. (2018). Letting go of the raft’ – the art of spiritual leadership in contemporary organizations from a Buddhist perspective using skilful means. Leadership, 15(3), 360–380. Winston, B. E. (2002). Be a leader for God’s sake: From values to behaviors. Regent University: School of Leadership Studies. Yang, F., Liu, J., Wang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Feeling energized: A multilevel model of spiritual leadership, leader integrity, relational energy, and job performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 983–997.

CHAPTER 3

Towards a Liberating Leadership

The freedom’s theme started to be considered as an important topic for companies in 90’s (Peters 1993; Townsend 1986). These last years, it has been recovered with the liberated companies’ movement (Carney and Getz 2015). Freeing companies should lead to a major engagement of workers, therefore, to better business results. However, several authors believe that de-bureaucratization attempts enacted to spread the logic of freedom could lead to organizational inefficiency (Clegg 2011; Courpasson and Clegg 2006; Du Gay 2000; Lopdrup-Hjort and du Gay 2019; Willmott 2011). Furthermore, it is not so easy to understand if organizational freedom means less rules and hierarchy or if it means that management should be more relational and participative (Cunliffe 2014; Daudigeos et al. 2019). In other words, there is not a clear definition of organizational freedom and it is not clear in what way freedom could be achieved within companies.

3.1   Sen’s Capability Approach as a Theory for Liberated Companies Many scholars applied Sen’s capability approach (CA) in management literature (Cornelius and Skinner 2008; Gagnon and Cornelius 2006; Gandjour 2008; Gries and Naude 2011; Kuchinke 2012; Orton 2011; Trani et  al. 2011; Zimmermann 2011) and in the business ethics’ field (Bertland 2009; Downs and Swailes 2013). There are several reasons why © The Author(s) 2020 R. Sferrazzo, Civil Economy and Organisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59022-2_3

43

44 

R. SFERRAZZO

it is possible to associate Sen’s CA with liberated companies, as a theory applied to practical issues (Sferrazzo and Ruffini 2019). Liberated companies, indeed, have been defined as those organizations which allow people to take actions that they – not their bosses – decide are best (Getz 2009). Relatedly, for Sen, people must be guaranteed with those “substantive freedoms” which allow them to lead that kind of life they want to live (Sen 1999). Examining more in-depth Sen’s thought, he identified three main elements of the capability approach, which are functioning, capabilities and agency, strongly connected to his idea of freedom (Deneulin and McGregor 2010). Capabilities are defined as “the various combinations of functionings (beings and doings) that the person can achieve. Capability is, thus, a set of vectors of functionings, reflecting the person’s freedom to lead one type of life or another . . . to choose from possible livings” (Sen 1992: 40). Therefore, in Sen’s vision, capabilities are that combination of functionings that a person can achieve, i.e. realised functionings if directly observable (Robeyns 2005). There are some differences between capabilities and functionings. The functioning, indeed, is “an achievement, whereas a capability is the ability to achieve. Functionings are, in a sense, more directly related to living conditions, since they are different aspects of living conditions. Capabilities, in contrast, are notions of freedom, in the positive sense: what real opportunities you have regarding the life you may lead” (Sen 1987: 36). Finally, according to Sen, agency is the capacity to achieve objectives that one has reason to value. These three elements are strictly related to the notion of freedom, indeed, for Sen, they are crucial to pursue individual freedom. It is possible to see a link between the notion of freedom provided by Sen (1999) and the one provided by Getz (2009) in coping with the liberated company phenomenon. But in what sense Sen’s capability approach can constitute a theory for liberated companies? (Sferrazzo and Ruffini 2019). In order to answer to this question, it is necessary to define what a liberated company is. In literature, many scholars are talking about the wide spreading of the so-called new forms of work organizations (NFWO) (Longoni et  al. 2014). For example, the holacracy model (Robertson 2015), the participatory model of management (Gilbert et al. 2017), the model of agile management (Barrand 2012) can be listed as new forms of work organizations. Amidst this list, it is possible to find even the liberated companies’ model. This innovative model has been introduced in the US by Carney and Getz (2009) through their book Freedom, Inc., within which they describe the transformation process enacted by several

3  TOWARDS A LIBERATING LEADERSHIP 

45

companies in order to become liberated. These companies have been defined as places where people can be free, insofar as there is no organizational chart or hierarchical elements related. Furthermore, these companies adopt a specific leadership style, called the “liberating leadership” style, described by Getz (2009) as follows: “In order for the F-form to be adopted, a specific type of leadership – we call it liberating – needs to be embraced by the company’s head. Inversely, the non-adoption of the F-form can be traced to the company head’s non-embrace of some aspects of liberating leadership” (34). In the way in which liberated leaders should behave, it is possible to find a connection between Sen’s capability approach and the idea of freedom of liberated companies. Indeed, in order to guarantee people with a high degree of freedom, liberated companies should adopt four main steps. The first one, “stop telling and start listening,” consists in removing those practices preventing employees from feeling intrinsically equal. The second one, “sharing your vision of the company,” concerns feeling part of the company itself so as to “own” it. The third step, “stop trying to motivate people,” is oriented towards the creation of self-motivation in people working for the company. Finally, the fourth step, “stay alert,” means that leaders should be the culture-keeper of the company if they want to keep it free in the long term (Carney and Getz 2015: xvi–xvii). These four steps are intrinsically related to Sen’s CA because, starting from the first step, it can be connected to the promotion of freedom and equality enhanced through the CA. The second one can be associated to Sen’s thought about the importance of guaranteeing people the necessary capabilities and functionings to be what they want to be. The third step is linked to the act of freely choosing, typical of Sen’s CA. Finally, the fourth step is connected to Sen’s thought about letting people free in the long term.

3.2   The Notion of Freedom and Its Application Within Organizations Actually, what still misses in liberated companies’ idea, is a clear definition of freedom and relatedly, of what is a real free work. In order to look for these definitions, it is necessary to define what freedom is. In managerial and business ethics’ literature, there are many conceptualizations regarding freedom. These conceptualizations, however, often derive from

46 

R. SFERRAZZO

broader theories linked to the theme of justice (Berlin, Nozick, Van Hayek, Rawls, Sen). For the purpose of this chapter, it is useful to focus on the concept of negative freedom and positive freedom (Berlin 1989) and their possible extension in the managerial field (Dierksmeier and Pirson 2010). Negative freedom consists in the maximum possible reduction of limits or constraints placed on a subject, another individual, group or society, with the possibility of doing what one has chosen to do. Freedom is therefore the area of action that an individual can take without being deliberately and legally obstructed by others. The vision of negative freedom implies the search for the maximum possible freedom for the individual, given that – in a social context – certain constraints must necessarily be identified in order to avoid forms of excessive conflict that could destroy the organizational system. This idea of freedom implies that what is desirable is the maximum possible amount of freedom for individuals (Dierksmeier and Pirson 2010). This implies the existence of a trade-off between individual and organizational freedom. The negative conception of freedom, of quantitative nature, is incapable of taking into account individual reactions to freedom (Berlin 1989). At the same time, individuals can respond differently to manipulative practices, as well as to the presence of constraints, indeed, individuals can find forms of personal self-realization. Or, on the contrary, individuals may be incapable of dealing with excessive forms of freedom because they do not possess adequate skills to deal with given levels of responsibility yet. On the other hand, freedom conceived in positive terms (positive freedom), implies the individuals’ desire to be master of themselves by becoming an instrument of their own acts of will and not that of others. It is therefore a question of the quality of freedom and not of mere quantity (reduction of constraints). This idea of freedom is closely linked to the subjects’ ability to exercise critical reason, which allows them to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent, given that certain constraints on their actions will still exist. In this case, there is a “qualitative” vision (Dierksmeier and Pirson 2010) of freedom that implies the need to guide one’s life towards “capabilities” that allow people to exercise their existence autonomously (Sferrazzo and Ruffini 2019). Moved by this puzzle, we can ask two questions. The first one consists in asking what kind of freedom (negative or positive) should be at the base of the liberation management. The second is whether this freedom could exist and what are the conditions for achieving a full positive freedom in companies. In the first case, we could say that in business contexts,

3  TOWARDS A LIBERATING LEADERSHIP 

47

negative freedom is somehow the prerequisite for positive freedom. These days, indeed, all organizations are trying to “liberate” people and the energy they have. Starting from this idea, it is possible to look for a path of emancipation of people, which is however complex to implement and subject to various risks and ambiguities. With reference to the second question, starting from the assumption that freedom implies the development of people’s skills and functionalities, according Sen’s capability approach (Sferrazzo and Ruffini 2019), it is possible to think that the orientation of managerial practices that is spreading has some characteristics that derive both from Sen’s theory which can also be noticed in practice. Given this picture, I can argue that the development of the freedom of individuals probably has three essential pillars (connected to each other). The first consists in thinking the company as a place of moral development of people, i.e. the development of their critical capacity to read reality; the second consists in the constant creation of individual learning practices as forms of activation of people’s ability to function and therefore of their emancipation. Finally, the third pillar is based on the development of relational management, i.e. organizational action’s logics mainly based on relationships rather than on rational practices based on technical instruments. These aspects constitute paths of development for more in-depth future analysis of work liberation practices. In what follows, I will mention something about how to follow a liberating leadership style starting from these aforementioned premises.

