Volume 25 Issue 2 Article 1 June 2023 The Impact of Wisdom and Courage on Presencing and The Impact of Wisdom and Courage on Presencing and Absencing at Work: The Mediating Role of Mindfulness Absencing at Work: The Mediating Role of Mindfulness Melita Balas Rant University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, melita.rant@ef.uni-lj.si Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home Part of the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Balas Rant, M. (2023). The Impact of Wisdom and Courage on Presencing and Absencing at Work: The Mediating Role of Mindfulness. Economic and Business Review, 25(2), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.15458/ 2335-4216.1318 This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business Review. ORIGINALARTICLE TheImpactofWisdomandCourageonPresencing andAbsencingatWork:TheMediatingRoleof Mindfulness MelitaBalasRant University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia Abstract Background and Objective: Wisdom and courage are positive psychological capacities. Presencing and absencing at workarenovelemployeeattitudesandbehaviours.Theobjectiveofthispaperistoexploretheimpactofwisdomand courageonpresencingandabsencingatwork,whilealsoconsideringpossiblemediationthroughmindfulness. Methods:Thispaperhypothesisesthatwisdomhasapositiveimpactonpresencingandanegativeimpactonabsenc- ing, while courage has a negative impact on presencing and a positive impact on absencing. We expect mindfulness mediates the aforementioned relationships. An analysis is performed on a sample of 274 employees in Slovenia by applyingstructuralequationmodelling. Results: The test results have shown that wisdom has a negative impact on absencing at work, while courage has a positive impact on absencing at work. These impacts are mediated through mindfulness. The major weakness of this researchdesignisalowsamplesizeandtheweakconstructreliabilityofwisdomandcourage. Conclusions: Wisdom and courage have opposing effects on presencing and absencing at work. Mindfulness is an importantmediator. Contribution/value:Thisresearchcontributestopositiveorganisationalbehaviourbyshowingthatpositivepsycho- logicalcapacities(i.e.,wisdom,courage,mindfulness)areimportantpredictorsofemployeepresencingandabsencing. Keywords: Positive organisational behaviour, Human virtues, Presencing, Absencing, Mindfulness JEL classication: I31, M59 Introduction I n order to understand what brings well-being, positive psychology researches positive emotions, positive individual traits, and positive institutions (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Positive indi- vidual traits are mostly studied through a framework of human strengths and virtues developed by psy- chological processes (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The human virtues are wisdom, courage, humanity, jus- tice, temperance, and transcendence. They are univer- sal, abstract and conceptual, and difcult to measure (Wright & Goodstein, 2007). Character strengths are the psychological ingredients that dene the virtues. They offer a level of specicity that has a rich psycho- logical content and can be measured. Luthans (2002) brought the positive psychology movement to the organisational behaviour eld. Pos- itive organisational behaviour studies “positively oriented human resource strengths and psycholog- ical capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improve- ment in today’s workplace” (p. 59). Psychological capacities such as self-efcacy, hope, resilience, and optimism construct psychological capital (Luthans, Youssef et al., 2007). Psychological capital signi- cantly inuences employees’ attitudes, behaviours, and work performance. Human virtues and character strengths represent another important category of psychological capac- ities, which also inuences employees’ attitudes, behaviours, and work performance. They impact job Received 5 May 2022; accepted 13 February 2023. Available online 5 June 2023 E-mail address: melita.rant@ef.uni-lj.si (M. Balas Rant). https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1318 2335-4216/© 2023 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 65 satisfaction (Harzer & Ruch, 2015; Peterson et al., 2010), person-job t (Huber et al., 2020; Peterson et al., 2010), work-related stress (Harzer & Ruch, 2015), work engagement (Huber et al., 2020), eth- ical decision-making (Crossan et al., 2013), well- being and ourishing (Park & Peterson, 2006), and leader–member relationship (Thun & Kevin Kel- loway, 2011). They also predict organisational perfor- mance (Cameron et al., 2004). Research has shown that among all human virtues and character strengths, wisdom and courage have the greatest impact on employees’ attitudes, be- haviours, and work performance (Huber et al., 2020; Konorti & Eng, 2008; Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1998). Thus Luthans (2002) said wisdom and courage should be studied in the domain of positive organisational behaviour to understand their effects. This is a sparse, but emerging line of research. Wisdom improves work engagement (Huber et al., 2020), transforma- tional leadership (Konorti & Eng, 2008), and creativity as well as reduces stress (Avey et al., 2012). Courage also improves transformational leadership (Konorti & Eng, 2008), increases work meaningfulness and well-being (Deeg & May, 2022), and improves coping behaviour (Magnano et al., 2017) and work perfor- mance (Magnano et al., 2022). Presencing and absencing at work are novel job- related attitudes and behaviours (Scharmer, 2009; Senge et al., 2005). The concept of presencing is broader than the concept of work engagement, though it includes elements of work engagement. Presencing can be treated as a job-related attitude and behaviour that facilitates awareness-based organisa- tional change (Koenig et al., 2021). Awareness-based organisational change transforms the awareness of employees in order to implement positive changes such as inclusiveness, justice, and equality (Koenig et al., 2022). The concept of presencing was developed by scholars at the MIT Organizational Learning Cen- ter, who later founded the Presencing Institute (www .presencing.org) to promote presencing and facili- tate a global movement, U-theory, through the U-lab community with the purpose of creating more in- novative, inclusive, just, and equitable organisations and society (https://www.u-school.org/). Research has shown that presencing has a positive impact on moral conduct, well-being, thriving, work engage- ment, organisational commitment, innovativeness, and creativity (Peschl & Fundneider, 2014; Scharmer, 2009; Scharmer & Yukelson, 2015). However, there is no research on antecedents of presencing and absencing at work, for instance on how psychological capacities such as wisdom and courage determine presencing and absencing be- haviour at work. The purpose of our study is to address this research gap. Specically, our research question is how wisdom and courage impact presenc- ing and absencing at work. Mindfulness is an important psychological capacity as well (Luthans et al., 2015). Mindfulness refers to a state of consciousness in which employees attend to ongoing events and experiences at work in a recep- tive and non-judgmental way (Hülsheger et al., 2013). In the domain of organisational behaviour, mind- fulness is a well-researched phenomenon (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000; Sutcliffe et al., 2016). In general, mindfulness amplies positive attitudes and reduces negative attitudes (Kiken & Shook, 2011), which is im- portant for presencing and absencing at work. How mindful one will be is also determined by wisdom (Cook-Greuter, 2005) and courage (Sisti et al., 2014). Thus, we also examine whether the impact of wisdom and courage on presencing and absencing is mediated though mindfulness. The paper contributes to the eld of organisa- tional development (OD). Presencing and absencing at work are elements of awareness-based organisa- tional change, which is a novel territory in the OD eld promoted by the Presencing Institute. The paper also contributes to positive organisational behaviour by relating wisdom and courage to mindfulness and how this combination impacts job-related attitudes (in our case presencing and absencing at work). The paper contributes to the eld of HRM by pro- viding guidelines on how to accommodate hiring processes and employee development processes if the organisation would like to promote presencing with the purpose of facilitating awareness-based organisa- tional change. In the next section, we rst present the concepts of presencing/absencing at work and delineate them from work engagement/disengagement. Then we examine the literature on wisdom, courage, and mindfulness to propose a conceptual framework. The second part presents the research methodology we used to test the hypotheses. In the third section, we present the results. In the last section, we discuss the results as well as present the implications and limita- tions of the research. 1 Theoreticalframeworkandliteraturereview 1.1 Presencing and absencing vs work engagement and disengagement Presencing/absencing and work engagement/ disengagement refer to properties of human functioning at work. However, they are also distinctively different concepts in terms of focus: interior vs exterior and stability vs change. 66 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 Presencing describes human functioning at work from the perspective of the quality of attention. Scharmer (2009) identies four eld structures of attention: (1) I-in-me denotes perception based on ha- bitual ways of seeing and thinking; (2) I-in-it denotes perception with an open mind; (3) I-in-you denotes perception from another person’s perspective with an open mind and open heart; and (4) I-in-we and I-in- now denotes perceptions characterised by what wants to emerge when attending with an open mind, open heart, and open will. An open mind, open heart, and open will are attitu- dinal indicators of presencing. An open mind means stepping back from habitual ways of knowing and looking for new explanations, views, understandings. Open heart means acting with compassion, empa- thy, and the willingness to emotionally connect with others. Open will means acting from courage, tak- ing risks, and being willing to let go of old beliefs, mindsets, identities and let come novel insights and identities. In the process of presencing, the person needs to move their attention from elds (1) and (2) to elds (3) and (4). At attentional level (4), the person functions with an open mind, open heart, and open will and becomes capable of “‘pre-sensing’ and bring- ing into presence : : : [their] highest future potential” (Senge et al., 2005, p. 220). Presencing is about connecting the smaller (egoic, localised) self to the bigger (generative, oating true, preferred, higher, best) self (Senge et al., 2005). This happens at attentional level (4). When the connection is established, “identication with the ‘localized self’ diminishes, and a broader and more