Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Compassionate leadership: a strategy for organizational success
(USC Thesis Other)
Compassionate leadership: a strategy for organizational success
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Compassionate Leadership: A Strategy for Organizational Success
Ana Maria Dorrance
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2023
© Copyright by Ana Maria Dorrance 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Ana Maria Dorrance certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Monique C. Datta
Susanne M. Foulk
Jennifer L. Phillips, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
Lack of leader compassion in the workplace, exemplified by unskillful responses to employee
distress, may adversely affect individual and organizational performance. The purpose of this
qualitative study was to identify and validate the factors that contribute to and detract from
leaders demonstrating compassion in the workplace, as well as the impact of compassionate
leader behavior on individual and organizational performance. This field-based study’s
conceptual framework, based on the Burke-Litwin model, guided the design of the interview
protocol. The 14 participants were leaders of people who were also followers and sole
contributors with leadership experience at various levels and significant exposure to leadership in
various occupations and industries. They represented that the main external factors influencing
compassionate leadership were COVID-19 and its effects, as well as the extreme polarization of
views in society. Leadership was the main factor internal to the organization that impacted
compassionate behavior in the workplace. The participants also reflected that an individualized
approach was necessary in order for compassion to be effectively received by subordinates. They
represented that the main impacts of compassionate leader behavior were enhanced employee
retention and engagement. These are two key issues faced by organizations in the form of the
Great Resignation and quiet quitting. Reduced turnover and enhanced engagement have been
shown to improve individual and organizational performance. Recommendations for future
research include more large, systematized, quantitative research associated with desired
organizational outcomes. Also, research related to compassion metrics and training modalities
would contribute to the application of compassion in organizations.
Keywords: compassionate leadership, employee retention, employee engagement
v
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
History of Compassion in Literature and Research .......................................................... 13
The Process of Compassion .............................................................................................. 17
Theoretical Framework: Burke-Litwin Model .................................................................. 26
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 29
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 38
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 38
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 38
Data Source: Interviews .................................................................................................... 40
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 42
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 44
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 44
Findings............................................................................................................................. 49
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 76
vi
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................... 78
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 78
Implications....................................................................................................................... 83
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 84
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 88
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 89
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 90
References ..................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 110
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 114
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Major Definitions of Compassion in the Literature 11
Table 2: Data Sources 39
Table 3: Summary of Participants 45
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 110
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Burke-Litwin Model 28
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 29
Figure 3: Participants by Industry (N = 14) 46
Figure 4: Participants by Function (N = 14) 46
Figure 5: Race and Ethnicity of Participants Compared to U.S. Demographics (N = 14) 47
Figure 6: Size of Company Represented by Participants (N = 14) 48
Figure 7: Size of Team Managed by Participants (N = 14) 48
Figure 8: Themes Summarized Within Conceptual Framework 50
Figure 9: Relative Significance of Internal Factors Influencing Compassion in the Workplace
(N = 14) 60
Figure 10: Relative Significance of Internal Factors, Adjusted (N = 11–14) 61
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Employee suffering, distress, and stress are common in work environments and can be
caused by situations arising in one’s personal or professional life (Driver, 2007; Dutton et al.,
2014; Kanov et al., 2004). Work-related stress is estimated to cost organizations in the United
States approximately $200 billion per year (Hassard et al., 2018). Lack of leader compassion in
the workplace, exemplified by unskillful or insensitive responses to employee distress, may
adversely affect individual and organizational performance (Basran et al., 2019; Kanov et al.,
2004; Sullivan & Bhagat, 1992). Compassion can be defined as “an interpersonal process
involving the noticing, feeling, sensemaking, and acting that alleviates the suffering of another
person” (Dutton et al., 2014, p. 277). It is important to address the problem of lack of leader
compassion, as the related costs can be significant to an organization. These costs may be
incurred in the form of increased absenteeism, presenteeism, and turnover, as well as diminished
employee productivity and organizational performance (Hassard et al., 2018; Kanov et al., 2004;
Shyns & Schilling, 2013; Tepper et al., 2009). This study evaluated the factors that contribute to
or detract from compassionate leader behaviors and the resulting impact on individual and
organizational performance.
Background of the Problem
The following section will introduce several definitions of compassion, the history of
compassion in various disciplines, and factors that contribute to the lack of leader compassion.
This section will also provide a summary of the impact of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic,
which began in December 2019 and continues through the time of this study, on organizations
and on compassionate leadership. The section will then conclude with a summary of employee
engagement, which is a key facilitator of individual and organizational performance.
2
Compassion Defined
Multiple and inconsistent definitions of compassion have emerged in research on the
subject (Gilbert et al., 2019; Strauss et al., 2016). These conflicting definitions create some
confusion when applying and evaluating related behavior in workplace settings. While initially
absent from the literature on emotions in psychology, compassion is considered part of a family
of emotions that includes empathy, empathic concern, and sympathy (Goetz et al., 2010). These
terms have been used in an interchangeable manner, contributing to confusion about their
applicability in various fields (Gilbert et al., 2019). Compassion also includes other positive
attitudes and behaviors, including caring (Kanov et al., 2004). Goetz et al. (2010) defined
compassion as a “feeling that arises in witnessing another’s suffering and that motivates a
subsequent desire to help” (p. 351). Most current definitions include the element of desire or
action to relieve the pain of the other (Gilbert et al., 2017). In short, compassion ensues when an
individual reacts to another’s distress with caring behavior (Dutton et al., 2014).
Lack of Compassionate Leader Behavior
Many leaders compromise organizational effectiveness, in part due to their role in
increasing the stress of their subordinates (Harms et al., 2017; Reb et al., 2018; Rynes et al.,
2012). Lack of leader compassion in the workplace can be attributed to several factors: leader
stress (Harms et al., 2017), lack of time (Dutton et al., 2014), antisocial leader conduct (Gilbert
& Basran, 2019), leaders who have high social dominance orientation (SDO; Martin et al.,
2015), and inaccurate assumptions of how others might perceive their compassionate behavior
(Driver, 2007; Melwani et al., 2012). Uncertainty and lack of courage (Kanov et al., 2017), in
addition to leader overwhelm (Driver, 2007), also impede compassionate behavior in
organizations.
3
History
Compassion has a long history within religious and philosophical traditions, a more
recent history within the evolutionary science and psychology disciplines, and a nascent
exploration in the fields of business and economics (Goetz et al., 2010; Rynes et al., 2012). Frost
elevated the relevance of compassion in organizations with his seminal work, Why Compassion
Counts, in 1999. He called upon psychologists and organizational consultants to further this
positive organizational scholarship (POS). He posited that acting compassionately and
professionally in the workplace are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary, with one
enhancing the other (Frost, 2003).
The literature about compassion and leadership is emerging, but modern leadership
theories have incorporated elements of empathy and caring into their frameworks, specifically
transformational and adaptive leadership (Northouse, 2016). Emotional intelligence, which
includes empathy, has been shown to correlate with enhanced leadership skills (Walter et al.,
2012). Finally, compassion appears as a prominent feature of both the authentic and the servant
leadership styles (Northouse, 2016).
Impact of COVID-19
The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, which began in December 2019 and continues
through the time of this research study, has elevated the importance of compassionate leadership.
Employees have experienced prolonged episodes of disruption, distraction, and distress,
adversely influencing their interactions with others as well as their job performance (Yuan et al.,
2021). Virtual and hybrid work environments have challenged both leaders and employees in
developing and maintaining informal connections and communications at work (Hopkins &
Figaro, 2021). Leaders and employees are experiencing additional stress related to COVID-19
4
for a multitude of reasons, including grief related to the death of family or friends; missed work
due to illness, fear of illness, or inconsistent childcare; and extra work due to disrupted supply
chains or open positions. This increased stress, coupled with other factors, has resulted in high
turnover, which Texas A&M Professor Anthony Klotz labeled The Great Resignation (Hopkins
& Figaro, 2021). This turnover is expected to continue into the foreseeable future, which will
leave organizations short-staffed and exacerbate the distress of the remaining employees.
Compassionate leaders might be able to reverse current negative trends for their
organizations. Compassion reduces distress, as well as employees’ intent to resign (Shuck et al.,
2019). The chief diversity officer at Phillip Morris Inc. (PMI), Silke Muenster, represented the
perspective of several leaders in an interview with Women’s Wear Daily:
The emotional turmoil caused by COVID-19 has resulted in workforce burnout and has
prompted us to reflect on and reframe what makes a great leader. … Today, to be a truly
successful business leader, it is critical to demonstrate empathy and compassion. Indeed,
empathy, once considered a ‘nice to have’ now needs to be woven into corporate culture.
And executives must lead by example. (Zaczkiewicz, 2022, p. 1)
When leaders exhibit compassionate behaviors on an ongoing basis, they can reduce the distress
and burnout caused by COVID and improve the engagement of their employees (Shuck et al.,
2019).
Impact of Compassionate Leaders
Compassionate leader behavior results in improved employee psychological well-being
and engagement (Shuck et al., 2019). Engagement improves individual and organizational
outcomes primarily through better task performance and increased organizational citizenship
5
behaviors (Cole et al., 2012). Engagement is correlated with enhanced customer satisfaction,
productivity, safety, profitability, and return on assets (Saks & Gruman, 2014).
Study Context
The participants of this field-based study were leaders of people and sole contributors
who have significant exposure to leaders. These participants were selected from organizations
varying in size and from a range of industries. A broad selection was ideal for this study to
minimize the effect of any one organization or industry on the results, given the divergent impact
of COVID-19 on some organizations and industries.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of the study was to expand on previous research in order to validate and
more comprehensively identify the factors that contribute to or detract from compassionate
leader behavior. The purpose also includes assessing the impact of compassionate leader
behavior on individual and organizational performance. As such, this study adds to the recent
exploration of this relationship and answers the following research questions:
1. What internal and external factors contribute or detract from leaders demonstrating
compassionate behavior towards their staff?
2. How does compassionate leader behavior impact individual and organizational
performance?
Importance of the Study
Increased turnover, lower employee engagement, and increased employee distress, which
all have been exacerbated by COVID, are costly to an organization (Dutton et al., 2014).
Stressed workers can exhibit confusion and frustration, and they have been found to experience
challenges with problem-solving and concentration (Hogan & Hogan, 2014); in other words,
6
stress adversely impacts employee job performance (Dawson et al., 2016). Compassion has been
found to buffer the effects of distress and trauma (Cameron et al., 2004) and facilitate post-
traumatic learning (Wee & Fehr, 2021). Organizations require immediate solutions that can
mitigate the impact of COVID and reverse the declining trends associated with the commitment
and engagement of their employees. If these negative trends continue, individual and
organizational performance will likely be compromised. This study is important to validate and
enhance solutions for organizations, offered by the existing literature, in order to facilitate
individual and organizational flourishing on a sustainable basis. Leaders who exhibit prosocial
and compassionate behaviors can become a source of healing and perform a key role in the
reduction of their employees’ distress. In doing so, leaders are likely to enhance employee well-
being, motivation, organizational commitment, and engagement, as well as improve individual
and organizational performance (Dutton et al., 2014; Frost, 1999; Kanov et al., 2004, 2017;
Rynes et al., 2012; Shuck et al., 2019; Tsui, 2013; Worline & Dutton, 2017a).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The Burke-Litwin model was employed to examine the problem of practice. This model
depicts an open system with inputs from the external environment affecting numerous
interrelated components that include leadership, culture, work unit climate, individual needs and
motives, and other factors within an organization. The internal elements have been categorized
into two groups depending on their relative impact on the organization: transformational and
transactional. Each of these components can affect the others and ultimately culminate with the
output of individual and organizational performance (Burke, 2018).
The Burke-Litwin model is appropriate to examine this problem of practice as it
emphasizes the high level of interconnectivity between external influences, the many different
7
internal dimensions of an organization, and individual and organizational performance (Burke,
2018). These three components are most relevant for assessing the impact of compassionate
leader behavior. External influences include those relevant to society, such as the global
pandemic, or to the organization, which can include access to capital, consumer and customer
reactions, and competition. These external influences may also include elements from an
individual’s personal life, such as family member illness, personal relationship issues, or
childcare challenges. Internally, compassionate leaders can impact culture, work unit climate and
employee motivation. Management practices usually reflect the degree of compassion in an
organization (Burke, 2018). The Burke-Litwin model facilitates assessing and associating inputs
from the external environment, the many interdependent processes within an organization, and
the ultimate outcome of compassionate leader behavior: improved employee and organizational
performance.
A qualitative approach was employed as the research methodology; the specific approach
was in the form of interviews. The participants were experienced leaders and sole contributors,
representing different levels from various organizations. The leaders were also followers and did
not hold the senior-most position in their organizations. Leaders of people include project and
program managers, directors, vice presidents, and partners who are also followers. The sole
contributors also had substantial leadership experience as well as significant exposure to
leadership. The participants represented diverse demographics, including in terms of gender,
race, industry, profession, and years of service.
Definition of Terms
Key terms and definitions are provided as follows:
8
Antisocial behaviors and strategies are defined as “primarily self-focused, manipulative,
and threat focused, seeking to create inhibitory and submissive compliant states in those to
whom they are directed” (Gilbert & Basran, 2019, p. 3).
Compassion can be defined as “an interpersonal process involving the noticing, feeling,
sensemaking, and acting that alleviates the suffering of another person” (Dutton et al., 2014, p.
277). It is defined in this study as an interpersonal process involving the noticing, feeling,
sensemaking, and acting that meets another person’s need and prevents or alleviates their distress
in order to enhance their well-being.
Employee engagement “would appear to be an amalgamation of several, older I/O
psychology constructs such as organizational commitment, organisational citizenship behaviours,
and job satisfaction” (Palmer & Gignac, 2012, p. 10).
Prosocial behaviors and strategies “seek to build coalitions and alliances and create
secure low-level stress environments with a preparedness to care, support, and invest in others.
Survival and reproductive success emerge through building cooperative alliances” (Gilbert &
Basran, 2019, p. 3).
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters are used to organize this study. Chapter One introduces the problem
of practice, which establishes that lack of leader compassion has potential adverse effects for
organizations. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature, including additional research
supporting the need to explore the problem of practice and an introduction to the Burke-Litwin
conceptual framework that guided the research study. Chapter Three details the methodology
applied in the study, and in Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter
9
Five provides solutions, recommendations for an implementation, and a proposed evaluation
plan for the solutions.
10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Leadership can be described as “a complex interactive process composed of multiple
dimensions and activities” (Northouse, 2016, p. 292). These multiple facets include spiritual
intelligence (purpose and meaning), emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence (which
includes judgement and decision making), and behavioral skills (Gill, 2002). Compassionate
leadership is a process that draws from and interacts with each of these capacities. This chapter
summarizes the literature related to the definition, history, and process of compassion and
addresses the theoretical and conceptual frameworks based on the Burke-Litwin model. The
purpose of the study was to expand on previous research in order to validate and more
comprehensively summarize the factors that contribute to or detract from compassionate leader
behavior and to explore the impact of this behavior on individual and organizational
performance.
Defining Compassion
Compassion has been and continues to be defined inconsistently in the literature (Gilbert
et al., 2017; Strauss et al., 2016), creating some confusion in workplace settings as to its context
throughout history. Various authors and researchers consider compassion to be an emotion
(Ekman, 2016; Goetz et al., 2010; Lazarus, 1991), a virtue (Cameron et al., 2004), a prosocial
behavior (Klimecki & Singer, 2011), as well as a process (Dutton et al., 2014; Kanov et al.,
2004). Sympathy, empathy, and compassion have been used in an interchangeable manner
throughout history, further contributing to confusion in various fields (Gilbert et al., 2019).
Gilbert (2017) expressed support for “recognizing different definitions for different
functions” (p. 11), while continuing to endorse momentum toward clarity in defining
compassion. The definition of compassion for this paper relies heavily on the processes
11
identified by organizational psychologists, mainly Dutton et al. (2014), expanded with the input
from Boyatzis et al. (2012) and Gilbert et al. (2017), which are summarized in Table 1.
Compassion, in the context of leadership, is defined as an interpersonal process involving
noticing, feeling, sensemaking, and acting. This action meets another person’s need and prevents
or alleviates their distress.
Table 1
Major Definitions of Compassion in the Literature
Definition
Noticing
distress
Feeling
empathy/
empathetic
concern
Sensemaking
Action to
alleviate
distress
“Being moved by
another's suffering and
wanting to help”
(Lazarus, 1991, p. 289).
Appraisal is a
key
component
to his theory
“The feeling that arises in
witnessing another's
suffering and that
motivates a subsequent
desire to help” (Goetz et
al., 2010, p. 351).
Implied
Reference to
appraisal
components
Compassion consists of
three facets: Noticing,
feeling, and responding
(Kanov et al., 2004).
“Interpersonal process that
involves noticing
another person as being
in need, empathizing
with him or her, and
acting to enhance his or
her well-being in
response to that need”
(Boyatzis et al., 2012, p.
154).
12
Definition
Noticing
distress
Feeling
empathy/
empathetic
concern
Sensemaking
Action to
alleviate
distress
“Compassion consists of
five elements:
recognizing suffering,
understanding the
universality of human
suffering, feeling for the
person suffering,
tolerating
uncomfortable feelings,
and motivation to
act/acting to alleviate
suffering” (Strauss et
al., 2016, p. 15).
“A sensitivity to suffering
in self and others with a
commitment to try to
alleviate and prevent it”
(Gilbert et al., 2017, p.
4).
“Compassion is an
interpersonal process
involving the noticing,
feeling, sense making,
and acting that
alleviates the suffering
of another person”
(Dutton et al., 2014, p.