3.3   Freedom and Liberating Leadership Before entering in the organizational context, it is necessary to cope with the notion of individual freedom, even from a psychological perspective. Indeed, it is possible to be permanently free from the external authority only if the internal psychological conditions allow us to establish our individuality (Fromm 1994). Our current society continuously fosters a tendency towards conformity, by suppressing the spontaneous sentiments and relatedly, our genuine individuality. Accordingly, the current educational system of our society eliminates the spontaneity, by substituting our original sentiments, thoughts and desires. The difficulty in finding to what extent our desires, thoughts and sentiments are not ours but derive from the external is strongly related to both the freedom and authority problem. Over the years, the Church authority has been substituted by the

48 

R. SFERRAZZO

State authority, and this last one by our conscience, which is today substituted by the common sense and the public opinion. Therefore, people have fallen under a new form of authority. We live in the illusion of being autonomous individuals. In this way, people live by thinking, feeling and desiring what the public opinion wants, but in this way, they lose their own true individuality. Given this picture, we can assist to the loss of the real people’s identity, insofar as they try to be conformed to the public opinion and do not know who they really are. In this way, people can be sure of themselves only if they do not disappoint others’ expectations. However, trying to be conformed to others’ expectations leads to give up one’s own spontaneity and individuality. So, what is freedom for the modern human beings? We could answer that, on the one hand, people are free from external constraints, nevertheless, on the other hand, they would like to act according to their will, but they do not know what they really want, feel and think. Because of the absence of interior unity, human beings try to escape negative freedom, in as much as they feel insecure and full of doubts. This escape does not give to people the lost confidence and safety but helps them to forget the lack of interior unity in themselves. They feel a fragile self-confidence at the price of sacrificing the integrity of their individual selves. Therefore, freedom – conceived as freedom “from” – leads to a new form of slavery. With this in mind, does freedom only consist in fear and isolation? Or, does a state of positive freedom exist, within which the individual exists as an independent person but without being isolated, conversely, unified with the nature and the other human beings? According to Fromm (1994) and to the authors abovementioned, a state of positive freedom can exist insofar as human beings are aware of themselves, really know and are themselves. Self-realization, indeed, can be achieved through the full realization of people’s real personality, through their emotional and intellectual possibilities. Every person is endowed with these personalities, but they become active insofar as they are expressed. In other words, in Fromm’s (1994) vision, positive freedom consists in the spontaneous activity of the total personality. Reading this definition through Sen’s lens aforementioned, it is possible to find a strong connection between the notion of freedom elaborated by Amartya Sen (1999) and Erich Fromm (1994). In both cases, indeed, people are really free only if they can freely (in Sen’s terms) or spontaneously (in Fromm’s terms) act following their free/spontaneous will. According to Fromm (1994), spontaneity is the answer to the problem of freedom, indeed, it leads to overcome the

3  TOWARDS A LIBERATING LEADERSHIP 

49

problem of loneliness and to achieve a total personal integrity, both with the nature and with other human beings. Looking at the organizational field, this spontaneity can be found within the work sphere. The work, indeed, should not be perceived as a way to escape from loneliness or through which subjugate or being subjugate to nature. Conversely, the work should be lived as a creative act, though which the human being becomes “one” with the nature, through a creative act (Fromm 1994). Following this positive freedom perspective, what liberating leaders should activate within organizations is fostering the arising of creativity from workers, by letting them free to be spontaneous. In companies, indeed, it is possible to distinguish between formal acts, which could risk to result manipulative if imposed without people’s authorization, and spontaneous acts (Sferrazzo 2020). In order to promote spontaneous acts, liberating leaders should foster a work environment within which it is possible to acquire creative skills. Following Sen’s capability approach, liberating leaders should favor the enhancement of people’s capabilities (Sferrazzo and Ruffini 2019).Therefore, in order to establish a work environment based on freedom and responsibility, liberating leaders should treat people with trust and respect, and should allow them to grow and self-direct within companies. Letting people free to be spontaneous, indeed, could let them to exercise their real potential without external constraints and this could constitute an important strength point for the organizational success.

References Barrand, J. (2012). Le manager agile. Agir autrement pour la survie des entreprises. Paris: Dunod. Berlin, I. (1989). Quattro saggi sulla libertà. Milan: Feltrinelli. Bertland, A. (2009). Virtue ethics in business and the capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 25–32. Carney, B. M., & Getz, I. (2009). Freedom, Inc.: Free your employees and let them lead your business to higher productivity, profits, and growth. New  York: Crown Business. Carney, B. M., & Getz, I. (2015). Freedom, Inc., How corporate liberation unleashes employee potential and business performance. Somme Valley House. (trad it. Freedom, Inc. Come liberare il ptenziale delle persone e la performance delle imprese, Guerini ed. 2018).

50 

R. SFERRAZZO

Clegg, S. (2011). Under reconstruction: Modern bureaucracies. In S.  Clegg, M.  Harris, & H.  Höpfl (Eds.), Managing modernity: Beyond bureaucracy? (pp. 202–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cornelius, N., & Skinner, D. (2008). The careers of senior men and women – A capabilities theory perspective. British Journal of Management, 19(Special Issue), S141–S149. Courpasson, D., & Clegg, S. R. (2006). Dissolving the iron cages? Tocqueville, Michels, bureaucracy and the perpetuation of elite power. Organization, 13(3), 319–343. Cunliffe, A. (2014). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about management. London: Sage. Daudigeos, T., Edwards, T., Jaumier, S., Pasquier, V., & Picard, H. (2019). Elusive domination and the fate of critique in neo-participative management: A French pragmatist approach. Organization Studies. https://doi. org/10.1177/0170840619856027. Deneulin, S., & McGregor, J. A. (2010). The capability approach and the politics of a social conception of wellbeing. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(4), 501–519. Dierksmeier, C., & Pirson, M. (2010). The modern corporation and the idea of freedom. Philosophy of Management, 9(3), 5–25. Downs, Y., & Swailes, S. (2013). A capability approach to organizational talent management. Human Resource Development International, 16(3), 267–281. Du Gay, P. (2000). In praise of bureaucracy. London: Sage. Fromm, E. (1994). Escape from freedom. New York: Macmillan. Gagnon, S., & Cornelius, N. (2006). Re-examining workplace equality: The capabilities approach. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(4), 68–87. Gandjour, A. (2008). Mutual dependency between capabilities and Functionings in Amartya Sen’s capability approach. Social Choice and Welfare, 31(2), 345–350. Getz, I. (2009). Liberating leadership: How the initiative freeing radical organizational form has been successfully adopted. California Management Review, 51(4), 32–58. Gilbert, P., Teglborg, L., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2017). L’entreprise libérée, innovation radicale ou simple avatar du management participatif? Gérer et Comprendre, 127, 38–49. Gries, T., & Naude, W. (2011). Entrepreneurship and human development: A capability approach. Journal of Public Economics, 95(3/4), 216–224. Kuchinke, K. P. (2012). Human flourishing as a cosre value for HRD in the age of global mobility. In M. Lee (Ed.), Human resource development as we know it: Speeches that have shaped the field (pp. 292–305). Abingdon: Routledge. Longoni, A., Golini, R., & Cagliano, R. (2014). The role of new forms of work organization in developing sustainability strategies in operations. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 147–160.

3  TOWARDS A LIBERATING LEADERSHIP 

51

Lopdrup-Hjort, T., & du Gay, P. (2019). Speaking truth to power? Anti-­ bureaucratic romanticism from critical organizational theorizing to the white house. Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419830622. Orton, M. (2011). Flourishing lives: The capabilities approach as a framework for new thinking about employment, work and welfare in the 21st century. Work, Employment and Society, 25(2), 352–360. Peters, T. (1993). Liberation management. Milano: Speerling & Kupfer Editori. Robertson, B.  J. (2015). Holacracy: The revolutionary management system that abolishes hierarchy. London: Portfolio Penguin. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114. Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sferrazzo, R. (2020). Towards an agape-based organization: Does it make sense to apply civil economy to business ethics? Business & Professional Ethics Journal. https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej20207996. Sferrazzo, R., & Ruffini, R. (2019). Are liberated companies a concrete application of Sen’s capability approach? Journal of Business Ethics, 1–14. Townsend, R. (1986). Gestire alla grande. Milan: Sperling & Krupfer. Trani, J.  F., Bakshi, P., Bellanca, N., Biggeri, M., & Marchetta, F. (2011). Disabilities through the capability approach lens: Implications for public policies. European Journal of Disability Research, 5(3), 143–157. Willmott, H. (2011). Back to the future: What does studying bureaucracy tell us? In S.  Clegg, M.  Harris, & H.  Höpfl (Eds.), Managing modernity: Beyond bureaucracy? (pp. 257–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zimmermann, B. (2011). Ce que travailler veut dire. Une sociologie des capacite ́s et des parcours professionnels. Paris: Economica.

CHAPTER 4

Towards a Docile Relational Leadership

For many years, there has been no distinction between Management and Leadership. Power and force were the two key-determinants of managerial actions; hence, the analysis on the character of managers was held to be irrelevant or superfluous. However, insisting on a “carrot and stick” approach has been shown to be not only anthropologically reductive, but also often ineffective (Bruni et al. 2019; Frey and Gallus 2017). The failures of the methods of incentives and controls were the failures of the consequentialist-utilitarian approach. Hence, virtue ethics, as developed in business ethics (Koehn 1995; Melé and Cantón 2014; Solomon 2003; Whetstone 2001),1 seemed to be an obvious area to look at in search of new paradigms. Scholars began to further explore the role of character and of virtues for the “good” leadership. They principally looked at Aristotelian virtues (Beck 2018; Grandy and Sliwa 2017; Hackett and Wang 2012; Sinnicks 2018), or Aquinas’ ones (Calleja and Melé 2016; Cameron 2011; Flynn 2008) as generative sources to rethink leadership styles. In this chapter, I continue this line of research employing Aquinas’ virtue ethics to design a new leadership style, i.e. the docile relational leadership. When authors applied virtue ethics to business ethics (BE) (Alzola 2015; Audi 2012; Bernacchio and Couch 2015; Bertland 2009; 1

 For a general review see Ferrero and Sison (2014).