generative sense of self begins to arise” (Senge et al., 2005, p. 100). This connection causes an identity shift. Furthermore, the locus of awareness moves from narrow (ego) aware- ness to expanded (eco) awareness (Scharmer, 2009). In ego awareness, “the world is perceived as a set of things that are separate from myself,” while in eco-awareness, perception is expanded also into an invisible social eld that is “sensing and seeing itself and continues to emerge – through me” (Scharmer, 2009, p. xxxv). Thus, presencing is about relating to the invisible social eld (Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013; Senge et al., 2005). The social eld consists of social exchanges between people (leader–members, co-workers, and stakeholders). It can be split into a visible and an in- visible part. The visible social eld can be observed (what people do and say). The invisible social eld is constructed from the quality of awareness brought to social exchanges between people. High-quality social exchanges are characterised by people operating from an expanded (eco) awareness. Such social exchanges become generative in nature because “people move from defending their viewpoints to inquiring into the viewpoints of others and speaking from seeing them- selves as part of the system” (Scharmer, 2009, p. 272). Presencing is not only a state but also a pro- cess that unfolds on an individual and collective level (Scharmer, 2009; Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013). On an individual level, presencing consists of seeing, sensing, presencing in the narrow sense, crystallis- ing, prototyping, and performing. On a collective level, presencing is a set of collective activities: co- initiating, co-sensing, co-presencing, co-creating, and co-evolving. The outcome of presencing is positive personal, relational, and institutional inversion and transformation (Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013). Presencing is associated with work engagement. Work engagement has many denitions, yet most studies apply Kahn’s early denition of work engage- ment (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). Work engagement is “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviours that pro- mote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). The core attributes of work engagement are: working out of the “preferred self”, connection with others, and personal presence. These are also attributes of Scharmer’s presencing, yet he explains them from perspective of awareness. The preferred self, con- nection with others, and personal presence would look distinctively different if practised from ego- awareness rather than eco-awareness. Kahn’s “pre- ferred self,” though engaged, could still be an egoic, smaller self with a xed identity. For Scharmer’s presencing to occur, the “preferred self” should be expressed in terms of the bigger (generative, higher, best) Self and oating identity. Kahn’s connection to others is not qualied in terms of the quality of aware- ness one brings to social exchanges. For presencing to occur, a person should apply high-quality (eco) awareness to connections with others. Kahn empha- sised a personal presence that is physical, cognitive, and emotional in nature. Physical presence is charac- terised by vigour, cognitive presence by dedication, and emotional presence by absorption (Bakker et al., 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2002). In a state of presenc- ing, cognitive presence is characterised by an open mind, emotional presence by an open heart, and physical presence by an open will. Furthermore, pres- encing leads to personal change and transformation, which is not an attribute of work engagement. To sum up, Scharmer’s concept of presencing explains the interior dimension of work engagement from the perspective of awareness. Furthermore, Scharmer emphasises that the outcome of presencing is an iden- tity shift and awareness-based change. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 67 Scharmer (2009) also studied the phenomena of “absencing,” though less thoroughly. While presenc- ing is a constructive process of change, absencing is a deconstructive process of change. While presencing is about operating from an expanded (eco) awareness and generative Self, a connection with an invisible social eld, and an identity shift, absencing refers to a process of operating from a narrow (ego) awareness with a narrow self, xed identity, established beliefs and habits of thought, a disconnection from different others (and invisible social eld), and a tendency to protect one’s identity by amplifying prejudice, igno- rance, hate, and fear. The attitudinal indicators of absencing are a closed mind, closed heart, and closed will. A closed mind is indicated by ignoring discrepant information and acting from old habits of thought. A closed heart is in- dicated by a disconnect from different others, blaming others, and being angry at them. A closed will is indi- cated by taking action out of fear, a lack of courage, and a lack of risk-taking. Absencing as a process on an individual level consists of downloading and denial (not seeing), de-sensing, absencing in a narrow sense, deluding, and destroying (Scharmer, 2009; Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013). “Downloading” means reverting to the habit- ual patterns of the past. “Denial” means not seeing what is going on, blinding oneself, and being un- able to recognise anything new (a closed mind). “De-sensing” means that the person is not able to connect and