The spiritual leadership models are evaluated in terms of the first criterion. This pertains to the spiritual leadership model reflecting the key characteristics of spiritual leadership.
Being directed by a higher purpose
All the spiritual leadership models, with the exception of the Memorial Hermann’s Spiritual Leadership Model, refer to the spiritual leadership principle of realising a higher purpose as a core component of the model. However, Fairholm, Ferguson and Milliman, as well as Covey, refer to the notion of developing vision instead of attaining a higher purpose. Although there is a conceptual difference between vision and purpose, Covey (2004) and Ferguson and Milliman (2008) maintain that vision contributes to bringing meaning and purpose.
The models of Zohar and Marshall (2004), Cashman (1998), Fry (2005b), Parameshwar (2005) and Benefiel (2005) all perceive higher purpose as guiding behaviour and assisting leaders to transcend their egos. Accordingly, higher purpose is closely related to service (Zohar and Marshall, 2004; Fry, 2005b).
Operating from a set of core positive values and principles
Most of the spiritual leadership models are premised on a set of core values or principles which are described as universal (Zohar and Marshall, 2004:87); moral and ethical (Wolf, 2004:23); and good and true (Benefiel, 2005:741). This, in turn, alludes to the values of spiritual leadership as being virtuous and positive in nature. Cashman’s Leadership from the Inside Out is the only model that does not fully address this spiritual leadership characteristic of operating from core positive values. In addition, although Cashman (1998:98) posits that Change Mastery involves the alignment of one’s purpose and values, he does not specify that a leader’s values should be based on positive or virtuous values.
It would appear that the most significant weakness among all the models is that there is marginal consensus on the values that a spiritual leader should possess. However, after further analysis, a common trend does emerge, and, apart from Parameshwar’s Spiritual Leadership Model on Ego-transcendence, the other
models all reflect the common values of either integrity or ethics. Although Benefiel’s (2005:741) Spiritual Leadership Model for Organisational Transformation does not specify explicit values, the ethical theme of values is still reflected in this model as it does state that the values should be ethically based. Thus, the moral and ethical nature of the values forms a golden thread throughout these models. It can therefore be surmised that these spiritual leadership models are founded on values that are both virtuous and positively based.
Values constitute a significant factor in the spiritual leadership models in spite of their emphasising different values. In all the models, positive values assist leaders to make more informed decisions and also guide their behaviour and thoughts. In the models of Fry, Benefiel, Fergusson and Milliman, and Covey, the alignment between individual and organisational values is emphasised as being one of the central elements of an effective leader. Covey (2004) also argues that principles serve as a moral compass in influencing good, moral behaviour.
Most of these spiritual leadership models could be criticised from a post- structuralism point of view, as they fail to interrogate the grounds on which the moral standards are established. There also appears to be insufficient empirical research verifying the validity of values in general. These models need to show that these values are explicitly based on universally accepted values, as Fry’s Spiritual Leadership Model is the only model that indicates values that are universally based and which have been validated (Fry, 2005b:65).
Commitment to self-transcendence
Three of the spiritual leadership models only refer directly to the notion of self- transcendence, with these models linking the notion of service to the conceptualisation of self-transcendence. Fry (2009:80) contends that a spiritual leader is required to create a transcendent vision of service for others in terms of
which one experiences a sense of calling that gives life both purpose and meaning, and makes a difference in life. Benefiel (2005:733) maintains that overcoming one’s ego through internal transformation contributes to self- transcendence which, in turn, helps the leader to feel concern about the plight of others. Parameshwar’s (2005) spiritual leadership model is based on examining the eight ego-transcendental processes which are involved in becoming a spiritual leader.
The other six spiritual leadership models refer to self-transcendence only implicitly. Cashman (1998), Fairholm (2003) and Fergusson and Milliman (2008) suggest that higher purpose and core positive values all contribute to transcending one’s ego. On the other hand, Covey (2004) refers implicitly to self- transcendence by positing that the process of finding one’s voice and inspiring others to find their voice assists individuals to shift from being fragmented to becoming a whole person. The spirit of self-transcendence surfaces in the Memorial Hermann Spiritual Leadership Model in terms of which spiritual leaders are required to plan for and encourage community involvement. This process requires spiritual leaders to move from operating from self-interest to being concerned about and of service to others who are less fortunate.
Transforming from the inside out
The spiritual leadership principle of changing from the inside out is explicitly stated in the spiritual leadership models of Cashman, Covey and Fry. Cashman and Covey perceive a close correlation between changing from the inside out and taking responsibility. The core theme of Cashman’s (1998) model is changing from the inside out with particular emphasis on taking responsibility instead of blaming. Changing from the inside out in Covey’s Whole Person Model assumes that the leader operates from a proactive, rather than a reactive paradigm and that he/she seeks to take responsibility for problems first instead of blaming others (Covey, 2004:152). Fry (2008:134) likens changing from the
inside out to authenticity by contending that ethical well-being is attained by living one’s values, attitudes and behaviour authentically and from the inside out.