© The Author(s) 2020 R. Sferrazzo, Civil Economy and Organisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59022-2_4

53

54 

R. SFERRAZZO

Ferrero and Sison 2014; Hartman 2008a, b; Huhtala et al. 2018; Kaptein 2017; Melé 2009; Moore 2015, 2017; Sinnicks 2018; Sison et al. 2018), one of the virtues considered is practical wisdom or, blending Aquinas’ lexicon, prudence (Gilson 2002; McKay 2005). It is generally recognized that prudence is not just the ability to evaluate the means to reach the ends, but that it involves substantial judgements about the ends constituting a good life (Hirschfeld 2018; Visentin 2014). Within BE, some scholars inquired the role of practical wisdom for regulating both management (Bachmann 2014; Bachmann et  al. 2018; Beabout 2012; Calderón et al. 2018; Gómez and Córdoba 2019; Kletz et al. 2012; Morales-Sánchez and Cabello-Medina 2015) and the leadership styles (Biloslavo and McKenna 2013; Hackett and Wang 2012; Hays 2013; Kriger 2013; Riggio et  al. 2010; Waddock 2014). I go more in depth in analysing the implications of practical wisdom for leadership focusing on the virtue of docility, which is a quasi-integral part of the virtue of prudence. In literature, virtues have been considered in different ways, i.e. character traits (Fry 2003; Hackett and Wang 2012; Hanbury 2004; Smith 1995), personal values (Murphy and Roberts 2008; Sama and Shoaf 2008), personal emotions (Solomon 1998), or capabilities (Bass 1990; Bertland 2009). My reading of Aquinas’ idea of virtue differs from these etiquettes. To stress the difference, I named it the “relational virtue” and I propose a definition drawing on Aquinas. In some way, the relational virtue I describe resembles Hackett’s and Wang’s definition (2012), when they claim that “leader virtue is a disposition: a character trait that a leader acquires and maintains primarily through learning and continuous practice and is expressed through voluntary actions undertaken in context relevant situations” (874). However, their definition does not capture integrally what I think Aquinas theorized. For this reason, the first paragraph will be dedicated in the description of Aquinas’ virtue ethics, with a particular focus on the virtues of prudence and docility. Many leadership styles have been theorized since virtue ethics was applied to the managerial field. Therefore, before examining the docile relational leadership style in depth, I proceed through an analytical literature review of various styles and the principal virtues involved. Consequently, I describe the peculiar qualities of the docile relational leader, which distinguish the docile relational leadership from the other forms of leadership virtues. I highlight, in particular, the importance of

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

55

reciprocal learning – residing in a spirit of mutual help and cooperation – between followers and leaders. In the final remarks, I stress the importance of adopting the docile relational leadership style to face our today complex, volatile and turbulent business environment. Since docile relational leadership provides a new framework to develop leaders’ virtues, in future research it could be useful to insert it in the VUCA world (Mack et al. 2015).

4.1   The Virtue of Docility in Thomas Aquinas This section begins with a preliminary question: to what extent is Aquinas’ concept of virtue Aristotelian? Hundreds of years of studies in Philosophy and Theology have proposed two answers as far as virtue ethics is concerned, that is: (1) Thomism coincides with Aristotelianism or (2) the two philosophical systems are completely unrelated. The most widely-shared answer is that Aquinas built upon Aristotelian concepts with contents from the thirteenth century (Sect. 3.1) (Franks 2015); or, similarly, he added new elements  – Natural Law and Theological virtues  – to the Aristotelian notion of virtue (Sect. 3.2) (Gilson 2002; McInerny 2004). Recently, Pinsent (2012) has rejected this position: “Aquinas makes explicit, radical changes to the Aristotelian conception of a virtue and adds many novel perfective attributes without any Aristotelian counterparts” (2012: XII). He significantly entitled his book The Second-Person Perspective in Aquinas Ethics: Virtues and Gifts. According to Pinsent, the Aristotelian understanding of virtue as an “habit” is overwhelmed by Aquinas’ theory of infused virtues, which are freely given by God. Hence, God’s gift, rather than virtues, holds a central role in Aquinas’ Ethics (Sect. 4.1). From the context of Italian scholarship, Casadei (2013) makes a similar case. Moral virtues are strongly intertwined with intellectual virtues. According to Casadei, Aquinas’ emphasis on interior life and reflexivity substantially changes the characteristics of Aristotelian virtues (Sect. 4.2). Being both a moral and intellectual virtue, prudence is analysed as an emblematic case of the shift operated by Aquinas. My position lies exactly in the middle between the two nuanced interpretations (3) and (4). Like the former, I agree that Aquinas maintained Aristotle’s notion of virtue as a “habit,” but I disagree with the claim that only the contents of these habits changed. Like the latter, I recognize Aquinas’ radical modifications and novelty in the conception of virtue, but

56 

R. SFERRAZZO

I think that these changes derive from other influences. In the remaining part of the section, I try to motivate my two claims. In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas defines virtue as the “good quality of the mind, by which we live righteously, of which no one can make bad use, which God works in us, without us” (S.  Th., I-II, q. 55, a. 4). Immediately following, he specifies that we should use the word “habit” (habitus) rather than “quality,” and that if we omit any reference to God, the definition could be applied to all virtues. The meaning of “habit” is Aristotelian: a quality of the character that can be developed through intentional, constant exercise until it becomes like second nature. The Latin habitus, in fact, recalls the Greek hexis employed by Aristotle (Pinckaers 1962), meaning a repeated, intentional action. Aquinas explicitly recognized his debt to “the Philosopher” and, to leave little room for doubt, he devoted one article to answering the question “Whether any virtue is caused in us by habituation” (S. Th., I-II, q. 63, a. 2). The answer is affirmative: intellectual and moral virtues are created in us by habituation. Moreover, “certain seeds or principles of acquired virtue pre-exist in us by nature” (S. Th., I-II, q. 63, a. 2, ad. 3). The essence of virtue is inextricably tied to the way in which virtue is acquired. In the Greek world, ethics meant ethical life (bios etikos), i.e. virtue was learned in the social and political spheres. The contemporary interpreters of Greek virtue ethics, from Julia Annas to Martha Nussbaum, from Michael Sandel to Alasdair MacIntyre, converge on this point. Virtue is firstly learned in the master-disciple relationship, and then progressively tested and developed in the political life; few can go even further, until the exercise of theoretical life (bios theoretikos). The Greek man walked through the long path of virtue all his life, but the most important step was when he became self-sufficient (Irwin 1998; Viner 1978), i.e. capable of ethical reasoning (practical wisdom), without the need of a guide (masters or friends). Drawing on this tradition, Aquinas emphasized the need for others in developing virtues. Man needs good friends for the purpose of a good operation, viz. that he may do good to them; that he may delight in seeing them do good; and again that he may be helped by them in his good work. For in order that man may do well, whether in the works of the active life, or in those of the contemplative life, he needs the fellowship of friends. (S.Th., I-II, q. 8, a. 4, corp. Mine emphasis)

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

57

The Latin text reveals more than the English one. Aquinas said “Indiget enim homo ad bene operandum auxilio amicorum.” The Latin term Indiget can be translated with “needs,” but the semantic scope concerns “something that lack” or “something which is missed.” What does man lack, so that is unable to operate well by himself? Why does he miss something that renders ethical action difficult? These questions are less cogent in Aristotle’s philosophy, but they are perfectly contextualized in Aquinas’ work. When Aquinas dealt with Aristotelian virtue ethics, he applied it within the Christian anthropological view informed by the consequences of Original Sin. In other words, between Aristotle and Aquinas there has been the biblical narration of the Fall as expressed, among others, by Augustine of Hippo. The effects of the corrupt nature of human being, in fact, regards man’s attitude towards virtue: the good of nature, that is diminished by sin, is the natural inclination to virtue […] the aforesaid inclination is to be considered as a middle term between two others: for it is based on the rational nature as on its root, and tends to the good of virtue, as to its term and end […] it is diminished on the part of the obstacle which is place against its attaining its term, it is evident that it can be diminished indefinitely, because obstacles can be placed indefinitely, inasmuch as man can go on indefinitely adding sin to sin: and yet it cannot be destroyed entirely, because the root of this inclination always remains. (S. Th., I-II, q. 85, a. 2, corp.)

Due to the effects of the original sin, to be virtuous, to be capable of ethical reasoning informed by practical wisdom, is not an easy task. For this reason, Aquinas emphasizes the indigentia of human being and gives relevance to two moments in which virtue is learned: the relationship of master-disciple and the one between friends. The same categories were already present in Aristotle. However, the meaning has slightly changed. Moral virtue is a habit which requires long and constant exercise; the end is to become capable of practical wisdom. Additionally, in Aquinas’ thought, moral virtue requires the help of other people because even the most virtuous among men can fail at any time. The path towards virtue is upward, even if it is marked by many falls: the help of other men become necessary not only in the first steps, but throughout the way. This is roughly Aquinas’ relational idea of virtue.