empathise with others (a closed heart). The person is stuck inside the boundaries of their own physical, mental, and emotional body. Absencing in a narrow sense means that the person shuts down the capacity to relate to others, to the invisible social eld, and to the future that wants to emerge through a person. One is also uncapable of connecting to the big- ger (generative, higher, best) Self. “Deluding” means the person gets stuck in one intention, one identity, one worldview, one truth, rejecting anything that does not t these concepts. This eventually leads to the destruction of oneself and others. “Absencing” is the destructive pattern of change that is distinct from a constructive pattern of change through presencing. Absencing and work disengagement are even less similar than presencing and work engagement are. Work disengagement is “the simultaneous with- drawal and defense of a person’s preferred self in behaviors that promote a lack of connections, phys- ical, cognitive, and emotional absence, and passive, incomplete role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 701). Core attributes of work disengagement: withdrawal and defence of the “preferred self,” a lack of con- nection to others, and personal (physical, cognitive, and emotional) absence. Kahn does not discuss the qualities of these attributes of work disengagement from the perspective of awareness, while Scharmer’s concept of absencing provides exactly that. In the absencing mode, there is no withdrawal from the preferred self, but the person functions out of a nar- row egoic self and xed identity that the person wants to preserve. In the absencing mode, a lack of connection means the person is incapable of social cognition (recognise how others think and feel, what their motives are, and what the interest that drives that thinking is) and incapable of connecting with the invisible social eld. Personal (physical, cogni- tive, and emotional) absence in Scharmer’s narrow terms means acting with a closed mind, a closed heart, and a closed will with the aim of protect- ing established beliefs, worldviews, ideas, identities, truths, etc. Absencing explains the interior dimension of work disengagement, yet it is broader than work disengagement because it also leads to strong work engagement with the aim of protecting established beliefs, ideas, and identities. Both presencing and absencing are state-like con- cepts. When working, a person can be in a slight ab- sencing mode in the morning, then shifts to the pres- encing mode in the afternoon. On average, over time, a person can have a stronger tendency for presencing than absencing (or vice versa), but both phenomena together can better describe their job-related attitudes than only one phenomenon. When presencing and absencing are performed on an individual level, we refer to inner presencing and inner absencing. 1.2 Wisdom Wisdom is known as “wise reasoning” (Kross & Grossmann, 2012). It includes judging rightly in mat- ters relating to life and conduct, and soundness of judgment in the choice of means and ends (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.). It represents all cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and applica- tion of knowledge (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and lead to good judgment and advice about impor- tant but uncertain matters of life (Sternberg, 1985). As such, it represents intellectual humility, compro- mise, and consideration of other perspectives and broader contexts (Grossmann, 2017). It also includes recognition of one’s limits of knowledge, awareness of context, perspective-taking, and the attempt to integrate different perspectives together (Basseches, 1984). Wisdom is also a practice that reects the “de- velopmental process by which individuals increase in self-knowledge, self-integration, nonattachment, self-transcendence, and compassion, as well as a deeper understanding of life. This practice involves better self-regulation and ethical choices, resulting in 68 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 a greater good for oneself and others” (Trowbridge, 2011, p. 150). Wisdom is an attribute of the post-conventional stages of adult development (Cook-Greuter, 2005; Hy & Loevinger, 1996; Kegan, 1982, 1994). Adults in post-conventional stages hold deep knowledge of subject matters; recognise that objects and events have different meanings for different observers; are capable of reective judgment, especially when deal- ing with ethical dilemmas, change, and uncertain- ties; are aware of their own limits to knowledge, consciously scrutinise their own beliefs and as- sumptions; take multiple perspectives and integrate them across time and space; are aware that iden- tities are socially constructed, exible, and subject to change; and focus on being and feeling and on the present instead of the past and future (Cook- Greuter, 2005; Hy & Loevinger, 1996). They also apply cross-paradigmatic dialectical thinking to han- dle paradoxes and contradictions; and are capable of self-refection, self-authorship, self-regulation, and self-formation (Kegan, 1982, 1994). Laboratory experiments have shown that adults who occupy conventional stages of adult develop- ment (i.e., students) can also become capable of wise reasoning when they hold an ego-decentring mind- set (Grossmann, 2017; Kross & Grossmann, 2012) and when they include social environment as part of the self (Grossmann et al., 2012). When the sense of self is disconnected, independent, and distinct from one’s social