Exploring managers’ conceptions of wisdom as management practice

Abstract

This paper reports on an exploratory investigation into the concept of managerial wisdom. Six senior managers from diverse and large organisations in New Zealand were interviewed about their conception of managerial wisdom. The findings show that senior managers have a practical and positive conception of wisdom consisting of four factors: experience and knowledge, emotional intelligence, mentorship, and deliberation and consultation. The findings show that concepts of ‘spirituality’, ‘religiosity’, and, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, ‘ethics’, are all absent from the participants’ descriptions of wise managers. A tentative definition of managerial wisdom is proposed based on these findings as well as an explanation for the absence of ethics. As interest in wisdom and management continues to grow, this exploratory empirical research serves as a base for further research on the understanding and place of wisdom in management.

Agent and stewardship behavior: How do they differ?

“…In fact, engaging in these questionable accounting practices is precisely why former Enron executives, such as Jeffrey Skilling, is serving a 24-year sentence. In a study of managerial wisdom, Alammar and Pauleen (2016) found that senior managers never addressed ethics. They related this to a possible agency theoretic position and concern that managerial wisdom does not include an ethics component.…”

The Moral Psychology of Practical Wisdom for Business and Management

“…(Its main representative is the balance theory of wisdom (Sternberg 1998), but other representatives include Clayton and Birren, Holliday and Chandler, Orwoll and Perlmutter, and Sowarka. See Alammar and Pauleen (2016) and Sternberg (1998, pp. 348-349).)…”

“…(Other theories here span dominant personality research work (e.g., Bandura 1989;Deci and Ryan 2013;McAdams and St Aubin 1998;Ryan and Lynch 1989;Ryan and Deci 2006), post-modern constructivism (Gergen 1999(Gergen , 2011, and neo-Piagetian traditions of adult development theory (Alexander and Langer 1990;Cook-Greuter 1999;Kegan 1994;Loevinger 1966Loevinger , 1976 with an emphasis on postformal cognitivist dialectical thought.) Alammar and Pauleen (2016) identify a third school of thought that explores the correlation between personal traitssuch as gender, age, occupation, etc.and wisdom, i.e., identifying wisdom as a property of the person that integrates cognitive, reflective, and affective characteristics (Alammar and Pauleen 2016, p. 551).…”

The Agency of the Principal–Agent Relationship: An Opportunity for HRD

“…Following were proposals for using the utility of agency theory to explain training and development outcomes (Azevedo & Akdere, 2008, 2010, 2011; Li & Huang, 2011). The empirical studies conducted and published within the HRD-related literature identified in this review described the limitations of their studies to application to the case and sample studied due to the sample size or specificity of the participants and respondents (Alammar & Pauleen, 2015; Blakeley & Higgs, 2014; Glick, 2011; Liu, Valenti, & Chen, 2016; O’Reilly, Doerr, Caldwell, & Chatman, 2014; Petrescu & Simmons, 2008; Rusaw & Rusaw, 2008; Singh, 2003). Research and practice related to testing and applying the principal–agent relationship are presented later in this article as implications for HRD.…”

“…Similar to trust is reputation. It is expected that reputation and wisdom will influence the principal’s influence in the principal–agent relationship (Alammar & Pauleen, 2015; Kolodinsky & Bierly, 2013); however, this is expected and needs to be verified. In contrast to trust is conflict.…”