58 

R. SFERRAZZO

The way in which virtue is acquired also affects its object. In the first Quaestio dedicated to the very essence of virtues, Aquinas deals with Augustine’s concept of virtue as “the order of love” (ordo amoris). “When we say that virtue is the order or ordering of love – argues Aquinas – we refer to the end to which virtue is ordered: because in us love is set in order by virtue” (S. Th., I-II, q. 55, ad. 4). The passion of love (amor) is central in Aquinas’ philosophy. It concerns the body as well as the will. All human acts originate from love: “It is evident that every agent, whatever it be, does every action from love of some kind” (S. Th., I-II, q. 28, a. 6, corp). When love is well regulated, what Aquinas called love of friendship (amor amicitiae), it causes the union between two subjects, the lover and the beloved, named sophia inhaesio (mutual indwelling). Thus, he who loves another looks upon his friend as another self, he counts his friend’s hurt as his own, so that he grieves for his friend’s hurt as though he were hurt himself. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. Ix, 4) reckons “grieving with one’s friend” as being one of the signs of friendship, and the Apostle says (Rm. 12:15): “Rejoice with them that rejoice, weep with them that weep.” (S. Th., II-II, q. 30, a. 2, corp)

From the passion of love emerges the friendship based on virtue which, as argued by Aquinas, is a virtue in itself. However, virtue is not just the individual and progressive acquisition of excellence, neither is the friendship based on virtue possible only between already virtuous people. Conversely, the element of love present in every virtue affects its object, placing mutual assistance as a fundamental part of every virtuous habit. Once more, in the Thomistic paradigm, the individual virtue can rather be considered as a relational virtue, fruit of a cooperative venture. To sum up, virtues flourish when (1) I am assisted by others, be they masters or friends; (2) I am willing to learn from the others and accept their help; (3) I assist the others in their needs, as a master or friend; (4) I acquire the virtuous maturity to help others in their virtuous advancement. From these four points, I extract a definition of the relational virtue: The relational virtue is the excellence of the moral character of a person which can be reached only through mutual help between people. In other words, it is the virtue which is produced and nurtured within a relationship of mutual assistance between the parties involved.

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

59

At this stage, one might expect that I could consider the virtue of mercy (misericordia). Mercy is “heartfelt sympathy for another’s distress, impelling us to succor him if we can” (S. Th., II-II, q. 30, a. 1, corp.). Aquinas borrows the definition from Augustine. Moreover, of all the virtues which relate to our neighbor, mercy is the greatest, even as its act surpasses all others, since it belongs to one who is higher and better to supply the defect of another, in so far as the latter is deficient. (S. Th., II-II, q. 30, a. 4, corp)

MacIntyre recognizes this primacy of mercy in his book Dependent Rational Animals, mentioning Aquinas’ interpretation. On that basis, he proposes a system of virtue ethics, integrative to the ones already knew, which is grounded on the virtue of “acknowledged dependence” (MacIntyre 1999: 119). Nussbaum does the same in his book devoted to the Intelligence of Emotions (2003), whereas mercy holds a central place. Why have I not chosen to ground my argument on mercy, rather than love, prudence and docility? I chose so, because Aquinas depicted mercy as one effect of charity, which is an infused, theological virtue. I am not siding with Porter (1992) when she argues that Aquinas’ moral virtues should be considered as arising out of the three theological virtues (faith, hope and charity). I am simply claiming that Aquinas grounded his relational notion of virtue at the natural level of moral and intellectual virtues. This renders the reference to mercy and charity, although very interesting, going beyond the scope of this chapter.2 Having clarified this point, I can turn to the virtue of prudence and its relational feature. Prudence is the pillar of every framework of virtue ethics: Prudence is a virtue most necessary for human life. For a good life consists in good deeds. Now in order to do good deeds, it matters not only what a

2  My reading is in line with another hermeneutical tradition, which reads continuity between nature and grace in Aquinas’ theology (grace perficit nature). I follow the interpretation of the Italian Philosopher and Economist Antonio Genovesi (1713–1769). Describing the relation between nature and grace in the Thomistic system, Genovesi employed the verb ‘corroborate’ (corrobora) to underline that not only divine grace perficit human nature in a totally different qualitative sense, but also that it confirms the best potentialities of human being (Genovesi 1791: 261).

60 

R. SFERRAZZO

man does, but also how he does it; to wit, that he does it from right choice and not merely from impulse or passion. (S. Th., I-II, q. 57, a. 5, corp.)

Aquinas’ prudence is both an intellectual and a moral virtue. It is “the right reason about things to be done (est recta ratio agibilium)” (S. Th., q. 57, a. 4, corp.). The act of prudence – “command” – is good because it comes after a reflexive moment – “taking counsel” and “judging” – where universal principles are applied to singular circumstances. The habit of prudence facilitates the process of counselling-judging-commanding-­ acting. Moreover, this virtue, which pertains to reason, informs all the other moral virtues, as it concerns the will: “prudence helps (adiuvet) all the virtues, and works in all of them” (S. Th., II-II, q. 47, a. 5, ad. 2). Immediately after, Aquinas specifies that prudence does not establish the ends of moral virtues. Rather, it prescribes the means – what you do, how you do it and in which circumstances – to reach the various ends (a. 6). There are many kinds of prudence corresponding to the various spheres of life to which this virtue is applied: Again the individual good, the good of the family, and the good of the city and kingdom are different ends. Wherefore there must needs be different species of prudence corresponding to these different ends, so that one is “prudence” simply so called, which is directed to one’s own good; another, “domestic prudence” which is directed to the common good of the home; and a third, “political prudence,” which is directed to the common good of the state or kingdom. (S. Th., II-II, q. 47, a. 11, corp.)

In what follows, I consider Aquinas’ view of prudence “simply so called.” One might object that I should refer to political or domestic prudence, or maybe inventing an economic prudence, because the leader is focused primarily on the good of the company. However, as I made clear in the chapter’s introduction, the relation I am interested in is between leader and follower. It goes without saying that the different kinds of prudence, although distinct, are all connected, all contributing to the good of the company. This is valid also in Aquinas’ anthropological account, whereas the good of the individual is included, although not reduced, in the common good of society. Eight parts constitute the virtue of prudence. Aquinas described how each part plays a decisive role in the functioning of the virtue. I chose one

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

61

of the eight, the virtue of docility (docilitas), because it expresses better than others the relational element present in prudence. We know that virtue can be acquired by intentional and constant exercise and by the help of other people, such as masters or friends. Prudence deals with concrete situations, means and partial ends, so its scope is infinite. For this reason, Aquinas emphasizes the need for guidance and for older people who teach prudence to the young  – younger of age and moral age. Everyone should be ready to follow lessons from those who have practised prudent acts for a long time. Aquinas assigned a virtue to this moment of “reciprocal learning”: the intellectual virtue of docility, defined as the predisposition “to be ready to be taught” (S. Th., II-II, q. 49, a. 3, corp.). This is not just an addition or a superfluous virtue. Docility is an integral part of prudence, which means that it constitutes the walls without which the edifice of prudence risks ruin. Aquinas did not invent the virtue of docility: he took it from other traditions (Plotinus, Macrobius). Still, the role and the contents of this virtue are radically changed in his work. Docility becomes necessary not only for the variety of matters involved in prudence, but also because man, corrupted by Original Sin, often fails in his individual command and action: It must be observed however that lack of prudence or of any other virtue is included in the lack of original justice which perfected the entire soul. Accordingly all such lack of virtue may be ascribed to original sin. (S. Th., II-II, q. 52, a. 1, ad. 2)

Hence, “in matters of prudence man stands in very great need of being taught by others, especially by old folk who have acquired a sane understanding of the ends in practical matters” (S. Th., II-II, q. 49, a. 3, corp.). Accordingly, the very act of docility expresses the points (2) and (3) that I listed above: I am ready to be taught, and I learn how to teach others. The idea of relational virtue, the notion of mutual assistance, all are manifested intellectually in the docile attitude. One might argue that prudence and docility divide the social context in two categories: the learned, and the ready-to-be-taught. The distinction is far more nuanced in Aquinas’ philosophy. In this respect, “even the learned should be docile in some respects, since no man is altogether self-sufficient in matters of prudence” (S. Th., II-II, q. 49, a. 3, ad. 3). Even the magnanimous, who is so advanced in the virtuous path that he accomplishes great actions in favour of others, needs to be helped and to be taught:

62 

R. SFERRAZZO

As the Philosopher says (Ethic. Iv, 3), it belongs to the “magnanimous to need nothing,” for need is a mark of the deficient. But this is to be understood according to the mode of a man, hence he adds “or scarcely anything.” For it surpasses man to need nothing at all. For every man needs, first, the Divine assistance, secondly, even human assistance, since man is naturally a social animal, for he is sufficient by himself to provide for his own life. Accordingly, in so far as he needs others, it belongs to a magnanimous man to have confidence in others. (S.Th., II-II, q. 129, a. 6, ad. 1)

This passage illustrates three things. Firstly, it reveals clearly how Aquinas adapted Greek and Roman virtue ethics to his own anthropological vision grounded both on love and on the effects of Original Sin. Secondly, Aquinas shows the extent to which mutual help in the virtuous path is crucial for the individual and the common good, since it strengthens trust (fiducia) between people. Finally, it reveals how every man, from the student to the master, from the king to the citizens, from the employee to the leader, has to be willing to learn and be helped by others. Prudence and docility confirm the relational character of the Thomistic virtue ethics. The implications for the relation between leaders and employees will be the object of my discussion in the next two sections of the chapter. In what immediately follows, I retrace the literature on leadership virtues, identifying eight main kinds of leadership and their related virtues. Then, I propose the model of “docile relational” leadership, which emerges from the Thomistic virtue ethics I have illustrated so far.