environment, the person practises less wise rea- soning (i.e., exhibits less intellectual humility, is less willing to recognise uncertainty and change, less will- ing to consider others’ perspectives and search for a compromise) (Grossmann et al., 2012). Researchers thus argue that how a person relates to the social context represents an important predictor of wise reasoning (Baltes & Staudinger, 1996; Jonas et al., 2014). A person can relate to the social context with a rst-person perspective or a third-person, ob- server perspective (Grossmann, 2017). Experiments have conrmed that when adopting a rst-person viewpoint in a problematic social situation, the person is more likely to process information in a hot fashion, focusing only on the few core features of the social context, and thus reasoning more unwisely (Kross et al., 2005). In contrast, a person is capable of wise reasoning when the problematic social situation is viewed from the third person. The person then pro- cesses information in a cold manner and is able to access a wider range of meaning structures, possibili- ties, and solutions for a given situation. People ranking highly in wisdom can more fre- quently operate from Scharmer’s eco-awareness (take multiple perspectives into account), have high- quality social exchanges, have a more inclusive iden- tity, and are thus more prone to presencing. People ranking low in wisdom more frequently operate from ego-awareness (a function from an existing habit of thought), have poorer-quality social exchanges, have a more xed identity, and are thus more prone to operating from absencing. We propose the following relationship: H1. Wisdom is positively associated with inner presenc- ing. H2. Wisdom is negatively associated with inner absencing. According to Kabat-Zinn (2013), mindfulness is the practice of purposely bringing one’s attention to the present-moment experience with an attitude of non- judgment, curiosity, and appreciation. Research has shown that wisdom positively relates to mindful- ness among post-conventional adults (Cook-Greuter, 2005; Miller & Cook-Greuter, 2000) and younger adults (Beaumont, 2011). Mindful individuals sense the heightened state of involvement and wakefulness in the experience (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). A mindful person shifts perspective to a higher level of awareness from which one re-perceives what is already known differently (Carmody et al., 2009; Shapiro et al., 2006), has less affective biases (Davis & Thompson, 2015), more empathy, better quality re- lationships (Jones et al., 2019), and experiences more authenticity (Leroy et al., 2013). Due to these qualities of mindfulness, we propose that mindfulness in- creases the tendency of a person for inner presencing (operating from expanded eco-awareness, and a gen- erative sense of self with an open mind, open heart, and open will), and reduces the tendency for inner absencing (operating from a narrow ego-awareness and a narrow sense of self with a closed mind, closed heart, and closed will). Part of the total effect of wis- dom on inner presencing ows through mindfulness, with a positive indirect effect. At the same time, part of the total effect of wisdom on inner absencing also ows through mindfulness, with a negative indirect effect. We propose the following relationship: H3. Wisdom has a positive indirect effect on inner presenc- ing through mindfulness. H4. Wisdom has a negative indirect effect on inner absenc- ing through mindfulness. 1.3 Courage Courage is an emotional strength that involves “the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, either external or internal” (Peterson & ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 69 Seligman, 2004, p. 143). Courage is perceived through the actions a person takes. A courageous action con- sists of four essential components: (1) a morally worthy goal, (2) a deliberate, intentional action, (3) perceived risks, threats, or obstacles, and (4) the pres- ence of personal fear (Koerner, 2014; Rate et al., 2007). A courageous act refers to acting according to a moral principle or ideal. A courageous act is a deliberately chosen effort (including a deliberate choice not to act). An act is only considered courageous if it involves signicant personal risks, threats, and obstacles. A courageous act is accompanied by the feeling of fear. An act of courage is determined by personal char- acteristics. The determinants of the personal char- acteristics of courage are: quality of the state of mind (Walton, 1986), moral sensitivity (Jordan, 2007), moral decision-making, and self-regulation (Sekerka & Bagozzi, 2007). An act of courage is not only determined by personal characteristics but is also contextually bound. The person will more likely en- gage in courageous acts in the presence of others (Woodard, 2004). Koerner (2014) conceptualised courage as a form of identity work. At work, people engaged in four types of identity work: (1) preserving an identity by courageously withstanding situations that cannot be changed or controlled (endurance); (2) repairing an identity following an error by admitting fault and accepting responsibility (reaction); (3) strengthening, revising, asserting, or reafrming identity by oppos- ing the powerful individual person (opposition); and (4) creating a new identity by seizing a risky opportu- nity (creation). The rst three lead to the reafrmation of an existing sense of self, while the last one leads to the creation of a new sense of self. According to Scharmer (2009), the outcome of