The other spiritual leadership models refer only implicitly to changing from the inside out, by focusing on transforming an individual first before transforming an organisation. Zohar and Marshall (2004) adopt the approach that internal transformation occurs through the 12 Transformative Principles of SQ, while for Fairholm (2003) internal transformation occurs by operating from the inner core. Ferguson and Milliman (2008) focus on internal transformation taking place by the individual acting authentically on values first before serving others and aligning these values to an organisation. Benefiel (2005:739), on the other hand, refers to a process of deepening transformation which results in enhanced organisational performance. All seven of Parameshwar’s (2005) ego- transcendent processes emphasise the process of changing from the inside out. On the other hand, the Memorial Herman’s Spiritual Leadership Model (Wolf, 2004) makes neither explicit nor implicit mention of transformation from the inside out.
Being authentic
The spiritual leadership models of Ferguson and Milliman, Benefiel, and Cashman are the only models that refer directly to authenticity. The first two models link authenticity to values with Benefiel (2005:731) contending that authenticity involves a continuous commitment to positive values such as honestly, good will and openness. Ferguson and Milliman (2008:444) argue that values programmes in organisations fail because the values promoted lack authenticity. On the other hand, Cashman’s Leadership from the Inside Out model (1998:42) conceptualises authenticity as operating from one’s character as opposed to operating from persona as is proposed in the pathways on personal mastery and action mastery.
The other spiritual leadership models do not refer explicitly to the notion of authenticity, but allude to it by indicating that the behaviour and values of a spiritual leader should be aligned (Zohar and Marshall, 2004; Covey, 2005; Parameshwar, 2005). Fry (2005b:66), Fairholm (1996:13) and Wolf (2004:24) all go further by stating that there should be alignment between the values and behaviours of the spiritual leaders, the employees and the organisation. The notion of authenticity is closely related to values and principles in that it is expected that the leader’s attitudes and behaviour should mirror the espoused values.
Understanding the interconnectedness of leaders
The nine spiritual leadership models all advocate the perspective of interconnectedness as referring to connectedness between the leaders, employees, organisation and community (Fry and Slocum, 2008; Covey, 2004; Cashman, 1998; Fairholm, 1996; Wolf, 2004; Ferguson and Milliman, 2008; Parameshwar, 2005). In terms of these models, the shared vision, higher purpose and values are the factors that connect the various levels. Only Benefiel’s (2005:733) model views interconnectedness from the perspective of being connected to the universe. Nevertheless, Benefiel’s (2005:733) model is firmly entrenched in organisations and emphasises connectedness with others who are on a spiritual path. Interconnectedness is also evident in Zohar and Marshall’s (2004) fourth principle of holism in that this principle recognises that all components of life are part of one whole.
Using spiritual intelligence and the other personal intelligences as a source of guidance
One would assume that, because these models are spiritual leadership models, the development and application of spiritual intelligence would be a central component. However, only Covey’s (2004) Whole Person Model and Zohar and Marshall’s (2004) Transformative Principles Model focus directly on the
development of spiritual intelligence. Most of the other models (Fry, Fairholm, Benefiel, Parameshwar and Cashman) do not refer directly to spiritual intelligence, although Zohar and Marshall (2004) refer to the principles of SQ, such as living a higher purpose; Fairholm (1996:14) refers to intuition; and Cashman (1998:146) refers to connecting with one’s innermost character.
Emotional intelligence is reflected in the values referred to in some of the spiritual leadership models. For example, Zohar and Marshall (2004) refer to compassion and diversity, which are qualities of emotional intelligence, while Cashman (1998) refers to a dedicated interpersonal pathway that focuses on establishing empowering relationships. Fairholm (1996) incorporates emotional intelligence in his model by defining the nature of relationships as empowering as opposed to manipulating. Covey’s (2004) model devotes an entire dimension to developing emotional intelligence and in particular passion. However, the other models do not refer even indirectly to the notion of emotional intelligence. Fry (2003) deliberately refrained from using the construct of emotional intelligence because there is insufficient research to establish the distinction between emotional intelligence, spiritual leadership theory variables and other leadership theories. Although the spiritual leadership models of Benefiel, Parameshwar, the Memorial Hermann, and Fergusson and Milliman do not refer to the notion of emotional intelligence, they do make mention of the necessity of the spiritual leader having the ability to interact and relate with others.
The significance of both mental intelligence and physical intelligence is minimal in the spiritual leadership models, with only Covey’s (2004) model giving prominence to the four personal intelligences. Zohar and Marshall’s (2004) model does focus on developing mental intelligence through the ability to ask why and to reframe issues. However, it would appear that the inclusion of all four of the intelligences promotes the development of a more holistic leader, as each dimension facilitates the fostering of different, but necessary, inputs and outputs. For example, Covey (2004) maintains that SQ promotes a conscience with
leaders being able to make decisions based on a moral compass. Emotional intelligence is also reflected in passion, in terms of which relationships and performance are based on the parties being inspired and enthused. Physical intelligence is based on discipline that promotes not giving up during times of difficulty, while mental intelligence relies on the vision that is the source of both purpose and transformative change. According to Covey (2004), these four intelligences all support each other and contribute to developing a whole and integrated person.
Synthesis of criterion one
The comparative analysis above revealed that none of the spiritual leadership models comprehensively reflects all the spiritual leadership attributes or principles, although it would appear that Fry’s Spiritual Leadership Model includes most of the spiritual leadership principles. On the other hand, it would seem that Parameshwar’s Spiritual Leadership Model of Ego-Transcendence addresses the least number of spiritual leadership principles compared to the other models.