277).
Note. Adapted from “What is Compassion and How Can We Measure it? A Review of
Definitions and Measures,” by C. Strauss, B. C. Taylor, J. Gua, W. Kuyken, R. Baer, F. Jones, &
K. Cavanagh, 2016, Clinical Psychology Review, 47, p. 18
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004). CC BY-NC-ND.
13
History of Compassion in Literature and Research
Compassion has a long history within religious and philosophical traditions, a more
recent history with the evolutionary science and psychology disciplines, and a nascent
exploration in the fields of leadership, business, and economics (Goetz et al., 2010; Rynes et al.,
2012). The following section begins with a summary of the compassion literature in religion,
philosophy, and science and ends with a summary of organizational scholarship, books, and
business publications. The following also elaborates on the role of emotional intelligence (EI)
and POS in elevating the importance of compassion in organizations.
Compassion in Religion, Philosophy, and Science
Compassion has a prominent role in most religious traditions (Dutton et al., 2014; Goetz
et al., 2010; Kanov et al., 2004; Rynes et al., 2012), and it also appears throughout philosophical
literature. Socratic questioning addressed how words such as compassion can be conceived
differently by individuals. Aristotle subsequently expanded this subject (Gilbert & Basran, 2019)
offering his own definition, which included a cognitive component (Rynes et al., 2012) that
included evaluating a “sense of deserve” of the person in distress (Gilbert, 2017, p. 4).
Subsequent philosophers disagree, including Kant (Goetz et al., 2010) and Nietzche (Gilbert &
Basran, 2019), on the effectiveness and applicability of compassion in various situations, likely
because they were defining it differently; for example, they may have been including pity as an
attribute (Gilbert & Basran, 2019) likening it to the modern definition of sympathy.
Compassion also appears in discussions with thought leaders throughout the sciences.
Darwin considered sympathy, likely referring to compassion for others, to be “the highest moral
achievement” (Ekman, 2010, p. 557). Even though many associate the prevalence of self-interest
in Darwin’s theories, he claimed that natural selection benefits those who come to the aid of their
14
counterparts (Ekman, 2010). Einstein called on individuals to “widen our circle of compassion
… as a foundation for inner security” (as cited in Rynes et al., 2012, p. 504).
Organizational Scholarship and Publications
Compassion continues to become more relevant to organizations and leadership, in part
due to the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic that began in December 2019 and continues through
the time of this research study. There were, however, notable examples of its increased
appearance with references to empathy, compassion, and caring in some influential articles and
texts. The EI and POS experts continue to contribute much of the ongoing literature and
publications on the topic.
Leadership
Peters and Waterman (1982), the McKinsey consultants who published In Search of
Excellence, elevated the role of caring for one’s employees and its role in increasing innovation
and competitive advantage (Simpson et al., 2014a). Peters (1986) subsequently gave a speech to
the Democratic Congress Caucus, which resulted in a paper titled Competition and Compassion,
stressing the importance of creating programs to support displaced workers. In a survey of
followers, compassion, in addition to trust, stability, and hope, was identified as one of the four
essential qualities exhibited by the best leaders (Rath & Conchie, 2009). The Academy of
Management’s theme for their 2009 annual meeting was “Dare to Care: Passion and Compassion
in Management Research and Practice” (Tsui, 2013).
The literature about compassion in leadership is emerging, but modern leadership
theories have incorporated elements of empathy and caring into their framework, specifically
transformational and adaptive leadership (Northouse, 2016). Compassion also appears as a
prominent feature of both the authentic and the servant leadership styles (Northouse, 2016).
15
Shuck et al. (2019) have proposed a separate construct of compassionate leadership that includes
six attributes, some of which overlap with other leadership theories: integrity, accountability,
presence, empathy, authenticity, and dignity.
Two contemporary leaders have emerged as models for compassionate leadership:
Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand (Simpson et al., 2021) and Jeffrey Weiner,
former chief executive officer (CEO) and board member of LinkedIn, a professional networking
website (Kim, 2019). Ardern skillfully navigated the perceived paradoxes of kindness and
effectiveness, demonstrated by her leadership during the pandemic (Simpson et al., 2021).
Jeffrey Weiner was rated the top CEO in the Unites States in 2019 by GlassDoor.com, a
confidential surveying website about employers (Kim, 2019). He very publicly touted
compassion as a success strategy in his address to Wharton graduates by stating, “Create the
right culture [with a compassionate ethos], and you create a competitive advantage” (Weiner,
2018, para. 14). He considered compassion instrumental to the success of the company’s 2011
IPO and 2016 sale to Microsoft (Kim, 2019). He felt so strongly about the effectiveness of
compassion that LinkedIn developed a specific role, director of mindfulness and compassion, to
ensure its emphasis throughout the organization (Donella, 2019). Subsequently, in 2018,
LinkedIn hosted a compassionate leadership summit in Silicon Valley (Donella, 2019).
Emotional Intelligence
Salovey and Mayer (1990) initially synthesized the construct of EI, defining it as “the
subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings
and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking
and actions” (p. 189). Goleman, who popularized EI with his book Emotional Intelligence: Why
It Can Matter More than IQ in 1995, considers some additional emotional and social
16
competencies to be a part of EI (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2017). Goleman’s most recent model
includes 12 competencies summarized into four domains: self-awareness, self-management,
social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2017, para. 3). Empathy
is considered a fundamental capability of EI (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and is
most recently included under the category of social awareness (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2017).
Initially, Goleman (1995) did not make any reference to compassion in his original EI model; he
subsequently represented compassion as an extension of empathy (Goleman, 2006). Empathy is
increasingly associated with leadership (Walter et al., 2012).
Positive Organizational Scholarship
Positive organizational scholarship (POS) can be defined as “the study and application of
positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured,
developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement” (Luthans, 2002, p. 59). The
movement can trace its distant roots to William James’ perspectives in psychology, such as
“health mindedness” (Cameron et al., 2011, p. 4) and its more proximal roots to the positive
psychology movement initiated by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000). Consistent with
traditional psychology, much of organizational scholarship relies on a deficit model focusing on
what is wrong (Caza & Caza, 2008). Positive organizational scholarship stands in contrast to the
deficit approach by emphasizing positive events and experiences within organizations (focusing
on what is right) in order to facilitate organizational thriving (Tsui, 2013). To elaborate, Caza
and Caza (2008) elaborated that an organism’s health is substantially more than the absence of
sickness.
Many scholars advancing the importance of compassion in the workplace come from the
POS movement born at the University of Michigan, Ross School of Business, inspired by Frost
17
(Simpson et al., 2014a). He elevated the relevance of compassion in organizations with his
seminal work, Why Compassion Counts, in 1999. His colleagues Jane Dutton, Monica Worline,
Jason Kanov, Jacoba Lilius, and others have continued his work through their scholarship,
mentorship, and leadership.
The Process of Compassion
Organizational psychologists, Kanov et al. (2004) reframed compassion as a recurring
interrelated process with three component activities that can occur at the individual, group, or
organizational level. Dutton et al. (2014) added the ongoing activity of sensemaking, which
occurs throughout the process, in which the leader/observer makes a variety of assessments about
the person(s) in distress, including their level of participation in contributing to their suffering.
The leader who notices the distress, the person who is stressed, and others are all participants in
this process (Dutton et al., 2014; Kanov et al., 2004). The following sub-sections elaborate on
each of the sub-processes: noticing another’s distress, feeling empathetic concern, sensemaking,
and acting in a manner to alleviate another’s distress (Dutton et al., 2014).
Noticing Another’s Distress
Compassionate leader behavior begins with noticing another or others in distress.
Compassion in the workplace begins with mindfulness: a nonjudgmental attention to experiences
in the present moment (Kabat-Zinn, 1990) or “focusing on the present moment with openness
and curiosity” (Jazaieri & Rock, 2021, p. 4). Bazerman (2014) echoed leadership scholar Warren
Bennis in stating that the most important leadership skill is expert noticing, which includes active
listening and inquiring about another’s circumstances (Dutton et al., 2014).
This process of observation is essential to most leader endeavors. A leader must have the
attentional capacity available to notice distress in the work environment and to engage in the
18
compassion process. This attentional capacity can be especially challenging because leaders tend
to have higher cognitive and emotional loads than their followers, which may adversely impact
their ability to notice distress or unmet needs (Mumford et al., 2015). Leaders face impending
deadlines, overwhelming amounts of information, competing priorities, and high consequential
impact of their behavior and decisions, which diminish their attentional resources (Chugh, 2004;
Collins & Jackson, 2015; Mumford et al., 2015).
Leaders may be challenged in noticing the distress of an employee for a variety of
reasons. Some forms of worker distress are more accessible to the leader’s field of vision, such
as the death of a family member, overt workplace incivility, or the presence of a distracting child
on a video conference. Other forms of distress are more subtle and difficult to detect, including
the effects of micro-aggressions, role incongruence, loneliness, languishing, or depression.
Employees may temper their expressions of distress due to perceived workplace norms and fear
of judgement (Wolf et al., 2016). Leaders may not notice the distress of a subordinate due to
bounded awareness, where one simply does not perceive the suffering (Chugh & Bazerman,
2007). Bounded awareness can happen with any key information needed to resolve a problem,
but one simply does not see pertinent information. Further, a leader may engage in willful
blindness, where they neglect and choose not to see evidence of distress (Antoni et al., 2020;
Driver, 2007).
Feeling Empathetic Concern
The leader’s ability to feel empathetic concern is essential to the compassion process
(Dutton et al., 2014; Kanov et al., 2004, 2017). Empathetic concern is a subset of empathy and is
described as an other-oriented emotional response prompted by the perceived welfare of another
person (Batson, 2009). It is also conceptualized as the affective or emotional component of
19
compassion, or the antecedent to compassionate action (Dutton et al., 2014; Kanov et al., 2004,
2017; Lamm et al., 2007). There is general consensus that empathy plays a key role in the
experience and expression of compassion (Goetz et al., 2010; Riess, 2017) and that compassion
cannot occur without empathy; however, all experiences of empathy do not result in compassion
(Riess, 2017). Empathetic leadership has been receiving growing awareness in business
publications, as well as playing a visible role in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections (Baldoni,
2020; Kenny et al., 2021).
Empathy
Empathy is an emotional capacity or competency (Lazarus, 1991; Riess, 2017). Batson
(2009) has identified eight unique expressions of empathy that can be condensed into three
categories: affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and empathetic concern. The literal translation
of empathy from the Greek “empatheria” is “to feel into” or “to enter into the experience of
another” (Gilbert et al., 2017, p. 3). Humans are neurologically hard-wired to experience the
emotions of others, having evolved to empathize with those whom they identify more easily than
those with whom they do not (Riess, 2017). Evolution has facilitated the ability to empathize
emotionally with one’s relatives, tribe, religious congregation, team, those who share a common
goal, or those who think, look, and act in manners similar to them (Keltner et al., 2014; Riess,
2017; Vaughn et al., 2018). Batson et al. (2007) have identified that valuing the other person(s)’
well-being is a key antecedent to experiencing empathetic concern for them.
Cognitive empathy can be described as taking the perspective of another person and may
entail imagining what the other is feeling or imagining oneself in their situation (Batson, 2009;
Lamm et al., 2007). This form of empathy entails executive functioning and is a capacity
regularly employed by leaders (Bagozzi & Verbeke, 2012). When a leader simply cannot access
20
emotional empathy, perhaps due to perceived differences with another, cognitive empathy can be
employed (Riess, 2017). The leader’s curious inquiry and attentive listening, coupled with a
genuine desire to learn and understand the other person, will facilitate understanding the
perspective of the other (Gilbert et al., 2019). This perspective-taking can, in turn, reduce
stereotyping (Galinsky et al., 2006). Further, taking the perspective of another has been found to
be more impactful in developing empathetic concern than valuing the other person (Batson et al.,
2007).
The response to the experience of empathy could be one of distress or concern (Lamm et
al., 2007). An individual experiencing another’s negative emotion or pain can experience
empathetic distress, which can be a deterrent to compassion (Preckel et al., 2018). Lamm et al.
(2007) made the case that this type of distress is personal distress and should not be labeled with
the term “empathy” as it is self-oriented, rather than other-oriented. Cognitive appraisal and the
ability to distinguish self from other can mitigate this distress. This orientation toward the other
impacts whether one will be motivated egoistically from distress or altruistically, a likely
outcome of empathetic concern (Lamm et al., 2007).
Challenges
Leaders’ empathy can be compromised due to their power and class (Galinsky et al.,
2006; Keltner et al., 2014), as well as their unintentional projections (Gilbert & Doolan, 2019).
Class is defined as a “person’s wealth, education, and prestige of work relative to others in
society” (Adler et al., 2000; Oakes & Rossi, 2003, as cited in Keltner et al., 2014, p. 449).
Galinsky et al. (2006) hypothesized that this reduction in empathy may arise as a reaction to
attentional strains and the tendency for those more powerful to prioritize achievement of
objectives. Keltner et al. (2014) explained that those in higher classes prioritize and value
21
independence over social connections; those in lower classes are more reliant on social networks
and more skilled in attuning to others. Projections occur when a leader superimposes their
feelings or understanding about a situation on to another, leading to an incorrect assumption
about how the other is experiencing the situation (Gilbert & Doolan, 2019). This can result in an
unskillful interpersonal interaction that results in disconnection, as opposed to empathy, which
results in enhanced connection with the other (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Zaki, 2014).
Mainstream Exposure
The importance of empathetic leadership has been receiving increased mainstream
visibility, thanks in large part to the 2020 U.S. presidential elections (Baldoni, 2020; Kenny et
al., 2021). Wehner (2020) considered empathy to be Joe Biden’s superpower in The Atlantic,
while others made reference to the success of empathy in the campaign. Business publications
have also increased their emphasis on empathy in leadership, in part as a response to the
challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recent business publications have published articles that extol the benefits of empathetic
leadership. Forbes has included “Empathy is the Most Important Leadership Skill According to
Research” (Brower, 2021) and “Essential Empathy: How to Improve Presence” (Hunkins, 2021).
Steve Payne, vice chair of consulting for EY Americas, stated during an interview with Inc.
Magazine that leader empathy is about valuing people, which is an approach that benefits
employees, clients, and the organization (Schwantes, 2021). The article continues to summarize
that empathetic leadership may be the solution to maintaining the inspiration of a workforce
working from various locations. In summary, Cooper and Sawaf (1997) elaborate on leading
with empathy:
22
Empathy and compassion connect us with others … we also enable others to begin to feel
safe enough to talk about what is really going on in their lives—to tell their stories—
without fear of being judged, criticized, or abandoned. It is then that we begin to
empathize with them, and extend compassion and support to them, rather than remaining
distant or unaffected, or sympathizing about them. (p. 48)
Sensemaking
Sensemaking can be defined as “the process through which individuals and groups
attempt to explain novel, unexpected, or confusing events” (Maitlis et al., 2013, p. 222). Weick
et al. (2005), who conceived of the sensemaking perspective, elaborated that sensemaking
“serves as a springboard into action” (p. 409). This process can be deliberate and thoughtful, but
it can also be immanent and spontaneous in response to a situation that is unfolding (Sandberg &
Tsoukas, 2014). Dutton et al. (2014) explained that this sub-process is ongoing throughout the
compassion process. They appear unique in identifying sensemaking as a key component of
compassion, as it does not overtly appear in other definitions of compassion; however,
psychologists Lazarus (1991) and Goetz et al. (2010) gave weight to the role of cognitive
appraisal in their literature. Further, Atkins and Parker (2012) concluded that there is general
agreement that appraisals are antecedents to emotional responses. Sensemaking, sense-giving,
and sense-breaking are essential cognitive and social appraisal skills that shape leader behavior
and performance (Marcy, 2015; Mumford et al., 2015) given the highly socialized nature of the
problems faced by leaders (McKenna et al., 2009).
Leader considerations, which affect the likelihood of compassionate action, include
assessing the situation and resources available to respond to the situation; specifically, the
relative importance of the employee(s) requiring assistance or support, the merit of the
23
employee(s) and situation, and the leader’s self-efficacy to successfully manage the situation
(Atkins & Parker, 2012; Dutton et al., 2014). Leaders may engage in hypothetical evaluation of
the costs and risks compared to the benefits to determine whether to proceed with compassion or
other prosocial behavior (Keltner et al., 2014). One is more likely to engage in supportive
behavior if one feels that the other is not responsible for the situation that is causing them
distress (Dutton et al., 2014).
Leader assessments during the sensemaking sub-process also include assessing
similarities, relevance to self, or in-group status of the other (Atkins & Parker, 2012; Dutton et
al., 2014; Vaughn et al., 2018; Worline & Dutton, 2017a). Chugh (2004) surmised that when
leaders have the time and intent to assess the implications of their behavior, explicit biases
provide influence in the sensemaking process. However, when distracted or hurried, implicit
biases exert greater control over leader behavior. These implicit influences can affect the leader
in as little as 50 milliseconds. These influences may have roots in the leader’s past and may be
different from their explicitly held beliefs (Chugh, 2004). Implicit biases may inhibit the leader
from engaging in the compassion process or result in inconsistent expressions of compassion
which discriminate, discipline, or control (Simpson et al., 2014a). The sensemaking sub-process
will inform the degree of attention the leader extends to the situation, empathetic concern felt for
the other, and ultimately, whether compassionate action ensues. This sub-process of sensemaking
will be further explored in the study in evaluating the factors that impact compassionate leader
behavior.