4.2   Virtues in Leadership Studies I consider eight leadership styles related to virtue ethics3: moral leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership, spiritual leadership, charismatic leadership, transformational leadership, responsible leadership, and contemplative leadership. The reader will notice how many characteristics overlap 3  Beyond the leadership models described above, other types of leadership styles exist in the literature related to cultivating virtuous behaviors, such as true leadership (Bennis and Nanus 1985), postindustrial leadership (Rost 1993a, b), exemplary leadership (Kouzes and Posner 2002), visionary leadership (Sashkin 2004), MacIntyrean leadership (Sinnicks 2018), and so on. Some authors talk also about love and leadership. For example, Barsade and O’Neil (2014) argued that organizational leaders “are recognizing the value of fostering companionate love as a collective, cultural phenomenon within groups of employees and in the organization as a whole” (584). Several companies are following this line, such as Whole Foods Market, which presents some management principles beginning with “Love” (Hamel

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

63

between the different styles, and how many different virtues have been emphasized within the same style. The docile relational leadership I want to introduce is situated in the middle of this long list, but it holds its own specificity in respect of each style. 4.2.1  Moral Leadership According to Burns (1978), moral leadership consists of a special relationship between leaders and followers based on the fulfilment of mutual needs. The good leaders should be honest (Sison 2003) and courageous (Haraway and Kunselman 2006; Walton 1988) and should act with love and trustworthiness (McCoy 2007; Sison 2003). Moreover, they should practice integrity, humility and prudence (Robinson 2009). They also must be trusted by their followers, the virtue which can be both named faithfulness (McCoy 2007) and trustworthiness (Sison 2003). Only reciprocal trust between leaders and followers can guarantee an efficient and moral action within the firm. 4.2.2  Ethical Leadership In the literature, a recurrent element of ethical leadership is “integrity” (Nash 1990; Rost 1993a, b). Above all, ethical leaders should be righteous and incorruptible. Only in this way they can develop other virtues – trustworthiness, courage, respect  – and promote them within the organization (Páez and Salgado 2016). So far, several authors have described both differences and similarities between ethical and moral leadership. According to Storr (2004), the former is related to the leader’s refinement of moral character, and the latter to their respect for organizational rules and principles. Other scholars emphasize the connection between moral and ethical leadership. The latter, in fact, rests on fundamental moral character (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999; Fry and Cohen 2009; Fry and Slocum 2008). According to Ciulla (2004), ethical leaders should support some concepts of morality, such as caring for others and being honest and fair toward people. Another common point between ethical and moral leadership consists of love. In Kouzes’ and Posner’s thought (2002), indeed, “love and Breen 2007: 69–82), and PepsiCo, that has “caring” as its first guiding principle (http:// www.pepsico.com/Company/PepsiCo-Values-and-Philosophy.html)

64 

R. SFERRAZZO

constitutes the soul of the ‘ethical leadership’…Leaders are in love: In love with leading, in love with their organization’s product and service, and in love with people” (480–483). 4.2.3  Spiritual Leadership According to Fry and Slocum (2008), spiritual leadership is anchored on love, compassion and tolerance. Spiritual leaders are able to mature some particular virtues, for example honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness, and to do ethical choices (Cavanagh and Bandsuch 2002). Authors have conducted several field analyses to study spiritual leaders’ behaviors (Parameshwar 2005; Reave 2005; Whittington et  al. 2005). They observed the presence of certain virtues and values in spiritual leaders, in particular: courage, integrity, humility, forgiveness, and truthfulness. The similarity between the spiritual leadership and the two styles I have just analyzed is clear. Specifically, a link between spiritual and moral leadership can be found in the fact that the spiritual leader holds an extraordinary level of moral character, demonstrating fortitude, temperance and justice (three of the four cardinal virtues) (Sanders et al. 2003). 4.2.4  Servant Leadership In 1970’s, Greenleaf (2002) set out the model of servant leadership: the leader must put the needs of their followers above their own, acting with altruism, simplicity and self-awareness (Johnson 2001). Hence, the role of the servant leader is both talking to and listening to others, so that a shared vision can arise among leaders and followers (Kiechel 1995). Russell and Stone (2002) conducted a review on the literature on servant leadership, linked it with courage, service, concern for others, trustworthiness, caring, and competence. In a more recent analysis, Sendjaya et al. (2008) added humility, accountability, acceptance and equity to these. Servant leadership intersects all the styles I have considered above. For example, recalling Sinnicks’ words, “based on the central tenets of MacIntyre’s account of politics, the concept of servant leadership […] is a most promising candidate for an account of ethical leadership” (2018: 743).4 4  In particular, Sinnicks (2018) thinks that servant leadership offers a useful base to sustain MacIntyre’s arguments, as it is grounded both on humility and on promoting the others’

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

65

4.2.5  Charismatic Leadership Charisma is connected both with the subversion of the order and with efficiency. The organization can work well only if its bureaucratic components and its (informal) charismatic ones are balanced. Leaders should support these connections (Uhl-Bien and Marion 2009). What are the virtues distinctive of the “charismatic leader”? We have encountered many of these in other styles: (1) integrity, courage, and trustworthiness (House 1995; House and Shamir, 1993; Jacobsen and House 2001); (2) prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, and integrity (Conger and Kanungo 1987; Kanungo and Mendonca 1998); (3) love, compassion, duty, fortitude, integrity, patience, trust, truthfulness, and righteousness (Sankar 2003). 4.2.6  Transformational Leadership The founders of transformational leadership, Gary Becker and Richard Posner of the Chicago School, celebrated self-interested economic rationality (Nelson 1998). Criticizing this approach, Bass (1995) distinguishes between transformational and pseudo-transformational leaders. The latter are self-oriented, whereas transformational leaders should be driven by altruism. Transformational leadership has some common points with the other leadership styles described above. For example, the connection with moral leadership could derive from Whetstone’s definition (2002), “a transformational leader has the goal of raising the level of morality of her followers and the organization, creating a more moral climate, fostering independent action, and serving the greater good” (387). Then, some virtues well being. Indeed, for Greenleaf, servant leaders help employees to become “healthier, wiser, more autonomous and more likely themselves to become servants” (1977: 6); this is coherent with MacIntyre’s position sustaining that in a rational polity all must learn to rule and be ruled, and to serve the common good (2011: 13–14). Moreover, for Smith et al. (2004), the servant leadership differs from charismatic leadership for the importance that the former attributes to motivation, with modifies the relation with people being led. Motivation is an important feature of virtue ethics, and it again links servant leadership to MacIntyre’s philosophy.

66 

R. SFERRAZZO

common to other leadership styles associated with transformational leadership are integrity (Bass and Riggio 2006; Parry and Proctor-Thomas 2002; Veríssimo and Lacerda 2015), humility, righteousness, discipline, and perseverance (Zhang and Ng 2009), prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice (Riggio et al. 2010). 4.2.7  Responsible Leadership This kind of leadership considers as ‘followers’ not only the members of organizations, but also society as a whole. Accordingly, in Pless’ (2007) view, “responsible leadership can be understood as the art of building and sustaining social and moral relationships between business leaders and different stakeholders (followers), based on a sense of justice, a sense of recognition, a sense of care, and a sense of accountability for a wide range of economic, ecological, social, political, and human responsibilities” (451). Responsible leadership is often related to accountability and dependability (Bass and Bass 2008; Meindl and Ehlrlich 1987). Cameron (2011) associates responsible leadership with virtuous leadership. This means that responsible leadership looks at both the excellence of humankind and the highest aspirations of people, rather than instrumentally valuing actions for what they produce.5 Therefore, responsible leadership includes some of the virtues connected to the other leadership styles described above, as I will show in Table 4.1. 4.2.8  Contemplative Leadership Contemplative leadership has been described within the Aristotelian framework (Grandy and Sliwa 2017; Rhodes 2012). The habit and the action of the contemplative leader emerge from three elements: abstract knowledge (sophia), technical knowledge (techne) and practical wisdom (phorenis). It is a “virtuous activity; reflexive, engaged, relational, and embodied practice that requires knowledge from within context and practical wisdom” (Grandy and Sliwa 2017: 423).

5  In this sense, responsible leadership includes three main assumptions: (a) an eudaemonic assumption, (b) an inherent value assumption, and (c) an amplification assumption (Bright et al. 2006; Cameron and Winn 2012).

