This article offers foundations for an integrated approach to leadership integrity consultation, melding somatic learning methods with practices for training the mind, known as lojong in Tibetan Buddhism. Embodied learning and mind training are grounded in similar perceptions about the importance of attention and awareness for developing effective, powerful action in the world. Fundamental to both methods is developing the capacity to act with awareness: the capacity to be fully present to what is taking place, rather than being distracted by expectations, habits, or fears about either oneself or others. Experience with coaching leaders suggests that such awareness is essential for leadership integrity, which requires a leader to act with wholeness from deep values in ways that can be sustained over time. The article describes these methods, identifies how they have been addressed in research, shows how each has been used in consulting, and suggests that they may be used together synergistically within processes of leadership development.

People have tried for centuries to develop practices that bring them present to what is, in the moment-a transition we refer to as "waking up." This two-year collaborative action research project by 15 professionals explored how intending to wake up makes a difference in one's experiences at work.

In the current article, we describe how individual experiences of presence may be a key factor in giving birth to the kind of leadership that enables deep sustainability. The empirical data come from two studies of the same theme: (a) an international action research project about Waking Up Moments at Work and (b) a Finnish phenomenographical study about experiences of presence. Both studies address the generative qualities of waking up or presence, suggest the value of such experiences as catalysts for inner shifts in human consciousness, and begin to explore how this may be a core component of developing leaders' potential for contributing to sustainability.

Silence is laden when it comes to race and leadership. We believe it is critical to reclaim the kind of silence that supports conscious transformation. Our contribution in this endeavor is twofold. Firstly, we distinguish between fear-based silence and sacred silence. Fear-based silence can be a running away from discomfort, a covering up of trepidation and anxiety. It can lead to collective amnesia and willful ignorance, a hoarding of status, privilege, and power, and forge deep divides between people. This is the world of masks and performativity, and at its worst harbors prejudice, hate, and destruction. Leadership tolerant of fear-based silence permits a festering of racism. Sacred silence by contrast heals and raises consciousness. For the kind of leadership required to consistently and indefatigably push for change and disruption to racism, we need a practice of sacred silence. Sacred silence cultivates the courage to look fearlessly within personal shadows and bravely at what is required to make the world a safe, secure, and just place for all. Secondly, we present four themes that emerged from our reflexive inquiry into race, leadership, and silence: listening dialogue, returning to Mother Earth wisdom, honoring potential, and practicing mindfulness in a context of collective wisdom.

The fields of organizational sociology and organizational development contain considerable literature dealing with organizational effectiveness, but little that focuses explicitly on organizational health. This paper clarifies the notion of “healthy organizations” and describes how it needs to be fed by practice, so that social scientists do not build theories that are unrelated to the reality that people experience in organizations today. This delineation of “organizational health” as an arena of inquiry is built on the definition of health developed by the World Health Organization, and on the writing of behavioral scientists (Argyris, Bruhn, Cooley, Etzioni, Kilburg, Levinson, Sorokin, and Whyte) and non-traditional thinkers and practitioners (G.I. Gurdjieff, Oscar Ichazo, Charles G. Krone, Moshe Feldenkrais, and Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama). Sociological practice can contribute significantly to the creation of “organizations of the future” (Argyris, 1973) in which a state of reciprocal maintenance (Bennett, 1976) exists between individuals and organizations. “Reciprocal maintenance” means that neither partner seeks to take advantage of the other: the organizations are designed to enable the growth and development of their members or workers (in the broadest sense, including managers) and the individuals do their best to enhance the organization's long-term viability. I define as “healthy” those organizations that foster such reciprocal maintenance while creating an organizational culture in which people have more influence and control over the decisions that affect their lives.