Compassionate Action
Compassion in organizations, specifically leadership, requires action (Worline & Dutton,
2017b). Some definitions of compassion consider the desire to help (Goetz et al., 2010; Lazarus,
24
1991), but others require a commitment (Gilbert et al., 2017). Desires and commitments must
translate to action to effectively meet needs and to prevent or alleviate distress in the workplace
(Dutton et al., 2014; Kanov et al., 2004). Mumford et al. (2015) made the case that action is
emphasized in leadership theories and constructs as they overwhelmingly reflect behaviors.
Leader behaviors that correlate highly with compassion include “integrity, accountability,
presence, empathy, authenticity, and dignity” (Shuck et al., 2019, p. 538).
Examples of Compassionate Action
Leaders engage in compassionate action when they provide some level of support to an
employee in distress. This support usually takes one of three forms: emotional support,
flexibility, or allocation of resources such as time, personnel, financial, or material (Dutton et al.,
2006; Frost et al., 2006; Lilius et al., 2008, Worline & Dutton, 2017b). Compassionate actions
can range from the straightforward, such as being completely present and listening attentively to
an employee, to the more complex, including activities that may involve time and coordination
with others, reassignment of resources, or providing exceptions to company policy (Dutton et al.,
2014; Kanov et al., 2004, 2017; Worline & Dutton, 2017b).
Challenges to Compassionate Leader Behavior
Many leaders compromise organizational effectiveness due to their lack of compassion as
well as their role in increasing the stress of their subordinates (Cote, 2018; Harms et al., 2017;
Reb et al., 2018). Lack of leader compassion in the workplace can be attributed to several
factors, including lack of time (Dutton et al., 2014), antisocial leader conduct (Gilbert & Basran,
2019), leaders who have high SDO (Martin et al., 2015), and leader concerns about employee
perceptions about compassionate behavior (Driver, 2007). The following section elaborates on
these challenges.
25
Chugh (2004) highlighted the prevalence of time pressures experienced by leaders.
Dutton et al. (2014) referred to an observational study conducted by Darley and Batson (1973)
which demonstrates how time pressures impede compassionate action. In this study, theology
students were assigned to give a speech on the parable of the Good Samaritan, which illustrates
compassionate behavior. An actor who was part of the study was placed en route to the students’
destination. The actor was moaning and showing signs of distress. One-half of the student
participants were informed that they were at risk of being late, thereby creating a time pressure.
The students without the time pressure were much more likely to stop and offer assistance to the
distressed actor (Darley & Batson, 1973).
Gilbert and Basran (2019) reviewed the evolution and implications of antisocial and
prosocial behaviors in leadership and society. Some leaders engage in antisocial behavior
because it is perceived as a more effective approach to motivating subordinates. Antisocial
approaches include self-referential, aggressive, bullying, and intimidating behaviors that, in turn,
reduce collaboration, motivation, and compassionate behaviors. Prosocial behaviors, including
compassion, create a sense of safety and encourage cooperation and sharing; they further
facilitate enhanced cortical processes, well-being, and social engagement among individuals
(Gilbert & Basran, 2019). Studies suggest some leaders have been socialized to consider any
demonstration of emotion as unprofessional in one’s role (Driver, 2007; Dutton et al., 2014);
some leaders may view exhibitions of compassion to be a sign of weakness (Rynes et al., 2012).
In research, many business school graduates have been found to have high levels of SDO, which
tend to value competition and hierarchy. Higher SDO has been correlated with reduced empathy
(Martin et al., 2015), which is a key component of the process of compassion (Dutton et al.,
2014).
26
Leaders may not be able to exhibit compassionate behaviors due to feeling overwhelmed
or experiencing high emotional and cognitive load, which limit one’s resources to fully engage in
the compassion process (Dutton et al., 2014). Demonstrating compassion involves operating with
a high degree of uncertainty, which some leaders may find difficult in addition to the other
uncertainties they may face in their roles. One cannot be certain about how others will respond
and view the compassionate behavior. Further, one cannot be certain about the level of personal
discomfort or distress that may be encountered while taking the perspective of another and
engaging in this process. Courage is required to navigate these uncertainties and ultimately
display compassion (Frost, 1999; Kanov et al., 2017).
Theoretical Framework: Burke-Litwin Model
The Burke-Litwin model depicts an open system with inputs from the external
environment affecting numerous interrelated components of an organization, which include
leadership, culture, work unit climate, individual needs, and motives. The Burke-Litwin model
emphasizes the high level of interdependence between external influences, the many different
internal dimensions of an organization, and individual and organizational performance (Burke,
2018). Caza and Caza (2008) surmised that POS addresses the ongoing, interactive capacity
between the community, the organization, and the individual, consistent with the theories
supporting the Burke-Litwin model.
Burke (2018) stated that the internal elements of the model, which are considered
throughputs, have been categorized into two groups: transformational and transactional,
depending on their relative impact on the organization. The transformational factors are
considered long-term levers and involve broad and impactful changes, and the transactional
factors are referred to as short-term levers and include more incremental changes, such as
27
continuous improvement. Each of the components is interconnected with the others, such as
leadership, culture, management practices, and work unit climate. The components can affect
one another and ultimately culminate with the output of individual and organizational
performance (Burke, 2018). This is consistent with POS, which emphasizes inclusion of all the
dynamic processes, interactions, and feedback loops of an organization (Caza & Caza, 2008).
Burke (2018) recognized that leadership occurs throughout an organization, from a
hierarchy of supervisors and team leaders all the way up to senior executives. Key leader
behaviors include providing direction and vision as well as “persuasion, presentation, influence,
serving followers, and acting as a role model” (Burke, 2018, p. 233). He distinguished this from
management, which emphasizes setting objectives, task execution, and deployment of resources.
The Burke-Litwin model facilitates associating inputs from the external environment, the many
interdependent processes within an organization, and the ultimate outcome of compassionate
leader behavior: improved employee and organizational performance, which in turn affects the
external environment. Figure 1 illustrates the Burke-Litwin model.
28
Figure 1
Burke-Litwin Model
Note. Adapted from Organization Change: Theory and Practice (5th ed.) by W, Burke, 2018, p.
227. Sage Publications. Copyright 2018 by Sage Publications.
29
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework, represented in Figure 2, adapts the Burke-Litwin model by
reflecting the larger role of the leadership transformational factor. The factors have been
streamlined to represent those that have a more significant impact on compassionate leadership
and its effects based on the review of extant literature. The model has been adapted to depict
gears for the factors instead of the traditional flowchart, emphasizing that compassion can be
initiated at any point in the mechanism. The inputs from the external environment and the
outputs of individual and organizational performance remain unchanged.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework
30
External Influences
Organizational change in the Burke-Litwin model is initiated primarily by changes in the
external environment. Sources of leader and employee distress and related behavior can arise
from the external and internal environments, but external events, such as those relevant to
society, the organization, or an individual’s personal life, often can have a significant impact.
The global COVID-19 pandemic, racial tensions, and the rise of the Black Lives Matter
movement have affected the social fabric of the United States and the world. Organizations have
been impacted by access to capital, consumer and customer reactions, competition, challenges
with supply chains, and availability of qualified candidates for hire. An individual’s personal life
could have been impacted by a family member’s illness or personal relationship issues. All of
these may have substantial impact on an organization (Burke, 2018). This study examined the
relative impact of these and other external factors.
Internal Transformational Factors
The transformational factors include leadership, culture, and strategy. Leaders play a
disproportionately impactful role in the well-being of their subordinates and the organization
(Harms et al., 2017). They do so through their behavior, which affects culture, and their ability to
direct strategy. According to Schein (2017), leaders “teach their organizations how to perceive,
think, feel, and behave” (p. 183); Schein’s comment mirrors the compassion process outlined by
Dutton et al. (2014): noticing, sensemaking, feeling empathetic concern, and acting. Leaders
inform their constituents whether the organization values compassion or not. They do so through
key methodologies and behaviors, embedding mechanisms, that become engrained in the culture
of an organization (Schein, 2017). These include how leaders direct their attention; respond to
major events; assign resources, rewards, and status; and whom they hire, promote, and transition
31
externally (Worline & Dutton, 2017b). Teaching, coaching, and modeling desired behavior also
contribute to embedding desired traits in an organizational culture. This study contributes to the
existing literature by evaluating the impact of these transformational factors on individual and
organizational performance.
Leadership
When leaders direct their attention to the unmet needs or distress in the organization,
coupled with responding with compassion, they provide a model for desired behaviors to their
followers (Gilbert et al., 2017; Worline & Dutton, 2017b). A leader noticing the distress of a
follower contributes to the follower feeling seen, heard, valued, and supported (Dutton et al.,
2014), as well as signaling to the rest of the organization the importance of such behavior
(Schein, 2017). When leaders turn their attention to the distress of their followers in a visible
manner, others are likely to follow. Baker (2020) explained that a significant percentage of
extensions of assistance to others in the workplace arise from requests for help. He further
elaborated that one of the most impactful leader behaviors is modeling requests for help and
normalizing specific requests for assistance in the workplace.
Lilius et al. (2011) found that two key attributes contributed to an organization’s capacity
to express compassion: the quality of interpersonal relationships and networks and the softening
of the work/life boundary. If leaders ensure that interpersonal networks are strong and dense
(Serban et al., 2015), others are more likely to inform a leader of distress, and information will
be communicated in a timely manner. Further, it is incumbent upon the leader to model the
appropriate level of personal sharing and caring in the workplace. If too much occurs,
productivity will be adversely affected due to the distractions; if too little occurs, worker distress
will continue—and the quantity and quality of work will deteriorate (Dutton et al., 2014).
32
Culture and Strategy
Schein (2017) described leadership as the “management of culture” (p. 183); leaders can
further embed behaviors and values into the organizational culture by providing central
narratives, rites, and rituals. These behaviors and values are sense-giving to the organization, and
they could include stories where the organization exhibited compassion in response to a crisis,
generating a sense of pride in the organization. These stories could also include personal
examples of when the leader was distressed and others responded with compassion, displaying
vulnerability and gratitude for the behavior as well as communicating its importance to the
leader’s and the organization’s success. Additionally, leaders shape the company’s strategy,
mission, and objectives (Schein, 2017). Leaders can determine and communicate the role and
benefit of compassion in achieving organizational objectives (Worline & Dutton, 2017b),
including enhanced employee well-being, improved customer service, and stronger supplier
relationships.
Internal Transactional Factors
The key transactional factors to operationalizing organizational compassion are
management practices supported by structure and systems, work unit climate, and individual
needs and values. Lilius et al. (2012) also stressed the importance of “institutionalizing” and
“routinizing” compassion in embedding it into formal structures and policies. This study sought
to validate and enhance the existing literature in assessing the factors that enhance or minimize
compassionate leader behaviors.
Management Practices, Structures, and Systems
Management practices refer to the day-to-day activities employed by managers (who are
also leaders) to execute the organization’s strategy (Burke, 2018). As with leadership, this
33
represents where managers direct their attention, what metrics they employ, what they train, and
what they reward (Schein, 2017). Compassionate management practices offer legitimacy to
compassionate behavior in the workplace (Lilius et al., 2012). Unstructured and evolving
practices include taking the perspective of others, expressing emotions and needs, and skillfully
relating to others’ emotions and distress in the workplace (Lilius et al., 2012). Schein (2017)
highlighted that even casual comments, when repeated in an ongoing manner, can be as
impactful as formal mechanisms; interactions with leaders are instrumental in whether the
follower experiences psychological safety (Frazier et al., 2017; Kahn, 1990).
Structures that support compassionate management practices include dedicated programs
and staff. Many organizations have employee assistance programs, employee resource programs,
and corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs; some organizations have dedicated staff to
ensure application throughout the organization (Lilius et al., 2012; Tsui, 2013). Lilius et al.
(2012) cautioned that these programs should not be considered substitutes for the personalized
responses from the manager to individual circumstances. Systems include policies and
procedures that support the process. Cisco has a notification of harm policy that facilitates
immediate communication to the most senior executives for any employee involved in a serious
accident or illness (Dutton et al., 2014; Lilius et al., 2012; Worline & Dutton, 2017a, 2017b).
Compassion can also be infused into human resources (HR) policies, including hiring, retention,
and promotion practices, to enhance equity to marginalized communities (Livne‑Tarandach et
al., 2021).
Work Group Climate
Psychological safety, defined as team members “feeling safe for interpersonal risk-
taking” (Edmonson, 1999, p. 350), includes behaviors such as speaking up and making mistakes
34
without fear of consequences; psychological safety has been associated with enhanced learning
(Edmonson, 1999) and task performance (Frazier et al., 2017). In 2015, Google sponsored the
Aristotle project to determine which qualities distinguished high-performing teams; the results
indicated that psychological safety among team members was the most impactful factor (Duhigg,
2016). Key antecedents to psychological safety in a work group environment include quality
interpersonal relationships and group dynamics, including caring, which facilitates compassion;
and support from team members (Frazier et al., 2017; Gilbert et al., 2017), which is a key form
of compassionate action in the workplace (Cameron et al., 2011). Compassion generates trust
(Liu & Wang, 2010) and psychological safety (Gilbert & Doolan, 2019; Worline & Dutton,
2017a).
Nolan et al. (2022) have developed the theoretical concept of psychological “compassion
climate,” which is defined as “the individual perception of shared norms around compassion
within one's work group/unit” (p. 2). They expand on Lilius et al.’s (2011) compilation of
compassion capabilities that include “acknowledging others' accomplishments, bounded play,
celebrating, collective decision making, workload help offering, orienting and addressing
problems directly” (p. 879). These ongoing behaviors facilitate the development of compassion
at the work unit level, which in turn, expediates the individual group members in expressing
more compassion toward others, further enhancing well-being (Nolan et al., 2022) and stronger
relationships within the group (Dutton et al., 2006; Lilius et al., 2008). Cameron et al. (2011)
explained this dynamic as the “amplifying effects” of positive practices, including compassion.
While this study is not designed to specifically evaluate “amplifying effects,” they may emerge
from the qualitative interviews.
35
Individual Needs and Values
Deci and Ryan (2000) identified certain basic psychological needs, including
competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which are critical to optimal performance and well-
being. Compassion facilitates psychological safety, which enables learning, to further enhance
competence and autonomy. The strong relationships fostered by compassion satisfy the need for
relatedness (Nolan et al., 2022).
Positive practices, such as compassion, have a buffering or cushioning effect on the
individual against negative events, resulting in enhanced resilience and sense of efficacy, as well
as helping to prevent psychological distress and dysfunctional behavior (Cameron et al., 2011;
Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and anxiety (Lilius et al., 2008; Nolan et al., 2022). When
an individual extends compassion, their own resilience is strengthened (Klimecki & Singer,
2011); when an employee receives compassion, their sense of dignity, worth, and value is
enhanced (Dutton et al., 2014; Frost et al., 2006). Their engagement (Eldor, 2018; Shuck et al.,
2019; Worline & Dutton, 2017a) and commitment to the organization (Dutton et al., 2014) are
also enhanced.
This study complemented the work of Eldor (2018) and Shuck et al. (2019), who
demonstrated that compassionate leadership is correlated with improved employee engagement.
This study differs primarily because it is qualitative, with smaller participant pools and sought to
identify factors that influence compassionate leader behavior. Also, different definitions of
compassion are used as a starting point, and Eldor and Shuck limited their studies’ participants to
a single industry. Eldor (2018) defined compassion as “expressed feelings of affection, caring,
and tenderness toward subordinates or colleagues without the expectation for specific
organizational benefits” (p. 86). Eldor’s study was also limited to public sector employees.
36
Shuck et al. (2019) validated their construct of compassionate leader behaviors, which include
“integrity, empathy, accountability, authenticity, presence, and dignity” (p. 538) and
subsequently established its correlation with employee engagement with a large sample (1000+)
within a financial service company. This study defines leader compassion as the process
identified and expanded by Dutton et al. (2014) and included participants from various
industries.
Individual and Organizational Performance
Increases in employee engagement contribute to individual and organizational
performance through improvement in task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors
(Rich et al., 2010). Additionally, engaged employees are less likely to leave their organizations
(Saks & Gruman, 2014), which reduces turnover. Eldor’s (2018) research also revealed that
employees who receive compassion from their direct supervisor also improved their quality of
service and responsiveness.
Compassion and engagement in organizations translate to improvements in financial
performance in several manners. Organizations that exhibit compassion when downsizing are
less likely to be sued by their former employees (Cameron et al., 2004). Organizations with
robust CSR initiatives, which are considered examples of compassionate organizations, are
shown to have higher returns on investment (Tsui, 2013). Improvements in employee
engagement also correlate to improvements in organizational performance, specifically enhanced
customer satisfaction, productivity, safety, profitability, and return on assets (Saks & Gruman,
2014).
37
Summary
This review of the literature has summarized the multiple and inconsistent definitions of
compassion and its history in various disciplines. It has also offered an elaboration of the sub-
processes defined by Dutton et al. (2014) in the context of leadership. The conceptual framework
for this study is based on the Burke-Litwin model, which emphasizes interdependencies within
an organization. These interdependencies are key to the leader’s expression of compassion and
the impact on the rest of the organization. This study adds to the very limited group of studies
that correlate compassion to employee engagement. It will also validate and embellish the work
over the past 20 years that established the factors that impact compassionate behavior by
focusing on leaders, as well as individual and organizational performance.
38
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of the study was to expand on previous research to validate and more
comprehensively summarize the factors that contribute to or detract from compassionate leader
behavior. This study also explored the impact of this behavior on individual and organizational
performance. This chapter presents the research questions; an overview of the methodology; the
data sources, collection, and analysis; and the researcher’s positionality.