Moral leadership Ethical leadership Spiritual leadership Servant leadership Charismatic leadership Transformational leadership Responsible leadership Contemplative leadership Docile relational leadership

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓

Honesty Courage Integrity Trustworthiness Love Humility Prudence Compassion Forgiveness

Table 4.1  Leadership styles and virtues associated

✓

Reciprocal learning 4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

67

68 

R. SFERRAZZO

According to Sims (2010), leadership is a “contemplative art” (257) founded on relations with others, and one that embraces generosity and self-awareness. For Nolan (2013), contemplative leadership includes eight dimensions, associable to the virtues of the leadership styles abovementioned: calling (clear purpose), compassion (altruism), care for others (sense of belonging), centred communication (equilibrium between emotions and reason), cultivated stillness (engaging in contemplative practices), clarity (wisdom), currency of time (mindfulness), and contagious joy (positive energy). Contemplative leadership ends the presentation of the different leadership styles connected with virtue ethics. In Table 4.1, I synthetize the leadership styles just mentioned in the vertical axis, relating them to their virtues, represented in the horizontal axis. I chose, in particular, the ten virtues  – honesty, courage, integrity, trustworthiness, love, humility, prudence, compassion, forgiveness and reciprocal learning – common to the leadership styles listed. As you can see in Table 4.1, honesty, courage and integrity are present in all the styles. This is not surprising, being these virtues central part of the Greek and Roman tradition and “culturally universal” (Hackett and Wang 2012). Conversely, the other virtues are not common to all the leadership styles. For example, trustworthiness and love are not typical of transformational leadership. Moreover, humility is not a factor traceable in ethical, charismatic and responsible leadership. In relation to prudence, it is not present in ethical, spiritual, and responsible leadership. It is not possible to find the virtue of compassion in moral, ethical, transformational and responsible leadership. Forgiveness is traceable only for spiritual and servant leadership. The docile relational leadership includes all the nine virtues that I considered in the horizontal axis. However, the relational virtue embedded in this kind of leadership adds the element of reciprocal learning. Below I will explain its main features.

4.3   The Docile Relational Leader Simon (Simon 1976) discussed organizational docility, identifying it as one of the psychological building blocks of learning within organizations. In particular, he defines docility as “the human propensity for accepting information and advice that comes through social channels” (Simon 1976: 95). Recently, Secchi and Bardone conducted one of the first empirical

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

69

studies on docility, modifying Simon’s definition as follows: “Docility is the tendency to depend on suggestions, perceptions, comments, and to gather information from other individuals on the one hand, and to ‘provide’ information on the other” (2009: 8). Their idea is similar to McMillan’s assertion (2016) that docility is a central element of organizational learning, because it is a “two-way learning process based on reciprocal willingness to learn and teach” (100). Other authors have described docility in the literature (Bruderer and Singh 1996; Knudsen 2003; Secchi 2007), but I will draw especially upon Secchi and Bardone (2009) and McMillan’s research (2016). On the one hand docile relational leadership includes mercy, which is the leader’s ability to overcome possible errors made by followers. On the other hand, it involves mutual assistance and cooperation between leaders and followers, in such a way that they can learn from each other to achieve an organizational common goal. This last point will be the main focus of my reflections. But what does it mean for a leader to act in a docile way? It means that leaders must be aware that they can learn from their followers and that they must give the possibility to their followers to learn from them. In other words, the leader has to operate with a spirit of cooperation, grounded in mutual assistance. Individuals, in fact, are aware that everyone needs each other, also within organizations. This is also a way to read organizational learning through the logic of reciprocity. This leader embeds the relational character of Thomistic virtue ethics where, as highlighted above, the help of others is necessary to virtues’ development. Aquinas emphasized the necessity of relations between master-­disciple and between friends to learn virtue, regardless of context. For this reason, we can easily associate this modus operandi within organizations to docile relational leadership for the fact that prudence can be acquired only through relationships grounded on mutual assistance. Hence, within organizations, I recognize docile relational leadership in action in the presence of three factors: (1) when leaders help the followers in their needs; (2) when both followers and leaders are willing to learn from each other and accept their reciprocal help; (3) when both followers and leaders acquire the virtuous maturity to help others in their virtuous advancement. Among these three main points characterizing docile relational leadership, we can recognize the presence of two of them (1 and 3) also in other leadership styles described above.

70 

R. SFERRAZZO

For example, the point (1) emerges particularly in servant, responsible, and contemplative leadership. In the first case, we are in the presence of a leader who is completely oriented to serve their followers, considering them not as means to reach an end (Russell and Stone 2002), but loving them unconditionally. In the context of responsible leadership, leaders show a sense of care for their followers. Finally, adopting a contemplative leadership style, the ethical care for others is put into practice through relational leadership practices. The point (3) can be found in transformational and responsible leadership. Indeed, a transformational leader must favor their followers’ independent actions and promote a moral climate, oriented to serve the common good. Furthermore, responsible leadership looks for excellence in humankind, considering an ample variety of economic, ecological, social, political, and human responsibilities. Within the literature on leadership virtues, we can observe these overlaps. However, although docile relational leadership includes traits similar to other forms, it embraces peculiar qualities connected with the point (2) mentioned above. What does it mean, in practical terms, to learn from each other and to accept reciprocal help in the relationship between leaders and followers? It means acquiring the attitude of docility towards the other. For example, if an employee has innovative ideas related to a project, leaders must listen to their insights, guaranteeing the possibility that the employees may freely express themselves. In fact, the docile relational leader gives voice to followers’ opinions and, in the same way, allows employees to make decisions in an independent way, i.e. without preliminarily asking for leaders’ permission. Leaders must also be open to hearing followers’ criticisms, considering them not as a threat to their leadership, but as an opportunity to reach a common aim together. In the same way, employees must preserve the ability to learn from their leaders. Docile relational followers, especially when they make an error, know they can learn from leaders’ experience. However, docile relational followers risk being manipulated by leaders who try to shape their ‘mind-­ sets’ so as to reduce their critical thinking (Fleming 2013). Surely this does not concern docile relational leaders as I have depicted, since they do not seek to manipulate their followers to their own advantages. The docile relational leaders remain close (in terms of listening, dialogue and availability) to their followers not only for personal gain, but also in their interest; the leader aims at the common good of the

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

71

organization. If the docile relational leaders guarantee enough degree of freedom and independence to their followers, they can become a potential guide for them. This mechanism of mutual help and of cooperation consists in looking together at the same horizon, the common good of the company. In Aquinas’ terms, men see “that the common good is not under the power of one man, they do not attend to it as if it belonged to another, but each one attends to it as if it was his own” (De reg., I, 5). Docility becomes the point of contact between the virtue of prudence as such and its ‘political’ character that I emphasized above. The individual and common good coincide in the relational perspective I illustrated. 4.3.1  Final Remarks: Docile Relational Leaders for VUCA and NFWO I have presented an alternative interpretation of Aquinas’ virtue ethics proposing a definition of the relational virtue. I have shown its features through the virtues of prudence and docility. Then, I have applied these Thomistic relational virtues to leadership virtue’s literature, formulating a new style among the many already existing: the “docile relational” leadership. What are the practical consequences of this research? My reading places Aquinas in the broader economic and philosophical tradition described in the first chapter of this book, i.e. Civil Economy (Bruni and Zamagni 2016; Sferrazzo 2020). This tradition flourished in XVIII century Southern Italy. There, economists as Antonio Genovesi (1713–1769) put virtue and mutual assistance at the core of their economic theories. Civil Economy is the science of “public happiness,” which means that it deals with the common good of society. At the same time, civil economists did not deny the role of self-interest and of the market as a “civilizing” factor. Enlightenment, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics: these three elements were mingled in Civil Economy and transformed to produce an (quasi) alternative theory to Classical Political Economy. The synthesis operated by civil economists can be of great interest for BE, where the three broad Ethics are usually separated. Regarding the market as a form of mutual assistance, the differences between Utilitarians, Virtue Ethicists and Deontologists are nuanced, even if it is unlikely that all these tensions could be reconciled. This chapter is also an attempt to apply the Civil Economy paradigm to the managerial field, specifically, to the leadership style. In fact,

72 

R. SFERRAZZO

organizations are places were “human flourishing, mutual esteem, and friendship-­based reciprocity” (Melé 2014: 463) can be created. For example, the phenomenon of interpersonal relationships in organizations sometimes is anchored on trust and mutual help; other times, it spreads within an environment of distrust and self-interest, which does not aim at the common good. A new horizon of research could consist in developing the core concepts of Civil Economy – gratuity, public trust, mutual assistance – already discussed in the literature on economics and philosophy and relating them to the organizational and managerial context. Here, we have focused especially on leadership virtues, adopting a Thomistic virtue ethics. Future research could deal with the application of the Thomistic perspective even within other managerial sectors, i.e. organizational culture, remuneration system, control systems, and so on. In this way, new paths of research can be traced in the established fields of business ethics, organization studies and management. Many companies, big and small, are facing new challenges in as much as the world is becoming more complex and volatile (Betof et al. 2014; Manwani 2013). This implies a high degree of difficulty in making short-­ term decisions. In today turbulent business environment, HR managers are using the notion of VUCA as a framework to develop leaders (Elkington et  al. 2017). The acronym VUCA  – Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity – was first used by the US Army War College to describe the difficult socio-political scenario derived from the end of the Cold War. Today the VUCA world proposes four antidotes that leaders should adopt to face highly problematic situations. The first one consists of having a clear vision to overcome the problem of volatility. The second one emphasises the understanding of rapid changes to fight uncertainty. Then, the antidote for complexity implies looking at all types of situations with clarity. Finally, the increasing ambiguity could be faced through an agile approach. This last case is particularly relevant for organizations, where the role of leader should be based on being endowed with a clear point of view about the future of the company. Overall, the main criteria characterizing the VUCA world is that leaders need to engage all employees at all levels to gain their trust and contribution in coping with the numerous challenges posed by VUCA. In this way, VUCA becomes an opportunity for promoting a greater level of collaboration and cooperation within organizations.