pres- encing is identity change. The outcome of absencing is the strengthening of an existing identity. A coura- geous person who engages in courageous acts in order to preserve, repair, or reafrm an existing sense of self has a more strongly expressed tendency to engage in absencing. Such a person preserves their own identity by sticking to their own view of what an ethical goal in a given situation is, what the right action is, functions from ego-awareness, does not take opposite perspectives into account, and despite facing opposition, obstacles, or threats, follows their own direction while experiencing an emotion of fear. A courageous person who engages in courageous acts with expanded (eco) awareness takes the opposite perspective into account, senses cues in the invisible social eld, infers from this information what the right action is and then executes it, and is more likely to experience an identity shift. According to Koerner’s (2014) study, people at work more frequently engage in courageous actions for the purpose of preserving existing identities, and much less frequently to create a new identity. Therefore, we propose that courage has a positive relationship with absencing and a neg- ative one with presencing. H5. Courage is negatively associated with inner presenc- ing. H6. Courage is positively associated with inner absencing. In the contextual behavioural theory of mindful- ness, courage is the core building block of mind- fulness (Sisti et al., 2014). This theory promotes mindfulness through interventions in which people need to engage in courageous acts such as disclos- ing intimate information about themselves to each other (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991). They claim that such a courageous act makes a person more mind- ful. Thus, courage has a positive relationship with mindfulness. The core attribute of courage is the ca- pacity to act in the presence of fear. Research has shown that mindfulness eliminates the emotion of fear (Kummar, 2018). It builds an accepting relation- ship with one’s internal cognitive, emotional, and physical experience in times of intense fear (Greeson & Brantley, 2009). By accepting one’s fears, a mindful person becomes more empathic and capable of con- sidering fresh perspectives (Block-Lerner et al., 2007). Mindfulness fosters a renewed awareness of, and con- nection with, one’s own identity, usually leading to a more exible sense of self (Atkins & Styles, 2015). Because of mindfulness, a courageous person has a more pronounced tendency to operate from the state of presencing and less from the state of absencing. Part of the total effect of courage on inner presencing ows through mindfulness, with a positive indirect effect. At the same time, part of the total effect of courage on inner absencing also ows through mind- fulness, with a negative indirect effect. We propose the following relationships: H7. There is a positive indirect effect of courage on inner presencing through mindfulness. H8. There is a negative indirect effect of courage on inner absencing through mindfulness. All eight proposed hypotheses are captured in the conceptual model in Fig. 1. 2 Method 2.1 Sample The present study utilised primary data gath- ered from employees in Slovenia. Participation in 70 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 Fig. 1. Conceptual model with hypotheses. the study was voluntary. The respondents provided the information via an online survey. We used con- venience sampling. We approached part-time post- graduate students who attended the course on Build- ing Leadership Capacity, which extensively covered Scharmer’s U-theory and the concepts of presencing and absencing. We asked them to ll in a question- naire and share it among their co-workers and peers. Anonymity was guaranteed as no identication in- formation was required. Respondents received no compensation for participation. The study was done without the help of research assistants. In the data col- lection, 1021 respondents opened the questionnaire, out of which 274 provided responses with no miss- ing values. The survey was conducted in the periods of July 2019–December 2019 and September 2022– October 2022. In terms of gender distribution, 46.3% of the respon- dents were male, and 53.7% were female. In terms of their position in their organisation, 4.2% were senior managers, 11% were middle managers, and 15.6% were lower managers; 17.6% were frontline workers, 15.5% were professional support, and 36.1% occupied other positions in the organisation. In terms of work experience, 34.4% had less than three years of work experience, 40.6% had more than three years and less than 10 years of work experience, 24.3% had more than 10 and less than 30 years of work experience, and 3.7% had more than 30 years of work experience. In terms of age, 13.6% were under 25 years old, 37.4% were between 25 and 30 years old, 32.8% were be- tween 30 and 40 years old, 11.2% were between 40 and 50 years old, and 5.0% were above 50 years old. The sample met the assumption of multivariate normality, homoscedasticity, and positive denite- ness. To test for collinearity among indicators, we calculated the variance ination factor (VIF), which was below the threshold level of 10 for all indica- tors. The required minimum sample size calculated from the number of indicators per latent variable (r) represented by the formula n > 50r 2 450r + 1100 (Westland, 2010) is 100 units. The required minimum sample size of at least ve observations per param- eter yielded 255 cases (Bentler & Chou, 1987 in Wolf et al., 2013). The required minimum sample size that accounts for the number of indicators per latent vari- able, effect size, statistical power and probability level (Soper, 2023) is 150 cases to detect a 0.3 effect size with 0.80 statistical power at 0.5 signicance. The sample of 274 units meets these criteria. 