Research Questions
This study explored two research questions:
1. What internal and external factors contribute to or detract from leaders demonstrating
compassionate behavior towards their staff?
2. How does compassionate leader behavior impact individual and organizational
performance?
Overview of Methodology
The study employed a qualitative design and was comprised of interviews with leaders
and individual contributors that have leadership experience and significant exposure to
leadership. The study was designed to determine factors that enable or disable compassionate
behaviors in the workplace and the impact of compassionate leader behaviors on individuals and
on the organization. Table 2 presents the research questions and the data sources for the study.
39
Table 2
Data Sources
Research questions
Interview
participants
What internal and external factors contribute to or detract from leaders
demonstrating compassionate behavior towards their staff?
X
How does compassionate leader behavior impact individual and
organizational performance?
X
The Researcher
I am a consultant who provides mindfulness and EI instruction and training in a higher
education institution, as well as several organizations. I also have over 20 years’ experience in
leadership positions in start-up, medium-sized, and large multi-national organizations. I have
engaged in and been affected by harmful and toxic leadership behaviors, as well as
compassionate leadership behaviors. My bias is that I believe compassionate leadership is a
contributing factor to employee well-being and engagement and, therefore, to organizational
performance.
Bias can occur at any point in a research study, from participant selection to data analysis
and conclusions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). While every effort was made to recruit a diverse
group of participants, those who agreed to the interviews were likely most comfortable with the
concept of compassion in workplaces and leadership. The strategy for participant selection and
recruitment will be further discussed in the data collection procedures section for the survey
below. Biases from the interview were most likely to arise in the interpretation of the interview
responses. As suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), this bias was mitigated by asking
40
follow-up questions, reviewing transcripts and recordings, offering the interviewees the
opportunity to review transcripts, and engaging in peer review where there are concerns or
questions. Peer reviews included fellow doctoral students in the EdD program, as well as the
dissertation committee members.
Data Source: Interviews
Interviews were conducted to add to the existing literature about the factors that enhance
and detract from compassionate leadership. The interviews also added to the limited literature
regarding the impact of compassionate leadership on the rest of the organization. The following
sub-sections outline details of the interviews conducted in this study.
Participants
Participant inclusion in the study was not bounded by a particular field or organization, as
discussed in Chapter One. The survey participants were leaders and sole contributors with
significant exposure to leaders from different organizations. Individuals who meet the definition
of leader used in this study possessed several different titles, including project leads, managers,
directors, vice presidents, and C-suite individuals. Sole contributors included internal advisors
and consultants with leadership experience. These participants were selected using non-
probability, convenience sampling (Pazzaglia et al., 2016) from my existing network and
referrals.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol (see Appendix B) included semi-structured questions to facilitate
gathering as much data as possible about the factors that contribute to and detract from
compassionate leader behavior and the effect of compassionate leader behavior on the
organization. I developed all the questions based on review of existing literature. A highly
41
structured interview might miss key insights offered by the respondents, and an unstructured
interview could capture too much data without necessarily getting at the specifics of the research
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016); therefore, a semi-structured approach was selected. The
Burke-Litwin framework established in 1992 emphasizes the interrelationships of the external
environment, leadership (and other factors in the internal environment), and individual and
organizational performance (Burke, 2018). The interview questions address these three
components.
Data Collection Procedures
The interviews were conducted over a 6- to 8-week period in September and October
2022, after I obtained the necessary University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board approvals. The participants were selected from my personal and professional network,
including current and former clients, work colleagues, professional service providers, and
colleagues from my doctoral program. I reached out to the desired interviewees by email and
followed with the information sheet for exempt studies (Appendix F) if they were interested in
moving forward with an interview.
I conducted the interviews over Zoom, given social distancing guidelines and geographic
separation between the interviewees since the study was not bounded to a geographical area
within the United States. The interviews were targeted to take approximately 45–60 minutes;
they were completed in 40–120 minutes. Interviewees were located in their homes or offices; I
interviewed them from my home office in downtown Los Angeles. I recorded the interviews in
Zoom only after obtaining participant consent. I then transcribed the audio into Microsoft Word.
All recordings will be destroyed when they no longer become necessary to the study. All
participants consented to recording the interview, so I took minimal handwritten notes. I used
42
pseudonyms for all notes and quotes in the study; I am the only person with access to the identity
of the interview participants.
Data Analysis
I reviewed and coded the interview transcripts using a priori codes that were defined by
the research questions, as well as themes that emerged from the participants’ responses (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). They were also organized by the factors outlined in the Burke-Litwin model
(Burke, 2018) and the conceptual framework. The organization of the data was continually
refined until consistent themes emerged, which is presented in Chapter Four.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) summarized strategies for enhancing credibility and
trustworthiness. I used member checks to ensure that my understanding of the interview was
sound and accurate. Member checks included engaging the participants with follow-up questions
and summarizing my understanding of their responses to ensure clarity and encourage additional
embellishment or clarification of information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I have captured and
summarized rich descriptions so that future readers of the study can appropriately determine
whether the research applies to their situation. Further, I have maintained detailed records and
provided a clear audit trail from the interview to the findings, including methodology and
procedures. Additionally, I was mindful of my own personal biases to ensure that they did not
cloud or orient the results. I engaged my peers for a secondary review when concerns arose.
Ethics
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated the importance of ensuring participants are respected
and are not coerced or harmed in any way as part of the study. I had no position of power or
43
influence over the participants. I stressed the completely voluntary nature of participation with
all participants in the introductory and follow-up emails.
44
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of the study was to expand on previous research to validate and more
comprehensively identify the factors that contribute to or detract from compassionate leader
behavior. The purpose also includes assessing the impact of compassionate leader behavior on
individual and organizational performance. This chapter summarizes the findings from the study
designed to answer the following research questions:
1. What internal and external factors contribute to or detract from leaders demonstrating
compassionate behavior towards their staff?
2. How does compassionate leader behavior impact individual and organizational
performance?
Participants
The 14 participants interviewed for this study represented a diverse group of experienced
business and healthcare professionals, as summarized in Table 3. The participants, on average,
had 30 years of professional experience and 20 years of leadership experience. The group of
interviewees represented diversity of gender, including seven females and seven male
participants. At the time of this study, they were or recently had been employed by the
aerospace, aviation, defense, financial services, healthcare, retail, professional services, and
technology industries, as demonstrated in Figure 3. They worked in various functions
encapsulated in Figure 4, including general leadership, internal consulting roles, project and
program management, operations, and HR. Their racial and ethnic identification closely reflected
the diversity of the United States, as shown in Figure 5. They represented small, medium, and
large organizations (Figure 6) and managed teams of varying sizes (Figure 7). Table 3 lists the
participants’ aliases that will be used throughout the chapter.
45
Table 3
Summary of Participants
Industry Title Alias
Years of
experience
Years of
leadership
experience
Aerospace
Senior quality specialist,
workforce development
Aerospace internal
consultant
32 14
Aerospace
1st Line manager
Aerospace
manager
10 3
Aviation
Vice president (VP),
technical operations
Aviation VP of
operations
40 40
Defense Senior program manager
Defense program
manager
35 27
Financial
services
(FinServ)
VP, HR FinServ VP HR 30 25
Healthcare
Chief medical officer,
division
Healthcare CMO 38 35
Healthcare Project manager
Healthcare project
manager
35 10
Retail
Sr. director, HR
Retail HR director 15 7
Professional
services
(Prof Svcs)
Partner
Professional
services partner
30 15
Professional
services
Managing director
Professional
services managing
director
32 25
Professional
services
Practice director
Professional
services practice
director
15 8
Technology
(Tech)
Communications advisor to
the CEO
Tech comms
advisor
40 35
Technology Executive coach
Tech executive
coach
35 20
Technology
Senior business program
manager, learning and
development
Tech program
manager
33 20
46
Figure 3
Participants by Industry (N = 14)
Figure 4
Participants by Function (N = 14)
47
Figure 5
Race and Ethnicity of Participants Compared to U.S. Demographics (N = 14)
Note. Adapted from Our Changing Population: United States by USAFacts, 2022.
(https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-
population)
48
Figure 6
Size of Company Represented by Participants (N = 14)
Figure 7
Size of Team Managed by Participants (N = 14)
49
Findings
This study’s findings are presented with general constructs and themes that emerged after
data analysis. General constructs included the participants’ definitions of compassion, examples
of compassion in the workplace, and the relation of compassion to leadership. The themes are
organized within the conceptual framework, which is based on the Burke-Litwin model, as
exhibited in Figure 8. The criteria for determining an emergent theme included at least five of the
14 participants discussing an idea or concept in their responses. From the participant interviews,
COVID-19 and polarization in society emerged as the key external factors impacting
compassionate leader behavior. The interviewees concluded that their leaders were the most
influential internal factor to the demonstration of compassionate leadership in the organization.
Other factors emphasized in the conceptual framework all had more than a moderate impact. The
third theme in the interview data was the importance of an individualized approach when
demonstrating compassion as a leader. The fourth and fifth themes related to the impact of
compassionate leader behavior, as reported by the participants, were increases in employee
retention and engagement.
50
Figure 8
Themes Summarized Within Conceptual Framework
General Constructs Emerging From Data Analysis
Participants revealed that acts of compassion are commonplace in their organizations;
however, the term “compassion” does not appear to be generally applied in most of their
organizations outside of healthcare. The interviewees defined compassion mainly as empathy
coupled with action, which is a simplified version of the definitions in the literature. The
interviews further uncovered that empathy is becoming more prevalent and overt within some
organizations. According to the participants, compassion in organizations is most frequently
demonstrated as providing support or care to one’s employees, colleagues, clients, and business
partners. The following section summarizes the participants’ definitions and demonstrations of
compassion as well as its application to leadership.
51
Definition of Compassion
The participants defined empathy as the most prominent characteristic of compassion.
Ten interviewees used the term “empathy” to define compassion. The aerospace internal
consultant described empathy “as the first step in the process.” Two others described key aspects
of empathy while not mentioning the word itself: the tech executive coach described
“understanding a person from their perspective,” and the defense program manager added the
element of “internal and demonstrated concern.”
The participants defined action as another essential component of compassion. Six
participants specified that a form of action was a key element of compassion, while two others
alluded to it. The tech program manager expressed “[trying] to help in a subtle way,” the
professional services practice director described “[displaying] acts of kindness,” and the defense
program manager elaborated “actively support[ing] or taking actions to support individuals.”
The term “suffering” was noticeably absent from the interviews, which contrasts with
most of the compassion literature. “Suffering” was mentioned only once in reference to a group
of individuals outside the organization, but it was never mentioned in the context of individuals
within the organization. As an impetus for compassion, “distressed” and “struggling” were used
to describe employees, colleagues, and clients in need.
Demonstration of Compassion in the Workplace
Compassion was demonstrated primarily by providing personal and professional support
or care to others. Six participants emphasized support: the professional services partner
commented that “support is the actual way of providing … compassion, but you take it a step
further and find some resources for them or be that resource for them.” Six other participants
52
represented that compassion is expressed as care for one’s employees. The retail HR director
expanded on both of these concepts. In moments of personal difficulty or challenge:
You can’t make any movement unless you really know that your leader cares for you and
supports you. … You feel like you’re not alone. … We get so caught up, I get so caught
up, in the day-to-day and work that we’re doing, which is important, but when moments
happen in your life where you don’t expect them, or they’re emotionally draining and
hard, knowing that you have someone that it just feels good. … It feels like you’re
supported. It feels like you’re not alone and that you can make it through this challenge.
The interviewees considered the most frequent specific demonstrations of leader
compassion to be (a) allowing space for the full humanity of their staff and (b) honest, authentic,
and timely communication. Nine interviewees cited both of these demonstrations. The
participants also represented that compassion takes the form of flexibility in times of need (cited
by six), diversity and appreciation of differences (cited by five), and personal outreach to check
in with employees, especially those who are struggling (cited by five).
According to the participants, the different organizations they represented had varied
expectations about compassionate leader behavior. The aerospace manager described his
organization as “compassion agnostic,” while the defense program manager claimed that his
previous organization only paid “lip service” to caring for their employees. On the other end of
the spectrum, the tech program manager expressed that the CEO continuously reinforces care for
one’s employees as one of three key messages. The tech comms advisor elaborated, “Every
technology brand out there has empathy as part of their public messaging, their personal beliefs,
their values, their mission. Empathy is … a way of executing. Without it, it is hard to be
competitive in today’s world.” The tech executive coach validated the prevalence and
53
importance of empathy in the tech sector while cautioning against overt references to
compassion:
While empathy is a leadership principle of our org, you don’t hear the word compassion.
… It would make a high-performing engineer’s head spin right off. … This journey of
empathy to compassion … is a bit too much in the corporate setting. I think that people
feel that compassion is soft and gooey and not really something that’s obtainable in the
workplace. … Empathy is the more attainable bridge. … It seems like it’s OK to be
empathetic, but it’s not OK to be compassionate.
Application to Leadership
Many participants considered compassion to be an attribute of a highly regarded leader
(cited by seven), while others reflected that compassion was critical to leadership (cited by
three). Seven participants referred to compassion as a trait of “good leaders,” “effective leaders,”
“great leaders,” “best leaders,” “respected leaders,” as well as “honored, because he is a
compassionate leader.” The retail HR director confirmed that compassionate leaders “were
perceived in the most positive light.” The aerospace manager, who considered compassion
critical to leadership, elaborated, “If you don’t have compassion, you’re probably not providing
leadership in a way that’s meaningful.” The professional services partner argued that without
compassion, “you can’t truly lead. You can get people to … be afraid of you, agree with you, but
you really can’t lead in the way you need to.” The FinServ VP HR summarized that “character
and compassion go hand in hand with truly natural capable leadership; those are your people
who listen and try to meet the needs of their employees.” Her comments reinforced the
relationship between compassion and superior leaders.
54
Participants offered additional comments about how compassion related to leadership.
Lack of leader compassion is an issue in some organizations and can be instrumental to other
leaders’ exhibition of compassion as well as employee well-being. Some participants highlighted
that leader compassion could be misperceived as a weakness. Finally, other participants
cautioned that compassion without accountability could be detrimental to organizational
performance.
Lack of Compassionate Leader Behavior. Five interviewees offered examples of
leaders who exhibited the antithesis of compassion in the form of toxic leadership, harsh
feedback about demonstrating compassion, and unskillful responses to sensitive situations. Toxic
behavior included the aerospace internal consultant’s previous leader “yelling and beating the
table.” A former employer told the aviation VP of operations to “get up in people’s grill” and to
be “judge, jury, and executioner.” The defense program manager was instructed to “light a fire”
underneath his staff. The tech executive coach described her VP as “not the slightest bit
compassionate or empathetic” in response to communicating her cancer diagnosis. The aviation
VP of operations summarized, “When the employee expresses vulnerability and asks for help,
and nothing, I think that’s what I find that to be the most disheartening,” further emphasizing the
demotivating outcome when compassion is withheld.
Compassion Can Be Misperceived as a Weakness. Five interviewees highlighted that a
leader’s compassion was sometimes mistaken for weakness. In some cases, this perspective was
accurate, as the FinServ VP HR observed, “I’ve seen people who are compassionate and who
also just let their teams walk all over them.” The retail HR director and the defense program
manager reported infrequent instances where employees tried to take advantage of
compassionate leaders. The aerospace manager summarized,
55
We have a bottom line, results, milestones, on-time percentage type culture, and, so,
sometimes you have people that value compassion because they see how the two are tied
together, and then you have other folks that just don’t see how they are related at all, and
they almost see it as a weakness or a distraction, it’s just not efficient.
The aerospace internal consultant cautioned that one might “misread those [kindness,
compassion] behaviors as ‘she doesn’t have the ability to make a tough decision.’” He expanded,
“She’s not a pushover, but she is always gracious; I have never seen an unkind word out of her.”
He considered her an example of a strong but compassionate leader needed for the future success
of his organization. The aviation VP of operations and the defense program manager stated they
had received adverse feedback for their compassionate leadership styles, even when their group’s
performance metrics were superior. The defense program manager was criticized as being “too
soft on the workforce. If you give an inch, they’re gonna take a mile.” The defense program
manager continued that his leaders did not understand that his “effectiveness was because he was
compassionate,” not in spite of it.
Accountability. Accountability emerged throughout the interviews, with five participants
referencing it. The defense program manager considered accountability so integral to compassion
that he included it as part of his definition, while others considered it a caveat or necessary
parameter of compassion for it to be effective in organizations. The FinServ VP HR stated, “You
can’t offer compassionate behavior and not hold people accountable.” The tech executive coach
stated,
Compassion can be a problem … when it’s not offering the clarity to actually hold people
accountable and only seeing it as the softer side. … Being compassionate is having a
56
difficult conversation, where people think that being compassionate is avoiding the
difficult conversation.
She summarized with the metaphor that compassionate leadership entails “having both a firm
spine and an open heart,” supporting the point that compassionate behavior requires
accountability and strength to favorably impact individual and organizational performance.
In summary, many interviewees considered compassion an attribute of superior
leadership. Conversely, some interviewees reported detrimental instances of their leaders’ toxic
or insensitive behavior, which demonstrated a lack of compassion. Participants reported that this
lack of compassion decreased motivation or led to consideration of their departure from their
organizations. Some participants described examples where a compassionate leader was
perceived as “weak;” in most instances, this was not warranted. Others summarized the
importance of accountability when leading with compassion to support organizational
effectiveness.