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

73

Given this picture, the docile relational leadership could be that style helping to create a culture of collaboration and sharing to face the challenges of a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. For instance, entering in the hyper-digital era, companies of the future will be constituted by multi-talented individuals connected together to create value. The role of the docile relational leader will be fundamental insofar as people will be more and more interconnected and thus, the processes of sharing and reciprocal learning will be increasingly necessary for organizational efficiency. In this turbulent scenario, companies are also modifying their organizational structure in order to increase people well-being. For example, some new forms of work organization (NFWO) are emerging in different countries to guarantee a higher degree of freedom and responsibility to people (Longoni et al. 2014). Some examples of NFWO are the holacracy model (Robertson 2015), the participatory model of management (Gilbert et al. 2017), the model of agile management (Barrand 2012) and the liberated companies’ phenomenon (Sferrazzo and Ruffini 2019). The model of docile relational leadership helps also to deal with the arising of NFWO in as much as it allows both leaders and followers a higher degree of freedom in making decisions. Hence, I auspicate for new research paths, which inquire these two possible applications of this model based on Aquinas’ virtue ethics.

References Alzola, M. (2015). Virtuous persons and virtuous actions in business ethics and organizational research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(3), 287–318. Audi, R. (2012). Virtue ethics as a resource in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 273–291. Bachmann, C. (2014). Can practical wisdom be taught in business schools? An inquiry-based learning approach for management education. In P. Blessinger & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for the arts, humanities, and social sciences: A conceptual and practical resource for educators. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing. Bachmann, C., Habisch, A., & Dierksmeier, C. (2018). Practical wisdom: Management’s no longer forgotten virtue. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 147–165. Barrand, J. (2012). Le manager agile. Agir autrement pour la survie des entreprises. Paris: Dunod.

74 

R. SFERRAZZO

Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 551–598. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1995). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp. 169–182). Westport: Praeger. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Bass, B.  M., & Riggio, R.  E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behaviour. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217. Beabout, G. R. (2012). Management as a domain-relative practice that requires and develops practical wisdom. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 405–432. Beck, M. C. (2018). Aristotelian leadership: Creating a community ethos founded on intercultural virtues. Journal of Leadership, 15(1), 74–86. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York: Harper and Row. Bernacchio, C., & Couch, R. (2015). The virtue of participatory governance: A Mac Intyrean alternative to shareholder maximization. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, S130–S143. Bertland, A. (2009). Virtue ethics in business and the capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 25–32. Betof, E., Owens, L.  M., & Todd, S. (2014). Leaders as teachers action guide: Proven approaches for unlocking success in your organization. American Society for Training and Development. ISBN: 9781562869199. Biloslavo, R., & McKenna, B. (2013). Evaluating the process of wisdom in wise political leaders using a developmental wisdom model. In W.  Küpers & D. J. Pauleen (Eds.), A handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organization and integral business practice (pp. 111–132). Farnham: Gower. Bright, D. S., Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2006). The amplifying and buffering effects of virtuousness in downsized organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3), 249–269. Bruderer, E., & Singh, J. V. (1996). Organizational evolution, learning, and selection: A genetic-algorithm-based model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1322–1349. Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2016). Civil economy: Another idea of the market. New York: Agenda Pub. Bruni, L., Pelligra, V., Reggiani, T., & Rizzolli, M. (2019). The pied piper: Prizes, incentives, and motivation crowding-in. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

75

Calderón, R., Piñero, R., & Redín, D. M. (2018). Can compliance restart integrity? Toward a harmonized approach. The example of the audit committee. Business Ethics: A European Review, 27(2), 195–206. Calleja, R., & Melé, D. (2016). Political wisdom in management and corporate governance. Philosophy of Management, 15(2), 99–119. Cameron, K. S. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 25–35. Cameron, K.  S., & Winn, B. (2012). Virtuousness in organizations. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 231–243). New York: Oxford University Press. Casadei, E. (2013). Vita interiore, discernimento politico e impegno civile: l’influsso della contemplazione filosofica sul giudizio civile e politico in Tommaso D’Aquino. Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino. Cavanagh, G. E., & Bandsuch, M. R. (2002). Virtue as a benchmark for spirituality in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 109–117. Ciulla, J.  B. (2004). Ethics and leadership effectiveness. In J.  Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 302–327). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of management. The Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647. Elkington, R., Steege, M. V. D., Glick-Smith, J., & Breen, J. M. (Eds.). (2017). Visionary leadership in a turbulent world: Thriving in the new VUCA context. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Ferrero, I., & Sison, A. J. G. (2014). A quantitative analysis of authors, schools and themes in virtue ethics articles in business ethics and management journals (1980–2011). Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(4), 375–400. Fleming, P. (2013). Down with big brother: The end of corporate culturalism. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 474–495. Flynn, G. (2008). The virtuous manager: A vision for leadership in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 359–372. Franks, C. A. (2015). Aristotelian doctrines in Aquinas’s treatment of justice. In G. Emery & M. Levering (Eds.), Aristotle and Aquinas’ theology (pp. 139–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frey, B. S., & Gallus, J. (2017). Honours versus money: The economics of awards. New York: Oxford University Press. Fry, L.  W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727. Fry, L. W., & Cohen, M. P. (2009). Spiritual leadership as a paradigm for organizational transformation and recovery from extended work hours cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 265–278.

76 

R. SFERRAZZO

Fry, L. W., & Slocum, J. W. (2008). Maximizing the triple bottom line through spiritual leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(1), 86–96. Genovesi, A. (1791). Lettere accademiche sulla questione se sieno più felici gli scienziati o gl’ignoranti. Venice: Pietro Savoni. Gilbert, P., Teglborg, L., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2017). L’entreprise libérée, innovation radicale ou simple avatar du management participatif? Gérer et Comprendre, 127, 38–49. Gilson, E. (2002). The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Trans. from the original French by Laurence K. Shook and Armand Mauer. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Gómez, D. A. D., & Córdoba, M. D. P. R. (2019). Practically wise ethical decision-­ making: An ethnographic application to the UNE-Millicom merger. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(4), 494–505. Grandy, G., & Sliwa, M. (2017). Contemplative leadership: The possibilities for the ethics of leadership theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(3), 423–440. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press. Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Hackett, R. D., & Wang, G. (2012). Virtues and leadership. An integrating conceptual framework founded in Aristotelian and Confucian perspectives on virtues. Management Decision, 50(5), 868–899. Hamel, G., & Breen, B. (2007). The future of management. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Hanbury, G.  L. (2004). A ‘pracademic’s’ perspective of ethics and honor: Imperatives for public service in the 21st century! Public Organization Review, 4(3), 187–204. Haraway, W. M., & Kunselman, J. C. (2006). Ethical leadership and administrative discretion: The fisre chief’s hiring dilemma. Public Personnel Management, 35(1), 1–14. Hartman, E. (2008a). Socratic questions and Aristotelian answers: A virtue-based approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 313–328. Hartman, E.  M. (2008b). Reconciliation in business ethics: Some advice from Aristotle. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 253–265. Hays, J. (2013). Transformation and transcendence for wisdom: The emergence and sustainment of wise leaders and organizations. In W. Küpers & D. J. Pauleen (Eds.), A handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organization and integral business practice (pp. 111–132). Farnham: Gower. Hirschfeld, M.  L. (2018). Aquinas and the market: Toward a humane economy. Harvard University Press.

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

77

House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative century. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 411–450). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M.  M. Chemers & R.  Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp.  81–107). San Diego: Academic. Huhtala, M., Kangas, M., Kaptein, M., & Feldt, T. (2018). The shortened corporate ethical virtues scale: Measurement invariance and mean differences across two occupational groups. Business Ethics: A European Review, 27(3), 238–247. Irwin, D. A. (1998). Against the tide: An intellectual history of free trade. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jacobsen, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 75–112. Johnson, C. (2001). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1998). Ethical leadership in three dimensions. Journal of Human Values, 4(2), 133–148. Kaptein, M. (2017). When organizations are too good: Applying Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean to the corporate ethical virtues model. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(3), 300–311. Kiechel, W. (1995). The leader as servant. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership (pp. 121–125). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kletz, P., Almog-Bareket, G., Habisch, A., Lenssen, G., & Loza Adaui, C. (2012). Practical wisdom for management from the Jewish tradition. Journal of Management Development, 31(9), 879–885. Knudsen, T. (2003). Simon’s selection theory: Why docility evolves to breed successful altruism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(2), 229–244. Koehn, D. (1995). A role for virtue ethics in the analysis of business practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 533–539. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kriger, M. (2013). Wise leadership in organizations: Integrating eastern and western paradigms. In J. Neal (Ed.), Handbook of faith and spirituality in the workplace (pp. 255–269). New York: Springer. Longoni, A., Golini, R., & Cagliano, R. (2014). The role of new forms of work organization in developing sustainability strategies in operations. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 147–160. MacIntyre, A. (1999). Dependent rational animals. Why human beings need the virtues. Chicago: Open Court.