1 2.2 Measure The questionnaire consisted of theoretically estab- lished measures. All scales used in the study were ve-point Likert-type scales. Below, we provide de- tails on each scale. 2.2.1 Wisdom The “wisdom” measure was adopted by Park et al. (2006), using ve items representing character strengths. We asked “How often do you practice the following at work?”: creativity (“I think of novel and productive ways to do things.”), curiosity (“I take an interest in all ongoing experiences.”), judgment, open-mindedness (“I think things through and ex- amine them from every point of view.”), a love of learning (“I master new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge.”), and perspective (“I am able to provide wise counsel to others.”). The scale asked respondents to assign a score of 1 – not important, 2 – slightly important, 3 – moderately important, 4 – important, and 5 – very important. Cronbach’s a is 0.773. 2.2.2 Courage The “courage” measure was adopted by Park et al. (2006), using four items representing character strengths. We asked “How often do you practice the 1 Note: We kept only ve indicators with factor loadings above 0.7 for the construct of mindfulness. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 71 following at work?”: honesty (“I speak the truth and present myself in a genuine way.”), bravery (“I do not shrink from threat, challenge, difculty, or pain.”), persistence (“I nish what I start.”), and zest (“I ap- proach life with excitement and energy.”). The scale asked respondents to assign a score of 1 – not impor- tant, 2 – slightly important, 3 – moderately important, 4 – important, and 5 – very important. Cronbach’s a is 0.739. 2.2.3 Mindfulness The “mindfulness” measure was adopted by Feld- man et al. (2007) using a 12-item scale of mindfulness in general daily experience at work (Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale – Revised). The scale was designed to address attention, present-focus, aware- ness, and acceptance/non-judgment of thoughts and feelings at work. We asked “How often do you ex- perience the following in your working settings: I am aware of what thoughts are passing through my mind. I try to distract myself when I feel unpleasant emotions : : :” (sample items). The answers range be- tween 1 – never, 2 – rarely, 3 – sometimes, 4 – often, and 5 – very often. Cronbach’s a is 0.825. 2.2.4 Inner presencing (InnerPRES) The questions measuring “inner presencing” were: “How often in your own behaviour at work do you operate : : : with curiosity, an open mind, and looking for new explanations, views, understandings (item 1); with compassion, empathy, an open heart, and the willingness to emotionally connect with others (item 2); and from courage, taking risks, being willing to let go (of old beliefs, mindsets) and let come novel insights (item 3).” These are three core attitudinal in- dicators of presencing suggested by Scharmer (2009). The Likert scale ranged between 1 – never, 2 – rarely, 3 – sometimes, 4 – often, and 5 – very often. Cron- bach’s a is 0.773. 2.2.5 Inner absencing (InnerABS) The questions measuring “inner absencing” were: “How often in your own behaviour at work do you operate : : : with ignorance, a closed mind, acting from old habits of thought (item 1); from anger, blaming other, and greed (item 2); and from fear, a lack of courage, and a lack of risk-taking (item 3).” These are three core attitudinal indicators of inner absenc- ing suggested by Scharmer (2009). The Likert scale ranged between 1 – never, 2 – rarely, 3 – sometimes, 4 – often, and 5 – very often. Cronbach’s a is 0.790. 2.3 Analytical procedure For the data analysis, structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed to test the model as a whole by following a two-step procedure (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). First, we inspected the measurement model, which assumed a conrmatory approach to the data analysis and considered the measurement error. It helped us determine the links between the observed and latent variables and verify the validity and reliability of the scales. Second, we tested the structural model to examine the hypotheses. Aside from this, the model as a whole was evaluated with established goodness-of-t indices. The effects were estimated using the Maximum Likelihood Estima- tion Method. The analyses were performed with IBM SPSS 28, including the IBM SPSS AMOS 28 Graphics software. 