Factors That Influence Compassionate Leadership
This section identifies the five themes that emerged from this study’s data as organized
and outlined in Figure 8 in accordance with the conceptual framework. The external and internal
factors influencing compassionate leader behavior for the participants were as diverse as the
interviewees. The impact of COVID-19 inspired leaders to behave more compassionately with
their staff, while polarization in society, mainly related to politics and science, challenged their
exhibition of compassion. Some participants reported that one’s family, spiritual path, and
previous experiences with others exhibiting a lack of compassion positively influenced their
demonstration of compassion to others in the workplace. The participants reported senior and
work group leadership as the most influential internal factor guiding compassion. They also
57
conveyed that culture and work group climate, which are greatly affected by leaders, were highly
instrumental in predisposing them to compassionate behavior. Assessing the individual needs
and values of their staff facilitated more meaningful displays of compassion to individuals.
Theme 1: COVID-19 and Polarization in Society Viewed As the Most Impactful External
Factors to Compassion in Organizations
According to several participants, COVID-19 continued to impact organizations and, in
most cases, favorably instigate leader compassion, primarily caused by challenges in employees’
personal lives. Six participants highlighted that COVID-19 has resulted in organizational
challenges related to transitioning to remote work and the subsequent return to the workplace, as
well as employee shortages and disengagement. The healthcare project manager aptly
summarized, “COVID, you know, literally changed the world and how we navigated work and
life.” Leaders face challenges due to the polarization of views about politics and science as well
as the constant evaluation of health risks to themselves and others. The aerospace manager also
cited that COVID “zapped reserves for leader compassion.” The following sub-section
summarizes the challenges to employees’ lives caused by COVID-19 and the polarization in
society.
Challenges in Employees’ Personal Life. Seven participants highlighted employee
challenges that predated or were caused or exacerbated by the pandemic. The healthcare CMO
stated that “the COVID pandemic has created this unbelievable environment.” The retail HR
director continued, mentioning “individuals that just have unique circumstances happening in
their lives right now.” The two HR participants cited numerous examples of employee
challenges, given their enhanced exposure to their companies’ entire workforces. These
situations include deaths in families, care for elder parents and children, health issues, injuries,
58
and divorces. The FinServ VP HR stated that she is likely to respond more compassionately
when employees are “experiencing … financial or emotional hardship.” The retail HR director
summarized,
[We need to] think about not only our policies and practices as a company but how do we
help our people as people get through these life situations and life moments where the
answer isn’t always clear, and we have to be able to flex and oh, by the way, our business
might suffer because of it.
The pandemic disrupted the personal lives of many employees, creating challenges that inspired
leaders to respond with compassion.
Hybrid Work Environment. Six participants stated that the hybrid work environment,
in varying states of transition, created unique personal challenges for employees requiring
compassionate responses from leaders. The retail HR director explained how some people are
“struggling to get to the office, just to show up” because of anxiety or personal challenges, and
the aerospace manager confirmed this observation. The tech comms advisor summarized,
“There’s a combination of all of us getting back to what is normal, trusting risk [versus] reward
balance on life choices and health matters, but I’m not there yet personally, and I don’t think the
world is.” Leaders reported that they moved to respond compassionately by demonstrating
flexibility to policy in response to their employees’ difficulties working from home, returning to
physical offices, and a combination of both.
Polarization of Perspectives in Society. Five participants considered divergent political,
social, and scientific views as key factors that impact their compassionate behavior. Three
participants represented that the polarization of political discourse in the United States had
adversely affected their ability to be compassionate in the workplace. Two interviewees
59
communicated that these differences challenged them to be more compassionate and
understanding at work, providing the impetus for them to view situations from others’
perspectives. The tech comms advisor cautioned against one’s “very educated and in some ways
stubborn views on how to deal with a once in a generation pandemic, to accept that not
everybody thinks or feels the same way about those things.” The healthcare CMO confirmed that
“this really challenged us to be compassionate toward people with political views and different
views about medicine and science.” While the polarization had varying impacts on the leaders’
reported demonstration of compassion, the impact remained significant.
Other External Factors. Four participants referred to “the macroeconomic situation that
we’re facing” (the retail HR director) or the trend for “quiet quitting” (professional services
partner, professional services practice director, tech executive coach) as influences. Four
interviewees cited family members (wife, child, father, and grandmother) as inspiration for
behaving more compassionately. Four also referenced reading books and articles as an impetus
for compassion. Three individuals cited the lack of compassion experienced in childhood or
previous employment as a key factor in their desire to behave compassionately toward their staff.
Theme 2: Leadership Appears to be the Most Important Internal Factor to Compassion in
Organizations
Ten participants, without prompting, identified that leadership was the greatest influence
for compassionate behavior in the workplace. The aerospace internal consultant reiterated the
phrase “leaders cast long shadows.” When prompted to score the related significance of several
factors, as demonstrated in Figure 9, work unit climate and leadership rated the highest impact
on the participants’ ability to demonstrate compassion. Upon follow-up, all but one stated that
the work unit leader had the most significant impact on the work unit climate. The factors
60
summarized in the conceptual framework will be addressed in the order depicted in Figure 9,
which is consistent with the Burke-Litwin model. In Figure 10, the scores for Figure 9 were
adjusted to exclude the responses from those participants that did not have compassionate
strategies, cultures, management practices, and systems, as their responses depressed the results.
The end result is that all of the factors identified in the conceptual framework are important to
compassionate leadership.
Figure 9
Relative Significance of Internal Factors Influencing Compassion in the Workplace (N = 14)
S i g ni fi ca nce
F a ct o r
Sign ifican t
Mo d e r a te
I ns i gni fica nt
61
Figure 10
Relative Significance of Internal Factors, Adjusted (N = 11–14)
Leadership. Six participants stressed the importance of senior leadership modeling and
supporting compassionate behavior, referring to their organizations’ CEO, CMO, senior partner,
or senior director. The retail HR director stated that “it starts with our senior level really saying,
‘Hey, it’s OK to do this, and oh, by the way, I care.’” The aerospace internal consultant further
stressed that “it starts with them. … It doesn’t start in the middle, it starts with them, and they
have to cascade it down … all the way to the first line leader.” The healthcare project manager
pointed out, “When the CEO, CMO took the time, … it trickled down to maybe your own
department, your own supervisor.” The professional services partner highlighted that “it all starts
at the top.” She continued, accentuating that “our senior partner is very compassionate;” thereby,
“instead of it being [me] and [my] leadership style, it becomes the firm’s way of doing things.”
The tech executive coach reported,
S i g ni fi ca nce
F a ct o r
Sign ifican t
Mo d e r a te
I ns i gni fica nt
62
Our new CEO putting a stake in the ground and saying that we value people being
empathetic at work now, … and one way to make every day better for your employees is
to be empathetic, and to understand, and to hear them—that has been a huge factor for
me.
The aerospace manager posited, “When other leaders show you compassion, I just find it
encourages you, reminds you of how empowering it can be, and so it makes me more intentional
about extending it to others.” The retail HR director emphasized the importance of “leaders
modeling [compassion] across the board.” The professional services practice director
accentuated that “when the leader stresses the importance of [compassion], it’s felt throughout
the organization.” While the group generally stressed the importance of leadership as a key
factor in demonstrating compassion, several participants cautioned about the uneven exhibition
of compassion to others in the workplace. The participants also stated that time constraints
impacted their ability to be compassionate.
Bias and Favoritism. Four participants stated that leader compassion must be devoid of
bias and favoritism. The FinServ VP HR reflected that it “detracts if you don’t apply it fairly.”
The professional services practice director reiterated, “Compassion … is a detriment to the well-
being of the team and the actual cohesiveness of the team … if [it] is displayed to the wrong
person based on personal prejudice and bias.” The aerospace internal consultant confirmed that
“if you have more compassion for one person on the team than another, what will eventually
unravel is that you have favorites.”
Time Constraints. One participant independently stated that time constraints hindered his
ability to be compassionate. The others responded to a specific interview question on the topic.
The professional services managing director cautioned that leaders get “so busy and caught up in
63
things, that sometimes the speed just takes over,” compromising their ability to be
compassionate. No other participants referred to high volume of work, coupled with time
constraints, unless responding to the specific interview question. The participants offered rich
commentary, when specifically prompted, about the effect of time constraints on leader
compassion. Five participants rated the impact of time constraints as “significant,” five rated it as
“moderate,” and four rated it as or close to “insignificant.”
They almost all acknowledged that time constraints have some impact, with several
reporting a change in their tone of voice. The interviewees were highly experienced, and several
reported that they had developed enhanced self-awareness about their behavior to minimize the
impact of time constraints. The healthcare CMO stated, “I take as much time as needed.” He
added that “the environment and systems do not provide enough time to be compassionate,”
explaining that he frequently works late as a result of his compassionate behavior. Summarizing
the other participants’ sentiments, the tech comms advisor offered that, “in the moment, [the
impact] is significant; however, I try to minimize those moments.”
Mission/Strategy. The interviewees responded diversely to the importance of the
organization’s mission and strategy related to their compassionate behavior, with an overall
result modestly higher than moderate. When adjusted for those participants who did not have
compassionate components of their organization’s mission or strategy, the results approached
significant (as shown in Figure 10). Ten participants represented that an element of compassion
was explicitly stated in their organization’s strategy in the form of either value statements or
leadership principles of empathy or care. Three participants referred to the diversity and
inclusion principles of their organizations’ strategies as an expression of compassion. The two
healthcare professionals represented that compassion was one of the five core values of their
64
shared organization; however, the healthcare CMO represented that this had an insignificant
impact on him and that he would behave in the same manner irrespective of the organization’s
values. Two others shared his perspective. The professional services partner represented that
“Taking care of our people, taking care of our clients, and building trust” are key components of
her firm’s strategy. The tech program manager echoed that care is a key part of the company’s
strategy, which included “caring for their employees, caring for the customer … and taking care
of themselves.” The healthcare CMO, the defense program manager, and the professional
services practice director stated that, while an overt statement of compassion in the strategy is
not significant to their demonstration of behavior, it would be significant to many others. The
tech program manager summarized,
It is never the strategy or the corporation or the business model itself. It’s never those
pieces that really make something successful. It is the people. It is simply the people, and
if you build up the people, and if you connect with the people, and if you truly care about
the people, everything else takes care of itself.
While mission and strategy are important, they will not ensure compassionate behavior on their
own.
Culture. Nine participants evaluated the culture as having a significant impact on their
ability to be compassionate. When adjusted for those participants that did not have
compassionate components of their organization’s culture, the results for the group became even
more significant (as shown in Figure 10). The aviation VP of operations claimed that his
organization’s compassionate culture “is allowing me to lead in the most creative way I have
ever been able.” The professional services managing director explained that they have a culture
of reflecting on “What if it were you?” before responding to difficult interpersonal situations,
65
including terminating an individual, informing a candidate that they did not get a position, and
even dealing with difficult clients and employees. The retail HR director explained that caring
behaviors were part of her “organization’s DNA.” The healthcare CMO reflected that
compassion has permeated throughout the organization’s leaders, with the notable exception of
doctors, who are leaders of patient care teams and have not been trained or coached to embrace
and demonstrate this aspect of the culture.
The tech executive coach, the aerospace manager, and the tech comms advisor cautioned
that their performance-driven culture could detract from leader compassion. The aerospace
manager expanded on his earlier comment about his organization being “compassion agnostic.”
He continued, “there is room to be compassionate, but there’s not an active motivator to show
compassion. It’ll not congratulate you for doing it, but it is not going to shame you for not doing
it,” confirming that his organization’s culture is passive on compassion.
Management Practices. The group average indicated their perspective that management
practices had more than a moderate but less than significant impact on their ability to
demonstrate compassion. When adjusted for those participants that did not have compassionate
components of their organizations’ management practices, the results became somewhat
significant (as shown in Figure 10). The group average was decreased by those whose
organizations did not exhibit management practices, and their responses ranged from
insignificant to moderate. The management practices they reported most often included frequent
outreach to all staff formally and informally, sometimes just to check in, and encouraging open
and honest communication. Other compassionate practices they identified included verbal
recognition and encouragement. The tech comms advisor cited a touching practice of a leader
who frequently encourages personal conversations with staff and follows them up with thank you
66
notes, thanking individuals for their story and vulnerability. This behavior has “set the tone for
his organization.”
The defense program manager confessed that his previous organization “paid lip service”
to caring for and supporting our people and understanding that they have individual lives that
they bring to work. However, “after the session is over, they go right back to act as though they
never said what they said.” While his organization’s leadership used compassionate language,
they did not support such language with demonstrated behavior.
Systems. Systems were also rated as having a more than moderate impact on the
participants’ compassionate leader behavior. When adjusted for those participants who did not
have compassionate components of their organization’s systems, the results became somewhat
significant (as shown in Figure 10). The average score for the systems factor was depressed by
those whose organizations do not have systems to support compassionate leader behavior. The
tech program manager also rated the influence as insignificant even though her organization has
systems in place, as she would behave similarly without them. The most frequently mentioned
systems that enhance compassionate leadership were leader performance evaluations and
feedback mechanisms (cited by five). The interviewees also mentioned metrics in the form of
scorecards that include diversity, inclusion, and sustainability and surveys that leadership takes
seriously and acts upon. Others included training, recruiting, exit interviews, and requirements
for frequent ongoing meetings with direct reports.
The range of accountability for compassionate leader behavior was diverse among the
organizations represented by the participants. The healthcare CMO and the tech executive coach
cautioned that metrics, such as productivity or customer obsession, are not aligned with
compassionate leader behavior. The FinServ VP HR commented that “managers were not
67
necessarily required to listen to employee concerns; there was no one ensuring that there was a
compassionate ear,” while the aerospace manager commented that “there is no motivation to act
compassionately; you can be successful without exhibiting it.” On the other end of the spectrum,
the tech program manager described a situation where, if, as a manager, you do not care about
your employees, “you’re in violation of your direct written job duties.” She continued, “How
they [leaders] help others … how you went about doing it (i.e., did you leave bodies in your
wake?) is evaluated.” The professional services managing director reiterated, “We care not only
what we do, but how we do it.” Some organizations had metrics that supported leader
compassion, sometimes conflicting with other metrics.
Work Unit Leader/Climate. All participants, except for one, considered the impact of
the work unit climate to be significant to their ability to engage in compassionate behavior; they
also considered the work unit leader as the most significant factor in the work unit climate. The
defense program manager, who also has a military background, rated the impact of the work unit
leader as “moderate” and pointed out that in some institutions, the work unit leader is limited by
law, policy, or senior leadership in behaving compassionately.
As a group, the participants rated the work unit leader to be somewhat more impactful
than senior leaders. This finding was underscored by some participants referring to “my leader”
when not prompted for specifics. The tech program manager explained that, after observing her
leader exhibiting compassion to a staff member in a meeting, “I took a cue from my leader, and I
hopefully will do the same thing when I’m in those positions.” The healthcare project manager
stated that the impact of her leader is significant; she elaborated,
Who I work for directly, he embodies compassion and always has … compassion is his
ethos. It’s how he is with patients, how he is with peers, how he is with every single
68
person that he works with. Not only is compassion and the mission so important to him.
… He also thinks about what he could offer his team and … other teams that would help
people with compassion.
Her comment summarized the importance of the work unit leader’s modeled behavior in the
impact on the team.
Other Factors. Four participants cited difficult employees, colleagues, and clients as
factors that inspired them to behave more compassionately, and two participants considered
these difficult individuals detractors in their expression of compassion. The professional services
practice director said that, when she inquired further about a difficult colleague and learned
about their issues with depression, she was then inspired to “walk in love with this person and
show them grace” instead of judging the behavior. The tech program manager also inquired and
reflected on a difficult colleague’s reaction to her work and stated that she was moved “to see the
other’s points and perspective” and “dial up my empathy for where she was coming from,”
ultimately communicating with her in a much more productive way. Three participants spoke
about employee difficulties related to role incongruence as the impetus for their compassionate
behavior in coaching them, upskilling them, transferring them to other roles, or even terminating
them in the most compassionate manner for them and those that remained. For example, the
aviation VP of operations stressed the importance of “curiosity” when employees’ behavior
deviates from the professional or if they are not performing as expected.
In summary, work unit and senior leaders are the most significant internal factors
influencing compassionate leader behavior in the workplace. Culture was also rated highly in
terms of significance All of the other internal factors represented in the conceptual framework
69
were addressed. The group considered these other internal factors were considered to have a
somewhat significant impact when adjusted for the organizations who did not have these factors.
Theme 3: An Individualized Approach Is Advisable for Compassion to Be Effective
All 14 participants stressed that getting to know their staff members as individuals was
essential to their ability to lead, to provide basic needs to their staff, to understand their values,
and, ultimately, to exhibit meaningful compassion toward them. The participants expressed that
employees have basic human needs that need to be met in the workplace, including the need to
feel safe (cited by three), be seen (two), be heard (two), and feel valued as people (three) at work.
For a leader to meet these needs effectively, they must understand what would make an
individual staff member feel safe, seen, heard, and valued. Obtaining this individual information
was facilitated by required formal feedback sessions (cited by four) as well as informal outreach
and checking in with employees (four).
Employees require distinct behaviors from leaders for compassion to be received
effectively. The defense program manager stressed that “it’s not looking at people … from a
cookie-cutter standpoint.” The healthcare CMO continued,
Every staff member is unique as an individual, so I realized that anything I do cannot
have a one-size-fits-all approach or be general. … It is my chance to talk to them one-on-
one … and giving them permission … to be vulnerable in a way that feels safe for them.
… I want staff members to call me individually when they have a personal family crisis
or someone in their family is sick.