78 

R. SFERRAZZO

MacIntyre, A. (2011). How Aristotelianism can become revolutionary: Ethics, resistance, utopia. In P.  Blackledge & K.  Knight (Eds.), Virtue and politics (pp. 3–7). Notre Dame: Dame University Press. Mack, O., Khare, A., Krämer, A., & Burgartz, T. (Eds.). (2015). Managing in a VUCA world. New York: Springer. Manwani, H. (2013). Speech delivered at the annual general meeting. Hindustan Unilevel Limited. McCoy, B.  H. (2007). Governing values: The essence of great leadership. Leadership Excellence, 24(5), 11. McInerny, R. (2004). Aquinas. Cambridge: Polity. McKay, A. (2005). Prudence and acquired moral virtue. The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review, 69(4), 535–555. McMillan, C. J. (2016). On docility: A research note on Herbert Simon’s social learning theory. Journal of Management History, 22(1), 91–114. Meindl, J. R., & Ehlrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 91–109. Melé, D. (2009). Integrating personalism into virtue-based business ethics: The personalist and the common good principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 227–244. Melé, D. (2014). “Human quality treatment”: Five organizational levels. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 457–471. Melé, D., & Cantón, C. G. (2014). Action, human flourishing and moral discernment. In Human foundations of management (IESE business collection) (pp. 204–232). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Moore, G. (2015). Corporate character, corporate virtues. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, S99–S114. Moore, G. (2017). Virtue at work: Ethics for individuals, managers, and organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morales-Sánchez, R., & Cabello-Medina, C. (2015). Integrating character in management: Virtues, character strengths, and competencies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, S156–S174. Murphy, N., & Roberts, D. (2008). Nurse leaders as stewards at the point of service. Nursing Ethics, 15(2), 243–253. Nash, L. (1990). Good intentions aside: A Manager’s guide to resolving ethical problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Nelson, R.  H. (1998). Economic religion versus Christian values. Journal of Markets and Morality, 1(2), 142–157. Nolan, K. (2013). Laughing Buddhas: The everyday embodiment of contemplative leadership (PhD thesis). Yellow Springs: Antioch University. Nussbaum, M.  C. (2003). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

79

Páez, I., & Salgado, E. (2016). When deeds speak, words are nothing: A study of ethical leadership in Colombia. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(4), 538–555. Parameshwar, S. (2005). Spiritual leadership through ego-transcendence: Exceptional responses to challenging circumstances. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 689–722. Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomas, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organisational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75–96. Pinckaers, S. (1962). Virtue is not a habit. Cross Currents, 12, 65–81. Pinsent, A. (2012). The second-person perspective in Aquinas ethics: Virtues and gifts. New York: Routledge. Pless, N.  M. (2007). Understanding responsible leadership: Role identity and motivation drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 437–456. Porter, J. (1992). The subversion of virtue: Acquired and infused virtues in the “summa theologiae”. The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 12, 19–41. Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655–687. Rhodes, C. (2012). Ethics, alterity and the rationality of leadership justice. Human Relations, 65(10), 1311–1331. Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The leadership virtues questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250. Robertson, B.  J. (2015). Holacracy: The revolutionary management system that abolishes hierarchy. London: Portfolio Penguin. Robinson, S. (2009). The nature of responsibility in a professional setting. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 11–19. Rost, J. C. (1993a). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Rost, J. C. (1993b). Leadership development in the new millennium. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 91–110. Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23(3/4), 145–157. Sama, L. M., & Shoaf, V. (2008). Ethical leadership for the professions: Fostering a moral community. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1–2), 39–46. Sanders, J.  E., Hopkins, W.  E., & Geroy, G.  D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies, 9(4), 21–31. Sankar, Y. (2003). Character not charisma in the critical measure of leadership excellence. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 45–55.

80 

R. SFERRAZZO

Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches: A review and synthesis. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 171–196). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Secchi, D. (2007). A theory of docile society: The role of altruism in human behavior. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 7(2), 146–160. Secchi, D., & Bardone, E. (2009). Super-docility in organizations: An evolutionary model. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 12(3), 339–379. Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424. Sferrazzo, R. (2020). Towards an agape-based organization: Does it make sense to apply civil economy to business ethics? Business & Professional Ethics Journal. https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej20207996. Sferrazzo, R., & Ruffini, R. (2019). Are liberated companies a concrete application of Sen’s capability approach? Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-019-04324-3. Simon, H.  A. (1947). Administrative behavior. (Republished in 1957, 1976, 1996). New York: Macmillan. Sims, D. (2010). Looking for the key to leadership under the lamp post. European Management Journal, 28(4), 253–259. Sinnicks, M. (2018). Leadership after virtue: MacIntyre’s critique of management reconsidered. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(4), 735–746. Sison, A. J. G. (2003). The moral capital of leaders: Why virtue matters. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Sison, A. J. G., Ferrero, I., & Guitián, G. (2018). Business ethics: A virtue ethics and common good approach. New York: Routledge. Smith, D. C. (1995). Ethics and leadership: The 1990s. Introduction to the special issue of the business ethics quarterly. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 1–3. Smith, B.  N., Montagno, R.  V., & Kuzmenko, T.  N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparison. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80–91. Solomon, R.  C. (1998). Ethical leadership, emotions, and trust: Beyond ‘charisma’. In J.  B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp.  111–144). Westport: Praeger. Solomon, R. C. (2003). Victims of circumstances? A defense of virtue ethics in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 43–62. Storr, L. (2004). Leading with integrity: A qualitative research study. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 18(6), 415–434. Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organization: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 631–650.

4  TOWARDS A DOCILE RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

81

Veríssimo, J. M., & Lacerda, T. M. (2015). Does integrity matter for CSR practice in organizations? The mediating role of transformational leadership. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(1), 34–51. Viner, J. (1978). Religious thought and economic society. History of Political Economy, 10(1, Spring), 9–189. Visentin, M. (2014). Happiness and the market: The ontology of the human being in Thomas Aquinas and modern functionalism. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(4), 430–444. Waddock, S. (2014). Wisdom and responsible leadership: Aesthetic sensibility, moral imagination, and systems thinking. In D.  Koehn & D.  Elm (Eds.), Aesthetics and business ethics (pp. 129–147). Dordrecht: Springer. Walton, C. (1988). The moral manager. New York: Harper & Row. Whetstone, J. T. (2001). How virtue fits within business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 101–114. Whetstone, J.  T. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: The servant leader with a transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385–392. 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(5), 749–770. Zhang, Y. M., & Ng, P. T. (2009). Exploring Yi Jing and its implications to change and leadership. Chinese Management Studies, 3(2), 155–168.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusions and Future Research Prospects

In this book, I have tried to synthetize those features that can orient a company towards an ethical business management, strongly related to the Italian tradition of Civil Economy. In particular, I have described three peculiarities that should orient an ethical management within an organization, i.e. the agapic form, the necessity of giving freedom to people and the adoption of a docile relational leadership style. These peculiarities could constitute just the first step towards a more relational and humanistic management style. However, it is important to continuing investigate the ethical management research field, in order to create companies increasingly fair and sustainable in the long term. Contemporary organizations, indeed, are seeing a proliferation of practices and discourses emphasizing employee self-realization, participation and individual responsibility (Fleming and Sturdy 2011; Jenkins and Delbridge 2017; Picard and Islam 2018), a mix of empowerment narratives that has been termed the “new management ideology” (Chiapello and Fairclough 2002). Some examples of these new organizational and managerial forms are liberated companies, mentioned in Chap. 3. Although these new organizations are able to face the new challenges of the marketplace, they are not quite capable of dealing with the tensions that can occur within them. The managerial leverages highlighted in this book – derived from the Italian tradition of Civil Economy – could help to overcome these tensions and ambivalences experienced within the new forms of organizations. © The Author(s) 2020 R. Sferrazzo, Civil Economy and Organisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59022-2_5

83

84 

R. SFERRAZZO

Therefore, the three main organizational concepts emphasized in this book – agape, freedom and docility – would deserve an increasingly attention, in future research management and organization studies.

References Chiapello, E., & Fairclough, N. L. (2002). Understanding the new management ideology: A transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism. Discourse and Society, 13(2), 185–208. Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. (2011). ‘Being yourself’in the electronic sweatshop: New forms of normative control. Human Relations, 64(2), 177–200. Jenkins, S., & Delbridge, R. (2017). Neo-normative control and value discretion in interactive service work: A case study. In Emerging conceptions of work, management and the labor market (pp. 59–85). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Picard, H., & Islam, G. (2018). Free to do what I want’? Exploring the ambivalent effects of liberating leadership. Organization Studies. https://doi. org/10.1177/0170840618814554.

Index

A Agape, 17 Agapic leadership style, viii, 36 Aquinas’ virtue ethics, 15, 53 Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, 15 C Charitas, 18 Christian perspective, 20 Civil company, 9 Civil economy, vi, 1, 83 Civil happiness, 13 Civil management, 6 Collaboration, 23 Collective rituals, 27

G Genovesi, Antonio, 2 Grounded theory, 22 I Interdisciplinary approach, vi

D “Docile relational” leadership, ix, 69 Docility, 61

L “Leadership and managerial revolution”, vi Leadership style, 21, 62 Liberated companies, 44 Liberating leaders, 49 Liberating leadership, ix Liminal spaces, 35 Logic of subsidiarity, 29 Love, 19 Love in leadership, 19

F Freedom, 29, 45 Free work, 45

M Models of leadership, viii Mutual assistance, 13

© The Author(s) 2020 R. Sferrazzo, Civil Economy and Organisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59022-2

85

86 

INDEX

N Negative freedom, 46 New forms of work organizations (NFWO), viii, 44 New organizations, 83 P Participative dimension, 24 Positive freedom, 46 Public happiness, 15 R Reciprocal assistance, viii Reciprocal feedback, 36 Reciprocal learning, 34 Reciprocity, vii Relational leadership, 69

S Semi-structured interviews, 20 Sen, Amartya, 13 Sen’s capability approach (CA), 43 Sharing, 23 Subsidiarity logics, 35 T Teaching inclination, 32 Trust relationships, 30 U Unconditional reciprocity, 8 V Virtue of prudence, 59