Character Is Not “Dead” in Management Research: A Review of Individual Character and Organizational-Level Virtue†

Abstract

We propose that strength of character is a potentially important organizational research topic, one that has been largely untapped in applied research. Character (ethos) refers to those inter-penetrable habitual qualities within individuals and applicable to organizations that constrain and lead them to desire and pursue personal and societal good. In our review, we first provide an initial conceptualization of character, partly by distinguishing it from virtue and values. Second, starting with the Old Testament, we examine how character has traditionally been considered across time and culture. Next, we discuss the extant research on strength of character and organizational virtue. We conclude with promising research directions involving individual character strength and organizational virtue.

The role of organizational virtuousness in organizational citizenship behavior of teachers: The test of direct and indirect effect through job satisfaction mediating

“…We agree with Wright and Goodstein's (2007) suggestion that the exploratory nature of the assessment method employed by Cameron et al (2004) invites other researchers to employ such a measure in other contexts and in relation to other outcomes (e.g., employee loyalty; organizational commitment; and job Satisfaction). More specifically, we focus on how perceptions of organizational virtuousness predict organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), both directly and through the mediating role of affective job Satisfaction, the hypothesized model being depicted in Model 1.…”

Conceptualization and Measurement of Virtuous Leadership: Doing Well by Doing Good

“…Further efforts to improve the level of empirical distinctiveness of the virtues may also be in order, for example, by considering a slightly modified set of virtues (cf. Crossan et al, 2013;Wright and Goodstein, 2007).…”

Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership

“…Most articles focus on the debate about whether or not virtuousness actually exists (Alzola 2008;Wright and Goodstein 2007;Weaver 2006;Whetstone 2003), on the development of virtue in societies (Moore and Beadle 2006;Nielsen 2006), or on the definition of the term (Fowers 2009;Moberg 1999;Rachels 1999). A few articles have attempted to identify universal 1 Responsible leadership characteristics are reported to include ''building public trust,'' ''sustaining an impeccable reputation,'' ''walking the talk,'' ''managing with integrity,'' ''making profits with principles,'' ''delivering on the triple bottom line,'' ''creating value for stakeholders,'' ''mobilizing people and teams,'' ''coaching and reinforcing employees,'' ''creating incentives to encourage respectful collaboration,'' ''safeguarding freedom of speech,'' ''ensuring adherence to employment standards,'' ''proving fair and equal employment opportunities,'' ''making sure that products and services meet customer needs,'' ''ensuring that ethical standards are respected,'' ''driven by a values-based vision of the future,'' ''having a fundamental values base,'' ''maintaining personal and professional integrity,'' ''making principled decisions,'' ''using values as a moral compass,'' ''promoting active citizenship inside and outside the organization,'' ''being rooted in an ethics of care,'' ''being driven by a desire to serve others,'' ''humility and modesty,'' ''an inclination to support others and to care for their interests and needs,'' ''being connected and close to stakeholders,'' ''growing and sustaining a web of stakeholder connections,'' ''having a drive to realize the vision in and through stakeholder engagement,'' ''being cooperative,'' ''being inclusive,'' ''being empathetic,'' ''creating a values-based sense of identify among stakeholders,'' ''a combination of cognitive, emotional, relational, and moral qualities,'' and other characteristics (see Maak and Pless 2006a, b;Pless 2007 (Fineman 2006).…”