The professional services partner further elaborated,
70
You can be as compassionate as you want, but a more individualized approach will result
in recognizing and seeing that person. We can all get along as a group, but if I don’t
know them individually, then they are not going to feel that connection.
The retail HR director concluded,
I try my best to understand who they are as individuals, what they need, what motivates
them, what they value, and, hopefully, that shows up later in the form of recognition and
something they would enjoy based on their values and what they have shared or if it is a
difficult moment, we kind of know … what would help.
The participants agreed that leaders need to understand team members’ uniqueness to provide
compassion that is effective for the individual staff members.
The participants represented different approaches to obtaining the unique information
required to tailor and validate their behavior. The professional services managing director
explained that the monthly performance reviews for his organization’s staff are not just about
performance, and he reported placing emphasis on the question, “What do you need to be
successful?” He continued that this question helps him to “understand individual points of view.”
The aviation VP of operations stated that he meets with all his direct reports every 2 weeks and,
at a minimum, “I am better informed about what is working and what is not.” The aerospace
manager confirmed that the meetings help “me to understand that the impact of my actions aligns
with the intent … because you are acting on good information, not just assumptions.” The
professional services practice director called out an example of informal outreach. As a way of
checking in and understanding if her staff are challenged with any personal struggles, “I ask my
team every morning, ‘How is everyone’s mental wellness?’” These varying approaches reflect
71
the different leaders’ styles to obtain or confirm unique information from their staff to exhibit
compassion in a manner that is more likely to be effectively received by their staff members.
Theme 4: Leader Compassion Likely Facilitates Employee Retention
Ten participants represented that compassionate leader behaviors likely enhance
employee retention. They posited that staff who work for compassionate leaders are more likely
to stay with an organization because they feel seen, heard, and valued. Six interviewees provided
specific examples where they have strongly considered resigning or did resign from
organizations due to lack of compassion in their leader. Three participants stated that
compassionate leadership is a key factor in their organization’s ability to attract high-quality
talent.
Lack of leader compassion can lead to employee attrition. The defense program manager
stated, “I know of a very, very good junior leader who resigned from the [armed forces] because
of this situation. … The organization can lose highly trained, highly skilled individuals for no
other reason than because of lack of compassionate behavior.” On a more personal note, he
continued, “One of the reasons I left federal service … the greatest contributing factor … [was
my former leader’s] lack of compassion.” The professional services partner explained, “One of
the reasons why I left another organization was because where I was actually coached to be less
compassionate.” She contrasted this with her current employer experience: “I’ve stuck around
for 21 years; it [compassion] built a lot of loyalty.” The retail HR director reiterated this
sentiment: “I have been more loyal, and I have stayed” in those organizations that exhibited
compassion.
72
Participants also spoke to how compassionate leadership can enhance retention. The
FinServ VP HR offered a specific example of the positive influences of compassion in relation to
retention:
The message spread quickly that [the leader] was a fair and compassionate leader …
Because of that, the turnover dropped. Retention improved in that department
dramatically almost overnight. People who had given notice … rescinded their notice …
and said they wanted to actually stay.
The healthcare project manager explained that “compassion is large part of why people
stay. … Consistently over the years, our teams have had the lowest turnover … [due to] the
[compassionate] leader of the group. … When people feel valued, … they stay.” The tech
executive coach perceived that her company’s recent emphasis on leadership empathy has
already created some change: “The people that were saying ‘I’m leaving’ [are now saying]
‘maybe I don’t have to leave.’… It’s shifting the tide for some people.” The tech program
manager associated her company’s emphasis on care for their employees with reduced turnover,
“Nobody wants to leave, nobody has that desire to find something else, so it’s very impressive,
and that’s not a commonality right now.” Finally, the professional services practice director
summarized how compassionate leader behavior creates an environment where employees want
to stay. She also surmised that lack of compassionate leadership can incent the desire to leave:
Employees will stay when they feel like they belong, and they feel wanted, when they
feel like they’re under leadership that values them, that cares. … When you are under
leaders that lack compassion, that can really make you want to leave … as soon as
something better comes [along,] you’re out of there, and it’s crazy because something so
small as compassion can really affect retention. It is … a common word but very
73
powerful when you really think about it. … All you need to retain great employees is just
compassion, and it’s just that small missing piece.
Finally, compassionate leadership behavior can facilitate attracting new talent to the
organization. The FinServ VP HR explained that because of compassionate leadership,
demonstrated by flexibility to policy, “We’re able to keep a strong contributor, and good
employees attract other good employees.” The professional services partner claimed that her
firm’s compassionate behavior enables “you to attract the best talent and you retain those
people.” The tech comms advisor finished with compassionate leader behavior is “the reason
people wanna come work with us.” The interviews reflected that compassionate leadership can
reduce employee turnover, enhance retention, and attract new employees to an organization.
Theme 5: Leader Compassion Is Reported to Enhance Employee Engagement
All 14 participants related compassionate leadership behaviors with elements of
employee engagement reported in the literature, including motivation, effort, commitment, and
satisfaction. Six participants reported improvements in their own or a staff member’s
performance. Three interviewees associated lack of compassionate leader behavior with the state
of disengagement known as “quiet quitting,” and two linked the lack of compassion with adverse
performance. These three sub-themes are explored in the following sub-sections.
Motivation and Effort. Ten participants reflected that compassionate leaders improve
their staff’s motivation and discretionary effort. The retail HR director surmised, “When you
have compassionate leaders in general, … you have more engaged teams.” The FinServ VP HR
continued, “When people feel valued, they’re more engaged, … they bring their best selves to
work.” The healthcare project manager stated that her leader’s compassionate behavior
“inspire[ed] them … to be their best.” The professional services partner reiterated, “to get the
74
best out of [your staff], they have to know that you care about them.” The aerospace manager
concluded, “I’ve experienced this as a person on the receiving end of compassion, that people do
find more motivation working for people that they know care for them as a person.”
The absence of compassion can decrease motivation and effort, according to two
participants. The professional services practice director concluded,
Lack of compassion can speak louder than the money. It can really impact your drive,
your motivation. When you are under leaders that lack compassion. … It can hinder your
performance to where they are now calling quiet quitting or you’re just doing, like, the
baseline of your responsibilities.
The aviation VP of operations added, “Lack of compassion causes employees to feel less
empowered to take risks. … It reduces the discretionary effort and expression of creativity. …
Compassion with curiosity always enriches the knowledge pool for the department and the
organization.” The tech executive coach summarized,
I have a core belief that nobody wakes up in the morning thinking, “I wanna do a bad
job,” or “I wanna phone it in,” or “I don’t wanna add value,” and yet we find ourselves
all the time with people who are disengaged, presentism … or [quiet] quitting. … No one
wants that, and yet, when you can resonate with and feel heard and seen for who you are,
that raises your individual stock in a situation, and it increases my willingness to want to
do the hard things. … When someone actually cares deeply about you as a human, you
feel validated, and you feel like, “Oh, I wanna do a better job for this person because they
actually see me.” I think that compassion allows you to be seen by another and witnessed
or heard. … And you actually want to demonstrate that you are that, you have that you to
75
offer, you actually want to contribute. It’s just the cycle that I can see be easily catalyzed
by something like compassion or even as simple as empathy.
The aerospace internal consultant continued the trend of thought that leader compassion
is connected with increased employee effort and commitment and stated that “[compassion]
ensures that the people within the organization feel heard, and feel worthy, and valuable …
because when there’s compassion, they wanna charge the hill with you and if you can get your
team to charge the hill, there’s nothing more you can ask for [as a leader].” The defense program
manager reinforced that compassion from my leader “made me feel more motivated to support
them. … If I was giving them 100% before, I wanted to give 110% as acknowledgement … of
what they did.” These interviewees posit that leader compassion inspires and motivates staff
members to enhance their commitment and discretionary effort in the workplace.
Morale and Satisfaction. Three participants summarized that engagement is improved
through enhanced employee morale and satisfaction. The healthcare CMO explained that “leader
compassion results in improved morale and employee satisfaction.” The aerospace manager
claimed that “I find that energizing and encouraging.” The tech program manager reinforced this
observation. Her company’s emphasis on caring for their employees has resulted in a situation
where she explained that “it’s all connected; If you take care of the people, everything else falls
into place. I have never in the 15 years that I’ve been working here have I ever seen so many
people so happy.”
Performance. Six participants related compassionate leadership to improved individual
performance. Two participants, the professional services partner and the tech comms advisor,
associated their organizations’ superior performance with compassion demonstrated by their
leaders. At an individual level, the aerospace manager argued that “the highest performance we
76
can get, whatever that looks like on any given day,” came as a result of extending compassion to
a staff member. The professional services practice director stated that “compassion can really
affect … performance.” The defense program manager elaborated, “When I was shown
compassion, … my performance, my own productivity really ramped up. … So, anecdotally, … I
saw how lack of compassion can really degrade performance, and now I demonstrate compassion
to enhance it [performance].” The FinServ VP summarized, “If people feel valued, they’re more
engaged, and we know that engagement leads to improved organizational performance.” These
interviewees surmised that compassionate leadership enhances retention, engagement, and,
ultimately, performance. These result in improved overall organizational performance.
Summary
This chapter summarized this study’s findings, which focused on determining the factors
that enhanced or detracted from leader compassion as well as the impact of compassionate leader
behavior on individuals and organizations. The main contributor to compassionate leader
behavior, found in the data analysis, is the demonstrated behavior of the organization’s work unit
and senior leaders. These leaders model and support compassionate behavior and inspire other
leaders in the organization to behave compassionately. The organization’s culture also had a
significant impact. The organization’s mission and strategy, management practices, and systems
had a somewhat significant impact, when adjusted. These factors were rated as less significant
because several participants stated that their personal character and belief systems would lead
them to behave compassionately regardless of whether these factors were in place. While these
factors are important, they cannot transform organizational behavior without leadership.
According to the participants, the most significant impact of compassionate leader behavior is
77
improved retention and engagement of employees. Both contribute to improved individual and
organizational performance.
78
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Lack of leader compassion in the workplace may adversely affect employee motivation
(Basran et al., 2019) and commitment to organizations, which, in turn, negatively impacts
performance (Dutton et al., 2014; Lilius et al., 2008). Compassion can be defined as “an
interpersonal process involving the noticing, feeling, sensemaking, and acting that alleviates the
suffering of another person” (Dutton et al., 2014). The purpose of the study was to expand on
previous research to validate and more comprehensively summarize the factors that contribute or
detract from compassionate leader behavior, as well as the implications of this behavior to
individuals and the broader organization.
This study employed a qualitative approach as the research methodology; the specific
approach was to interview experienced leaders and sole contributors. The leaders represented
different levels from various organizations, industries, and functions. These leaders were also
followers and did not hold the senior-most position in their organizations. The sole contributors
also had substantial leadership experience as well as significant exposure to leadership.
Individuals who met this study’s definition of “leader” held several different titles, including
project leads, managers, directors, vice presidents, and partners. Sole contributors included
internal advisors and consultants with leadership experience. These participants were selected
using non-probability, convenience sampling (Pazzaglia et al., 2016) from my existing personal
and professional network. The network included clients, former clients and colleagues,
professional service consultants, and colleagues from this Ed.D. program.
Summary of Findings
The findings began with general constructs that emerged from the data analysis to
establish a foundation for the remaining discoveries. They are organized in a manner consistent
79
with the Burke-Litwin model and the conceptual framework. They begin with the external and
internal factors that contribute to or detract from leader compassion. They conclude with the
impact of compassionate leader behavior on the individuals and the organization.
General Constructs Emerging From Data Analysis
Participants revealed that acts of compassion are commonplace in their organizations;
however, the term “compassion” does not appear to be generally applied in most of their
organizations outside of healthcare. The interviewees defined compassion mainly as empathy,
coupled with action, which is a simplified version of the definitions in the literature. This
definition is consistent with some training programs such as the Search Inside Yourself Program
developed at Google (Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute, 2020). The interviews further
uncovered that empathy and care are becoming more prevalent and overt within some
organizations, as also represented by mainstream and business publications (Brower, 2021;
Schwantes, 2021). According to the participants and consistent with the literature (Dutton et al.,
2014; Kanov et al., 2004, 2017; Worline & Dutton, 2017b), compassion in organizations is most
frequently demonstrated as providing support or care to one’s employees, colleagues, clients, and
business partners.
The terms “compassion” and “suffering” were not used in the organizations represented
by the participants outside of healthcare. While leadership includes frequent exposure to
emotions, some organizations can be uncomfortable with emotions or boundaries on the
acceptable behaviors or terms used in the workplace (Wolf et al., 2016). “Compassion” and
“suffering” appear to be outside those boundaries, based on the interviews. The accepted
scholarly definitions of compassion, which include multiple-step processes, are helpful for
training purposes but may not be the most effective for communicating corporate values and
80
principles. Also, recent literature (Shuck et al., 2019) delineated accountability as an attribute of
compassionate leaders. The participants who commented on accountability during their
interviews stressed it as an attribute of effective compassionate leaders. While the literature
includes several studies that indicate that women tend to be more compassionate (Addiss, 2022),
this theme did not emerge during this study.
Factors That Influence Compassionate Leadership
Three themes emerged from this study’s data analysis and are organized in accordance
with the conceptual framework. The external and internal factors influencing compassionate
leader behavior for the participants were as diverse as the interviewees. The impact of COVID-
19 inspired leaders to behave more compassionately with their staff, while polarization in
society, mainly related to politics and science, both challenged and enhanced their exhibition of
compassion. Some participants reported that one’s family, spiritual path, and previous
experiences with others exhibiting a lack of compassion positively influenced their
demonstration of compassion to others in the workplace.
The participants reported senior and work unit leadership as the most influential internal
factor guiding compassion. They also conveyed culture and work unit climate, which are greatly
affected by leaders, as highly instrumental in predisposing them to compassionate behavior.
Assessing the unique needs and values of their staff facilitated more meaningful displays of
compassion to individuals.
Theme 1: COVID-19 and Polarization in Society Viewed As the Most Impactful External
Factors to Compassion in Organizations
According to several participants, COVID-19 continued to impact organizations and, in
most cases, favorably instigate leader compassion, primarily caused by challenges in employees’
81
personal lives. Six participants highlighted that COVID-19 has resulted in organizational
challenges related to transitioning to remote work and the subsequent return to the workplace, as
well as employee shortages and disengagement. Recent literature has highlighted that both these
factors demonstrate the lack of compassion in society (Addiss et al., 2022). While a few
participants shared this perspective and considered this an adverse influence on their behavior,
more participants considered these external factors to be the impetus for them to lead more
compassionately.
Theme 2: Leadership Appears to Be the Most Important Internal Factor to Compassion in
Organizations
Ten participants, without prompting, identified that the greatest influence for
compassionate behavior in the workplace was leadership. Upon follow-up, all but one stated that
the work unit leader had the most significant impact on the work unit climate. The participants
concluded that work unit and senior leaders are the most significant internal factors influencing
compassionate leader behavior in the workplace; the organization’s culture was also deemed
significant to compassionate leadership. This finding is consistent with the literature on
compassion which represents that leaders have outsized roles (Worline & Dutton, 2017b), as
well as the literature on leadership (Burke, 2018).
Theme 3: An Individualized Approach Is Advisable for Compassion to Be Effective
All 14 participants stressed that getting to know their staff as individuals was essential to
their ability to lead, to provide basic needs to their staff, to understand their values, and
ultimately, to exhibit meaningful compassion toward them. The participants expressed that
employees have basic human needs that need to be filled in the workplace, including the need to
feel safe (cited by three), be seen (two), be heard (two), and feel valued as people (three) at work.
82
Shuck et al. (2019) and Worline and Dutton (2017b) make reference to the “felt presence” of
leaders, which facilitates employees’ sense of safety and value.
For a leader to meet the employee’s needs effectively, they must understand what would
make an individual staff member feel safe, seen, heard, and valued. Required formal feedback
sessions (cited by four), informal outreach, and checking in with employees (four) facilitated
obtaining this individual information. The compassion literature does not stress the need for this
individual assessment, albeit it is more than implied. Driver (2007) cited that a primary source of
employee distress occurs when the individual needs and values of the employee clash with those
of the organization. The Burke-Litwin model (Burke, 2018) includes a component of individual
needs and values on par with the other transactional factors of the model. This study’s finding is
consistent with this premise.
Impact of Leader Compassion
Two key themes emerged: compassionate leader behaviors likely facilitate improved
employee retention and engagement. These findings are particularly important given that they
address the most significant post-pandemic employee issues: the Great Resignation, which refers
to the large increase in employee turnover, and quiet quitting, which refers to the significant
reduction in employee engagement (Formica & Sfodera, 2022). The cost of employee turnover
and disengagement is significant to organizations. A more stable workforce (Rich et al., 2010),
coupled with enhanced employee engagement, has been shown to improve individual and
organizational performance (Saks & Gruman, 2014).
Theme 4: Leader Compassion Likely Facilitates Employee Retention
Compassion scholars make consistent reference to reduced turnover outcomes attributed
to compassion in the workplace (Dutton et al., 2014; Grant et al., 2008; Lilius et al., 2008). Ten
83
participants represented that compassionate leader behaviors likely enhance employee retention,
in concert with the literature. They posited that staff who work for compassionate leaders are
more likely to stay with an organization because they feel seen, heard, and valued. Six of the
interviewees cited specific examples where they have strongly considered resigning or did resign
from organizations due to lack of compassion in their leader. Three participants stated that
compassionate leadership is a key factor in their organization’s ability to attract high-quality
talent. The participants’ perspectives were in harmony with the current literature.
Theme 5: Leader Compassion Is Reported to Enhance Employee Engagement
The compassion literature has reflected that organizational compassion results in
enhanced organizational commitment (Dutton et al., 2014), a key component of employee
engagement. Recent studies have suggested a more comprehensive favorable impact on
employee engagement (Eldor, 2018; Shuck et al., 2019). Similarly, all 14 participants related
compassionate leadership behaviors with elements of employee engagement reported in the
literature, including motivation, effort, commitment, and satisfaction. Six participants reported
improvements in their own or a staff member’s performance. Three interviewees associated lack
of compassionate leader behavior with the state of disengagement known as “quiet quitting,” and
two linked the lack of compassion with adverse performance. The participants and literature
suggest that compassionate leadership improves employee engagement.
Implications
The implications for the study could be significant as the findings directly address the
two most impactful issues facing talent management in organizations: the
Great Resignation and quiet quitting. Organizations have been challenged with the costs of
employee turnover and lack of engagement for some time (Saks & Gruman, 2014); these are not
84
new issues to be addressed. However, given the magnitude experienced with COVID-19, it
behooves organizations to consider appropriate cost-effective solutions. It also encourages
compassion scholars to acknowledge that the language they employ may not generally resonate
within organizations. Their rich body of work might be more effective with the rebranding of
empathy in action as the participants and the Search Inside Yourself Program represented.
Recommendations for Practice
Three recommendations address key findings related to the lack of leader compassion.
The first is to form a cross-functional team to evaluate the role of compassion in the
organization. The second is to provide training to all leaders of people. The third is to align
leader performance metrics to enhance compassionate behavior in the organization.
Recommendation 1: Establish Cross-Functional Team to Evaluate Compassion’s Role
The initial recommendation is to establish a cross-functional team to determine the role
of compassion in a company’s strategy and culture and its benefits to the organization. The
interviews uncovered that there are many ways to incorporate compassion into an organization’s
culture. It could include leadership principles or core values. It could exclude the term
“compassion” and include the terms “empathy” or “care” if the message would be better received
in the organization. It could also include clarifying existing mission statements about trusted
partnerships to include that one of the most effective ways to build this trust is through empathy
and compassion.
The review should include an evaluation of the external environment, such as the impact
of COVID, the competition for a limited workforce, and the learning and development trends of
employee well-being and resilience. This approach is consistent with the Burke-Litwin model,
which begins with an assessment of the external influences on an organization (Burke, 2018).
85
Ultimately, the team would determine the scope of the initiative and propose a process to
incorporate compassion in leadership throughout the organization.
Cross-functional teams enhance diversity of thought as individual team members bring
different expertise and perspectives to the group. Those who may resist the overt role of
compassion in the workplace may be more open to its application if they see someone similar to
themselves represented on the team (Daspit et al., 2013). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
recommended beginning with the result, the strategy. The planning process begins at this level,
aligning the program with key organizational objectives and demonstrating the ultimate effect of
the program. Also, Burke and Litwin consider strategy, culture, and leadership to be
transformational factors of an organization (Burke, 2018).
The team can be formed by combining an application process and strategic recruiting to
ensure that the team has individuals from different functions, backgrounds, and levels of
leadership. The team would need to have a specific charter, and the team members would be
trained in the content recommended below to inform their work. They should be granted access
to senior leadership and empowered to make recommendations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016; Proehl, 1996).
Recommendation 2: Training for Organizational Leaders on Compassion
The second recommendation entails developing a training program making use of best-
practice learning and development modules available, including mindfulness, EI, and
compassion. Clark and Estes (2008) posited that training and motivational programs are, in
essence, efforts to transform a culture. The participants of this study emphasized the importance
of leadership and culture to compassionate leader behavior. Some participants made reference to
some leaders’ confusion when attempting to implement a more empathetic style of management.
86
The interviews affirmed that some leaders do not know how to motivate through connection
versus fear or even how to demonstrate empathy or compassion in the workplace. Emotional
intelligence, including empathy, is trainable (Goleman, 1995, Harms & Crede, 2010, Search
Inside Yourself Leadership Institute, 2020). The recommendations from the task force identified
in Recommendation 1 are likely to include intensive training on these matters. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) framework offers an effective four-level approach to developing the
program.
Teaching the compassion process will need to be a core element of any training. The first
part of the compassion process is the noticing of distress or an unmet need. Mindfulness has been
shown to improve self and situational awareness (Goleman, 1995). Luberto et al. (2017) posited
that “meditation can improve positive prosocial emotions and behaviors” (p. 708). The second
part of the compassion process is feeling; Paakkanen et al. (2020) summarized that emotional
training for managers enhances their ability to be compassionate. Further, EI, which includes
empathy (the feeling part of the process), has been shown to correlate with enhanced leadership
skills, in general (Walter et al., 2012), and with improved employee retention and engagement,
specifically (Palmer & Gignac, 2012). Also, Bockler et al. (2018) have demonstrated the
effectiveness of compassion-based training that includes elements of content, discussion, dyad
work, and meditation. These address the remaining sub-processes of sensemaking and acting.
Internal and external content experts should be utilized in the development and execution of the
program.
The training should be required for all leaders of people in the organization and included
as a component of future leadership development programs. The most senior leaders should be
trained first and serve as executive sponsors of future training programs as the programs are
87
rolled out though the organization. The visibility of senior management endorsement will
validate the importance of compassion in the organization. Further, senior leaders could offer
personal and practical perspectives on the challenges and benefits of enhancing compassion in
the organization to the new trainees, which will reinforce the applicability of the training
(Schein, 2017).
Recommendation 3: Align Performance Metrics
Participants whose organizations did have performance metrics confirmed their
importance to the organization, even if they were not the most significant factor driving their
compassionate behavior. Individual performance metrics should be changed to support the
compassion training initiative, and leader compensation must be tied to these revised metrics
(including employee turnover, engagement). Kim et al. (2022) confirmed the positive
relationship between incentives and performance; therefore, the incentives should provide the
impetus for compassionate leadership. The use of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016)
framework is likely to attract stakeholder support as a result of its alignment with organizational
objectives and strong accountability mechanisms embedded throughout the process in the form
of continuous and appropriate assessments. Performance metrics are also a key component of the
Burke-Litwin (Burke, 2018) framework to ensure desired organizational change.
The organization should establish a baseline for employee turnover and engagement by
having employees complete short but effective assessments. The task force should develop
SMART objectives (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) for improvements in employee turnover
and engagement. Senior leadership should approve these and communicate them to the
organization. Further, any additional organizational improvements desired from the initiative
should be translated to SMART objectives to be measured in a visible scorecard or dashboard. A
88
well-designed scorecard or dashboard can communicate progress toward goals broadly and
efficiently (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In addition, all leaders of people should have their
staff complete a behavior-based EI questionnaire such as the Genos Emotional Intelligence
Assessment for them. This assessment includes questions related to the compassion sub-
processes of noticing, feeling, sense making, and acting (Dutton et al., 2014). Personal
development plans should be developed in conjunction with the leader’s direct manager and
leadership coaches where appropriate.
Limitations and Delimitations
A study’s limitations are dynamics that may influence its outcomes. They can be
identified proactively and throughout the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Delimitations
are considerations determined by the researcher to provide boundaries for the study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
The primary limitations of this study include the small sample, the participants’ levels of
experience, the bias possibly demonstrated by the participants, and the inability to verify the
data. The sample of 14 was small, given the breadth of industries and functions represented,
adding to the difficulty in identifying trends and themes. The participants’ average length of
professional experience was 30 years, with only three participants with 15 or fewer years of
experience. Thus, the perspectives of younger audiences in the findings were limited. The intent
was to have a broad representation of functions. While this appears to have been achieved, it
should be noted that only two participants had technical backgrounds in engineering. While there
was a prevalence of technology, aerospace, and aviation representatives, they did not represent
the more technical professions, such as IT, and only one person in general leadership had a
finance background. While effort was made to attract some participants with negative views of
89
compassion, this was not achieved. Their absence skewed the findings to only individuals who
were open to discussing the topic. Also, three of the participants had exposure to the Search
Inside Yourself Program, which includes compassionate leadership. The qualitative approach
also limited the ability to triangulate and verify the themes identified.
The primary delimitations for this study are those established in the conceptual
framework: the participant selection. While the interview protocol included very broad questions
about the factors that impact compassionate leadership to identify if the conceptual framework
and the literature had omitted any key factors, the interview emphasized those factors in the
conceptual framework. The protocol only included questions related to compassion for others,
excluding questions related to self-compassion. The decision to restrict participants to leaders
who were also followers, as well as sole contributors who had leadership experience and
significant current exposure to leadership, offered a parameter to capture the perspective of both
leaders and followers with the same interviewees.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study of compassion in organizations, while increasing, is still nascent and light. The
compassion researchers have identified a plethora of future research to advance the field. The
most impactful recommendations related to organizations include providing more systematic,
quantitative research as well as performing research that emphasizes training modalities and
metrics. Dutton et al. (2014) recommended “more systematic research that considers … the
short-term and long-term impacts of compassion on job attitudes (e.g., engagement, thriving);
job behaviors (e.g., prosocial behaviors, creativity, ethical actions); [and] job performance” (p.
293). These recommendations remain outstanding and relevant, as many of the studies are
qualitative. The business community would likely be more receptive to larger quantitative
90
studies. Also, additional studies on compassion training and interventions (Addiss et al., 2022)
would facilitate more targeted programs in organizations. Research emphasizing compassion
metrics would enable improved evaluation and feedback to leaders (Dutton et al., 2014).
Conclusion
The study was designed to determine factors that enable or disable compassionate
behaviors in the workplace and the impact of compassionate leader behaviors on individuals and
on the organization. The external factors impacting compassionate leadership were not new
information, given the proximity of the timing to the pandemic and the political climate in the
world. This study well documented and validated the importance of leadership as the dominant
internal factor impacting other leaders to demonstrate compassionate behaviors in the workplace.
However, this study has identified that while trends toward more empathetic and caring
leadership continue, some organizations have not supported their leaders with training and
aligned metrics to achieve their new leadership principles and values. The recommendations
presented in this study will be key to their organizational success if they want to reap the benefits
of reduced turnover and enhanced engagement, the two largest issues facing talent management
in organizations today. Compassionate leaders can create a much-needed healing atmosphere in
their workplaces which will, in turn, result in retain their top employees; enhance their
satisfaction; and elevating their performance.
91
References
Addiss, D.G., Richards, A., Adiabu, S., Horwath, E., Leruth, S., Graham, A. L. and Buesseler, H.
(2022). Epidemiology of compassion: A literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13,
992705. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992705
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., Ickovics J. R., (2000). Relationship of subjective and
objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data
in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–92.
Antoni, A., Reinecke, J., Fotaki, M. (2020). Caring or not caring for coworkers? An empirical
exploration of the dilemma of care allocation in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly
30(4), 447–485 https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2020.1
Atkins, P. W. B., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Understanding individual compassion in organizations:
The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. The Academy of Management
Review, 37(4), 524–546. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0490
Bagozzi, R. P., & Verbeke, W. J. M. I. (2012). Exploring the minds of managers: Insights from
three neuroscience studies. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 138–149). Oxford University Press.
Baker, W. (2020). The leader’s CHS role: Chief help seeker. Leader to Leader, Spring 2020, 52–
57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20495
Baldoni, J. (2020, August 20). How empathy defines Joe Biden. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbaldoni/2020/08/20/how-empathy-defines-joe-
biden/?sh=c6d212475cf4
92
Basran, J., Pires, C., Matos, M., McEwan, K., & Gilbert, K. (2019). Styles of leadership, fears of
compassion, and competing to avoid inferiority. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2460.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02460
Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J.
Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–15). MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0002
Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can
feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656–1666.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237647
Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional
antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.93.1.65
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively
distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of
Personality, 55(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x
Bazerman, M. (2014). The power of noticing: What the best leaders see. Simon & Schuster.
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Beveridge, A. J. (2012). Coaching with compassion: Inspiring
health, well-being, and development in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 49(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312462236
93
Brower, T. (2021, September 19). Empathy is the most important leadership skill according to
research. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tracybrower/2021/09/19/empathy-is-the-
most-important-leadership-skill-according-to-research/?sh=1782eeba3dc5
Burke, W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Cameron, K., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between organizational
virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766–790.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260209
Cameron, K., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of positive organizational
scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 731–739.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260207
Cameron, K., Mora, C., Leutscher, T., & Calarco, M. (2011). Effects of positive practices on
organizational effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 266–308.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310395514
Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2012). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational
scholarship. Oxford University Press.
Caza, B. B., & Caza, A. (2008). Positive organizational scholarship: A critical theory
perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(1), 21–33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492607305907
Chugh, D. (2004). Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: Why
milliseconds matter. Social Justice Research, 17, 203–222.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027410.26010.40
Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. (2007). Bounded awareness: What you fail to see can hurt you.
Mind & Society, 6, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-006-0020-4
94
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee
engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of
Management, 38(5), 1550–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415252
Collins, M., & Jackson, M. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How
attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and
destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 386–401.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.005 1048-9843
Cooper, R. K. & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and
organizations. Penguin Putnam.
Cote, R. (2018). Dark side leaders: Are their intentions benign or toxic? Journal of Leadership,
Accountability, and Ethics, 15(2), 42–65. https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v15i2.643
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Darley, J. M., & Batson, D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and
dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 27, 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034449
Daspit, J., Justice Tillman, C., Boyd, N.G., & Mckee, V. (2013). Cross‐functional team
effectiveness: An examination of internal team environment, shared leadership, and
cohesion influences. Team Performance Management, 19(1/2), 34–56.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527591311312088
Dawson, K., O’Brien, K., & Beehr, T. (2016). The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand–
control–support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 37, 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2049
95
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
De Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625
Donella, L. (2019, July 18). Compassion means business at LinkedIn. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laureldonnellan/2019/07/18/compassion-means-business-
at-linkedin/?sh=3005b50e7af8
Driver, M. (2007). Meaning and suffering in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 20, 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710779063
Duhigg, C. (2016, February 28). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team.
The New York Times Magazine. www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-
learned-from-itsquest-to-build-the-perfect-team Depue
Dutton, J. E., Workman, K. M., & Hardin, A. E. (2014). Compassion at work. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 277–304.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091221
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost P. J., & Lilius J. M. (2006). Explaining compassion
organizing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 59–96.
https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.1.59
Edmonson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
96
Ekman, P. (2010). Darwin’s compassionate view of human nature. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 303(6), 557–558. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.101
Ekman, P. (2016). What scientists who study emotion agree about. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 11(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615596992
Eldor, L. (2018). Public service sector: The compassionate workplace—the effect of compassion
and stress on employee engagement, burnout, and performance. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 86–103.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux028
Formica, S. & Sfodera, F. (2022) The great resignation and quiet quitting paradigm shifts: An
overview of current situation and future research directions. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 31:8, 899-907.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2022.2136601
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Kinger, R., Pezeshkhan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017).
Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70,
113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Frost, P. J. (1999). Why compassion counts! Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2), 128–133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269982004
Frost, P. J. (2003). Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and
conflict. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Frost, P. J., Dutton, J. E., Maitlis, S., Lilius, J. M., Kanov, J. M., & Worline, M. C. (2006).
Seeing organizations differently: Three lenses on compassion. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy,
T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd
ed., pp. 843–866). Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n31
97
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives
not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2006.01824.x
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations, 53(8), Article 1027.
Gignac, G. (2010). Seven-factor model of emotional intelligence as measured by Genos EI: A
confirmatory factor analytic investigation based on self- and rater-report data. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 209–316. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-
57579/a000041
Gilbert, P. (2017). Compassion concepts, research and applications. (P. Gilbert, Ed.). Routledge
Taylor and Francis.
Gilbert, P., & Basran, J. (2019). The evolution of prosocial and antisocial competitive behavior
and the emergence of prosocial and antisocial leadership styles. Frontiers in Psychology,
10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00610
Gilbert, P., Basran, J., MacArthur, M., & Kirby, J. N. (2019). Differences in the semantics of
prosocial words: An exploration of compassion and kindness. Mindfulness, 10, 2259–
2271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01191-x
Gilbert, P., Catarino, F., Duarte, C., Matos, M., Kolts, R., Stubbs, J., Ceresatto, L., Duarte, J.,
Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Basran, J. (2017). The development of compassionate engagement
and action scales for self and others. Journal of Compassionate Health Care, 4(4).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40639-017-0033-3
98
Gilbert, T., & Doolan, M. (2019). The neuroscience of compassion: How compassionate micro
skills can build psychological safety for effective group work. Development and Learning
in Organizations, 33(4), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-04-2019-0082
Gill, R. (2002). Change management—Or change leadership? Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/714023845
Goetz, J., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and
empirical review. Psychological Bulletin American Psychological Association, 136(3),
351–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807351
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Dell.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. Bantam Dell.
Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. (2017, February 6). Emotional intelligence has 12 elements. Which
do you need to work on? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/02/emotional-
intelligence-has-12-elements-which-do-you-need-to-work-on
Gu, J., Cavanaugh, K., Baer, R., & Strauss, C. (2017). An empirical examination of the factor
structure of compassion. PLOS One, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172471
Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 5–
17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350894
Harms, P. D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W. (2017). Leadership and stress: A
meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 178–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.006
99
Hassard, J., Teoh, K. R. H., Visockaite, G., Dewe, P., Cox, T. (2018). The cost of work-related
stress to society: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
23(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000069
Hogan, R., & Hogan, L. (2014). Thought leadership yearbook.
https://www.hoganassessments.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/Hogan_TL_Yearbook_14.pdf
Hopkins, J. C., & Figaro, K. A. (2021). The great resignation: An argument for hybrid
leadership. International Journal of Business and Management Research (IJBMR), 9(4),
393–400. https://doi.org/10.37391/IJBMR.090402
Hunkins, A. (2021, May 16). Essential empathy: three ways to improve presence. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alainhunkins/2021/05/16/essential-empathy-3-ways-to-
improve-presence/?sh=6d468fcd2eb2&fbclid=IwAR2HHEOLSOXwzMZ-zSl-
NSBdTjIB5veMBy-ngFpwbmzq3ENCDhsi5nOeeIE
Jazaieri, H., & Rock, M. (2021). Putting compassion to work: Compassion as a tool for
navigating challenging workplace relationships. Mindfulness, 12, 2552–2558.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-021-01695-5
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living. Delta Publishing.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kanov, J., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. M. (2004). Compassion
in organizational life. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 808–827.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260211
100
Kanov, J., Powley, E. H., & Walshe, N. D. (2017). Is it ok to care? How compassion falters and
is courageously accomplished in the midst of uncertainty. Human Relations, 70(6), 751–
777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716673144
Keltner, D., Kogan, A., Piff, P. K., & Saturn, S. R. (2014). The sociocultural appraisals, values,
and emotions (SAVE) framework of prosociality: Core processes from gene to meme.
Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 425–460. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
010213-115054
Kenny, J., Larner, J., & Lewis-Beck, M. (2021). Candidate authenticity and the Iowa Caucus.
Electoral Studies, 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102390
Kim, J.H., Gerhart, B., Fang, M. (2022). Do Financial Incentives Help or Harm Performance in
Interesting Tasks? Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(1), 153-167.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000851
Kim, L. (2019, September 23). Get to know LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner: 10 facts you haven’t
Heard. Inc. https://www.inc.com/larry-kim/get-to-know-linkedin-ceo-jeff-weiner-10-
facts-you-havent-heard.html
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ADT Press.
Klimecki, O., & Singer, T. (2011). Empathic distress fatigue rather than compassion fatigue?
Integrating findings from empathy research in psychology and social neuroscience. In B.
Oakley, A. Knafo, G. Madhavan, & D. S. Wilson (Eds.), Pathological altruism (pp. 368–
383). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780199738571.003.0253
101
Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: Effects
of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19(1),
42–58. http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. The American Psychologist, 46(4),
352–367. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.46.4.352
Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Hanig, S., & Keeping, L. M. (2016). Why are
abusive supervisors abusive? A dual system self-control model. Academy of Management
Journal, 59(4), 1385–1406. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0651
Lilius, J. M., Kanov, J. M., Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., & Maitlis, S. (2012). Compassion
revealed: What we know about compassion at work (and where we need to know more).
In K. S. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational
scholarship, (pp. 273–287). Oxford University Press.
Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Kanov, J. M., & Maitlis, S. (2011). Understanding
compassion capability. Human Resources, 64(7), 873–899.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710396250
Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Maitlis, S., Kanov, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Frost, P. (2008). The
contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29, 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.508
Liu, M., & Wang, C. (2010). Explaining the influence of anger and compassion on negotiators’
interaction goals: An assessment of trust and distrust as two distinct mediators.
Communication Research, 37(4), 443–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362681
Livne‑Tarandach, R., Steckler, E., Leigh, J., & Wheeler‑Smith, S. (2021). Cultivating
organizations as healing spaces: A typology for responding to suffering and advancing
102
social justice. Humanistic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-021-
00112-2
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage. Society
for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1, 1–12.
Long, E. C., & Christian, M. S. (2015). Mindfulness buffers retaliatory responses to injustice: A
regulatory approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1409–1422.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl00 00019
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695–706.
Madden, L. T., Duchon, D., Madden, T. M., & Plowman, D. A. (2012). Emergent organizational
capacity for compassion. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 689–708.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0424
Maitlis, S., Vogus, T. J., & Lawrence, T. B. (2013). Sensemaking and emotion in organizations.
Organizational Psychology Review, 3(3), 222–247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613489062
Marcy, R. T. (2015). Breaking mental models as a form of creative destruction: The role of
leader cognition in radical social innovations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 370–385.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.004
Martin, D., Seppala, E., Heineberg, Y., Rossomando, T., Doty, J., Zimbardo, P., Shiue, T. T.,
Berger, R., & Zhou, Y. Y. (2015). Multiple facets of compassion: The impact of social
dominance orientation and economic systems justification. Journal of Business Ethics,
129, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2157-0
103
McCleskey, J. (2012). Emotional intelligence and leadership: A review of the progress,
controversy, and criticism. Organization and Management, 22(1), 76-93.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-03-2012-0568
McKenna, B., Rooney, D., & Boal, K. B. (2009). Wisdom principles as a meta-theoretical basis
for evaluating leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 177–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.013
Melwani, S., Mueller, J. S., & Overbeck, J. R. (2012). Looking down: The influence of contempt
and compassion on emergent leadership categorizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97, 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030074
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mumford, M. D., Watts, L. L., & Bartlow, P. J. (2015). Leader cognition: Approaches and
findings The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 301–306.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.0051048-9843
Nolan, M. T., Diefendorff, J., Erickson, R. J., & Lee. M. T. (2022). Psychological compassion
climate: Examining the nomological network of perceptions of work group compassion.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103688
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
Palmer, B. R., & Gignac, G. (2012). The impact of emotionally intelligent leadership on talent
retention, discretionary effort and employment brand. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 44(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851211193372
Pavlovich, K. & Krahnke, K. (2012). Empathy, connectedness and organisation, Journal of
Business Ethics, 105, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0961-3
104
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3). (REL 2016-160). U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/
Peters, T. (1986). Competition and compassion. California Management Review, 28(4), 11–26.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-
run companies. Harper & Row.
Powley, Ε. H., & Piderit, S. K. 2008. Tending wounds: Elements of the organizational healing
process. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 134–149.
Preckel, K., Kanske, P., & Singer, T. (2018). On the interaction of social affect and cognition:
Empathy, compassion and theory of mind. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19,
1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.010 2352-1546/ã 2017
Proehl, R.A. (1996). Enhancing the effectiveness of cross‐functional teams. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 17(5), pp. 3-10.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739610127450
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership (pp. 251–256.) Gallup, Inc.
Reb, J., Chaturvedi, S., Narayanan, J., & Kudesia, R. (2018). Leader mindfulness and employee
performance: A sequential mediation model of LMX quality, interpersonal justice, and
employee stress. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3927-x
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
Riess, H. (2017). The science of empathy. Journal of Patient Experience, 4(2), 74–77.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373517699267
105
Rynes, S., Bartunek, J. M., Dutton, J., & Margolis, J. D. (2012). Introduction to special topic
forum —Care and compassion through an organizational lens: Opening up new
possibilities. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 503–523.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0124
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 156–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2014). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its
constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 36, S6–S32. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1937
Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed). Jossey-Bass.
Schwantes, M. (2021). Want to be a better leader? The trick is to embrace empathy (Here’s how
to do it). Inc. https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/want-to-be-a-better-leader-trick-is-
to-embrace-empathy-heres-how-to-do-
it.html?fbclid=IwAR3uAZLX1MJbu97tM3PNNDdQulR3AemQd8_CUmxMrs9oNx4jM
2eubw3jhU8
Schyns, B., Schilling, J. (2012). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of
destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership quarterly, 24(1), 138–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute (2020). Program teacher guide for SIY online
Program version 2.9 [Unpublished Manuscript].
106
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Serban, A., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S., Kahai, S. S., Hao, C., & McHugh, K. A. (2015).
Leadership emergence in face-to-face and virtual teams: A multi-level model with agent-
based simulations, quasi-experimental and experimental tests. The Leadership Quarterly,
26, 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.006
Shuck, B., Alagaraja, M., Immekus, J., Cumberland, D., & Honeycutt-Elliott, M. (2019). Does
compassion matter in leadership? A two-stage sequential equal status mixed method
exploratory study of compassionate leader behavior and connections to performance in
human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30, 537–564.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21369
Shuck, B., Alagaraja, M., Rose, K., Owen, J., Osam, K., & Bergman, M. (2017). The health-
related upside of employee engagement: Exploratory evidence and implications for
theory and practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 165–178.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21246
Simpson, A. V., Clegg, S., & Pitsis, T. (2014a). “I used to care but things have changed”: A
genealogy of compassion in organizational theory. Journal of Management Inquiry,
23(4), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614521895
Simpson, A. V., Clegg, S., & Pitsis, T. (2014b). Normal compassion: A framework for
compassionate decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(4), 473–491.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1831-y
Simpson, A. V., Rego, A., Berti, M., Clegg, S., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2021). Theorizing
compassionate leadership from the case of Jacinda Ardern: Legitimacy, paradox and
107
resource conservation. Leadership, 0(0), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211055291
Sprecher, S., Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 629–651.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056439
Strauss, C., Taylor, B. C., Gua, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F., & Cavanagh, K. (2016).
What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures.
Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004
Sullivan, S. E. & Bhagat, R. S. (1992). Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job
performance: where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 18(2), 353.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J.C., Breaux, D.M., Geider, S., Hu, C., Hua, W. (2009) Abusive supervision,
intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 156–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004
Tsui, A. S. (2013). On compassion scholarship: Why should we care? Academy of Management
Review, 38(2), 167–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0408 2012
Vaughn, D., Savjani, R. R., Cohen, M.S., & Eagleman, D. M. (2018). Empathic neural responses
predict group allegiance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00302
Walter, F., Humphrey, R. H., & Cole, M. S. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of
leadership or folderol? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 45–59.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2011.59198449
108
Walter, F., Humphrey, R. H., & Cole, M.S. (2012). Unleashing leadership potential: Toward an
evidence-based management of emotional intelligence. Organizational Dynamics, 41,
212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.03.002
Wee, E. X. M., & Fehr, R. (2021). Compassion during difficult times: Team compassion
behavior, suffering, supervisory dependence, and employee voice during COVID-19.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(12), 1805–1820. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001001
Wehner, P. (2020, November 2). Biden may be just the person America needs: A president
should connect with who we are, but also make us better than who we are. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/joe-bidens-superpower/616957/
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Weiner, J. (2018) How compassion builds better companies. Knowledge at Wharton.
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/linkedin-ceo-how-compassion-can-build-a-
better-company/
Wolf, E. B., Lee, J. J., Sah, S., & Brooks, A. W. (2016). Managing perceptions of distress at
work: Reframing emotion as passion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 137, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.07.003
Worline, M. C., & Dutton, J. E. (2017a). Awakening compassion at work. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Worline, M. C., & Dutton, J. E. (2017b). How leaders shape compassion processes in
organizations. In E. M. Seppälä, E. Simon-Thomas, S. L. Brown, & M. C. Worline
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compassion science (pp. 435–456). Oxford University
Press.
109
Yuan, Z., Ye, Z., & Zhong, M. (2021). Plug back into work, safely: Job reattachment, leader
safety commitment, and job engagement in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 106(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000860
Zaczkiewicz, A. (2022, January 28). Why the C-suite embraces empathy as a key leadership
approach. Women’s Wear Daily. https://wwd.com/business-news/business-
features/empathy-leadership-report-1235053559/
Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1608–1647.
https://doi.org//10.1037/a0037679
110
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
measurement
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response
options (if
close-
ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
How much work
experience do you
have?
Closed – Years – –
How much leadership
experience do you
have?
Closed – Years – –
What industry? Open – – –
Are you currently in a
leadership role? What
is your title?
If not in a leadership
role, what is your
exposure to
leadership?
Closed – Yes, no – –
What is the size of your
team?
Closed – Number – –
How would you define
compassion?
Open – – – –
How does it apply it to
leadership?
Open – – – –
What is the general
perception of
compassionate leaders
in your organization?
Open – – – –
Describe the last time
you observed a leader
engaging in
compassionate
Open – – RQ1
RQ2
Interdependencies
of factors,
individual and
111
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
measurement
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response
options (if
close-
ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
behavior. What are
your
thoughts/observations?
What was the result of
the behavior on you
and others?
Organization?
organizational
performance
Describe a time you
demonstrated, if ever,
compassionate
behavior towards your
staff. What was the
situation? What was
the result of the
behavior on the
employee?
Organization?
Open – – RQ1
RQ2
Interdependencies
of factors,
individual and
organizational
performance
Tell me about a recent
event, if any, that
encouraged you to
behave more
compassionately.
What about less
compassionately?
Open – – RQ1 Interdependencies
of factors
What external influences
have encouraged you
to be more
compassionate
towards your staff?
Less compassionate?
Open – – RQ1
Interdependencies
of factors
What influences within
the organization make
you more comfortable
about exhibiting
Open – – RQ1
Interdependencies
of factors
112
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
measurement
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response
options (if
close-
ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
compassionate
behavior?
Please rate the influence
of the following
factors on your ability
to exercise
compassionate leader
behavior.
Please respond:
significant/ moderate/
insignificant?
Senior leadership
mission/strategy
culture
systems
management practices
Work unit climate
Time pressures/
constraints
Closed – Significant,
moderate,
insignificant
RQ1
Interdependencies
of factors
Is it common for you to
assess the needs and
values of your staff?
How does this impact
your ability to lead
compassionately?
Open – – RQ1
Interdependencies
of factors
How does
compassionate leader
behavior enhance or
detract from your
performance, why?
Open – – RQ2 Individual
performance
How does
compassionate leader
behavior enhance or
detract from
Open – – RQ2 Organizational
performance
113
Question Open
or
closed?
Level of
measurement
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response
options (if
close-
ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
organizational
performance, why?
Provide an example, if
you can think of one,
when compassionate
leader behavior was of
detriment to the
organization? If so,
what was the
situation? How was it
of consequence to the
organization?
Open – – RQ2 Organizational
performance
Note. Items left blank above indicate that the response does not apply.
114
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Compassionate Leadership: A Strategy for Organizational Success
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Ana Maria Dorrance
FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer Phillips, D.L.S.
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to determine the factors that contribute to or detract from
compassionate leader behaviors as well as their impact on individual and organizational
performance. I hope to learn the factors that enable and prohibit compassionate leader behaviors
in the workplace, as well as the impact on individual and organizational performance. You are
invited as a possible participant because you are a leader or have significant exposure to
leadership in your organization.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you choose to participate, you will be contacted to schedule the interview where I will ask
questions about compassionate leadership, the contributing factors, and the impact on the
organization. Your responses will remain completely anonymous and will not be shared with
your organization. The interviews will be recorded only with your permission to do so.
115
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. Only the researcher, research assistants and Genos International, which
is the company that administers and stores the survey information, will have access to the
assessment data.
Interview transcripts will be provided to all participants for their review and editing. Pseudonyms
will be given to all interview participants; only the researcher will have access to the original
names of the interviewees and original recordings. The recordings will be destroyed upon
completion of the study. General titles, size of organization, and industry may be used in the
final report only if they are broad enough to hide the identity of the participant or if explicit
consent has been granted by the interviewee.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Ana Maria Dorrance
(adorranc@usc.edu).
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Lack of leader compassion in the workplace, exemplified by unskillful responses to employee distress, may adversely affect individual and organizational performance. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and validate the factors that contribute to and detract from leaders demonstrating compassion in the workplace, as well as the impact of compassionate leader behavior on individual and organizational performance. This field-based study’s conceptual framework, based on the Burke-Litwin model, guided the design of the interview protocol. The 14 participants were leaders of people who were also followers and sole contributors with leadership experience at various levels and significant exposure to leadership in various occupations and industries. They represented that the main external factors influencing compassionate leadership were COVID-19 and its effects, as well as the extreme polarization of views in society. Leadership was the main factor internal to the organization that impacted compassionate behavior in the workplace. The participants also reflected that an individualized approach was necessary in order for compassion to be effectively received by subordinates. They represented that the main impacts of compassionate leader behavior were enhanced employee retention and engagement. These are two key issues faced by organizations in the form of the Great Resignation and quiet quitting. Reduced turnover and enhanced engagement have been shown to improve individual and organizational performance. Recommendations for future research include more large, systematized, quantitative research associated with desired organizational outcomes. Also, research related to compassion metrics and training modalities would contribute to the application of compassion in organizations.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Organizational model of individuation and employee retention
PDF
Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders
PDF
Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem
PDF
The organizational impacts of executive technology leadership role proliferation
PDF
Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis
PDF
Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study
PDF
Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study
PDF
Life sciences executive leadership’s perspective on organizational change
PDF
Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges
PDF
Marginalization of African Americans in Managerial Leadership: The Barriers to Success
PDF
How a leader's behaviors mitigate barriers encountered during lean implementation in administrative areas: a phenomenological study
PDF
Gender barriers towards women on the career path and within executive leadership
PDF
Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs
PDF
Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success
PDF
Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis
PDF
Secrets from the C-suite: women leaders on the bridging gap
PDF
Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis
PDF
COVID-19's impact on Christian cross-cultural workers
PDF
School district leadership and the motherhood penalty
Asset Metadata
Creator
Dorrance, Ana Maria
(author)
Core Title
Compassionate leadership: a strategy for organizational success
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2023-05
Publication Date
02/01/2023
Defense Date
01/19/2023
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
compassionate leadership,employee engagement,employee retention,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Phillips, Jennifer L. (
committee chair
), Datta, Monique C. (
committee member
), Foulk, Susanne M. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
adorranc@usc.edu,amdorrance@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112724688
Unique identifier
UC112724688
Identifier
etd-DorranceAn-11459.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-DorranceAn-11459
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Dorrance, Ana Maria
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20230206-usctheses-batch-1006
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
compassionate leadership
employee engagement
employee retention