3 Results As a pre-step in testing the measurement model, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to ex- amine the proposed measurement scales, which had been adapted to the survey. All scales were unidi- mensional, and all factor loadings were greater than 0.5. All scales for constructs remained intact, except for mindfulness, where in the nal model we selected only ve items that loaded above 0.7. We proceeded with a conrmatory factor analysis, where the t in- dices of the CFA measurement model showed a satis- factory t. Four out of six criteria indicated a satisfac- tory t: the Chi-square was 238.321 with dfD 160 and PD 0.001, the value of RMSEA was 0.052 [90% CID 0.038, 0.066], GFID 0.892, with a value greater than 0.8 suggesting an acceptable t (Forza & Filippini, 1998; Greenspoon & Saklofske, 1998); TLID 0.905, with a value greater than 0.9 suggesting an acceptable t (Forza & Filippini, 1998), CFID 0.903, with a value greater than 0.9 suggesting a good t (Hair et al., 2010); and NFID 0.762, with a value greater than 0.8 suggesting an acceptable t (Forza & Filippini, 1998). In the analysis, InnerPRES denotes inner presenc- ing at work, while InnerABS denotes inner absencing at work. To test the convergent validity of the pro- posed constructs, we calculated the average variance extracted (AVE), which should exceed 0.5, and the composite reliability (CR), which should exceed 0.7. The AVE and CR values for studied constructs are summarised in Table 1. For Mindfulness, InnerPRE, and InnerABS, AVE and CR met the required thresh- old. For Wisdom and Courage, AVE and CR were below the required threshold level, and convergent validity was not established. These results suggest the measures for wisdom and courage are not em- pirically reliable. To test the discriminant validity, we compared the squared correlations and AVE scores for each of the pairwise constructs. Discriminant va- lidity was established for the majority of pairwise 72 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 Table 1. Convergent validity. Wisdom Courage Mindfulness InnerPRES InnerABS AVE 0.371 0.394 0.544 0.514 0.538 CR 0.743 0.717 0.797 0.775 0.772 Conv. validity Not established Not established Established Established Established Table 2. Discriminant validity. Correl. Squared correl. AVE1 AVE2 Discriminant validity Courage ! Wisdom 0.698 0.487 0.394 0.371 Not established Wisdom ! InnerABS 0.177 0.031 0.371 0.538 Established Wisdom ! Mindfulness 0.226 0.051 0.371 0.544 Established Courage ! InnerABS 0.111 0.012 0.394 0.538 Established Courage ! InnerPRES 0.064 0.004 0.394 0.514 Established Wisdom ! InnerPRES 0.07 0.005 0.371 0.514 Established Courage ! Mindfulness 0.458 0.210 0.394 0.544 Established InnerABS ! InnerPRES 0.666 0.444 0.538 0.514 Established InnerABS ! Mindfulness 0.134 0.018 0.538 0.544 Established InnerPRES ! Mindfulness 0.060 0.004 0.514 0.544 Established Table 3. Correlation matrix. Wisdom Courage Mindfulness InnerPRES InnerABS Wisdom 1 Courage 0.904 1 Mindfulness 0.259 0.557 1 InnerPRES 0.095 0.135 0.056 1 InnerABS 0.192 0.016 0.141 0.643 1 constructs (Table 2), except for the relationship be- tween courage and wisdom. The correlation matrix among constructs is given in Table 3. There is a strong correlation between in- dependent variables (courage and wisdom), which implies the problem of collinearity among these constructs (though the VIF test did not conrm mul- ticollinearity among indicators of these constructs). In the second step, we assessed the structural equa- tion model. The structural model provided a good t: Chi-square was 173.093 with dfD 156 and PD 0.166, the value of RMSEA was 0.025 [90% CID 0.001, 0.044], GFID 0.919, with a value greater than 0.8 suggesting an acceptable t (Forza & Filippini, 1998; Greenspoon & Saklofske, 1998); TLID 0.974, with a value greater than 0.9 suggesting an acceptable t (Forza & Filippini, 1998), CFID 0.979, with a value greater than 0.9 suggesting a good t (Hair et al., 2010); and NFID 0.827, with a value greater than 0.8 suggesting an acceptable t (Forza & Filippini, 1998). Herman’s single factor test showed that 19.102% of variance was explained by a single factor, which does not indicate a common method bias problem (Pod- sakoff et al., 2003). However, the common latent factor approach (Serrano Archimi et al., 2018) revealed that four indicators were inated by common method bias: open-mindedness, creativity, persistency, and zest (see Appendix, Table A1). The results of struc- tural equation modelling are reported in Fig. 2. To test for direct and indirect effects, we calculated a 95% condence interval based on the 5000 boot- strap samples. The results of hypothesis testing are presented in Table 4. The results reveal that the to- tal effect of wisdom on inner presencing is positive (bD 0.280; pD 0.015). The direct effect of wisdom on inner presencing, in the presence of a mediator, was found positive but insignicant ( bD 4.033; pD 0.069). Hence, hypothesis 1 is not supported. The results reveal a negative and signicant indirect effect of wisdom on inner presencing through mindfulness (bD 2.295; pD 0.009) 2 . Hypothesis 3 proposed a pos- itive and signicant indirect effect, hence hypothesis 3 is not supported. The results revealed indirect-only mediation. The results reveal that the total effect of wisdom on inner absencing is negative (bD 6.462; pD 0.034). The direct effect of wisdom on inner absencing, in the presence of a mediator, was found negative and 2 Note: Hayes (2018, p. 116) illustrates that there can also be a signicant indirect effect (mediation) if only one of the paths (a or b) is signicant. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 73 −5.355+(2.985) Fig. 2. Model results (path coefcients with standard errors). Table 4. Direct and indirect effects. Relationship Direct effect Indirect 95% condence interval P-value Conclusion (P-value) effect for indirect effect Lower Upper Bound Bound Wisdom) Mindfulness) Inner Presencing 4.033 (0.069) 2.295 18.189 0.196 0.009 Indirect-only mediation Wisdom) Mindfulness) Inner Absencing 4.380(0.039) 2.565 0.196 22.380 0.012 Competitive mediation Courage) Mindfulness) Inner Presencing 5.355 (0.073) 3.379 0.410 25.082 0.005 Indirect-only mediation Courage) Mindfulness) Inner Absencing 5.575(0.049) 3.778 28.655 0.437 0.006 Competitive mediation signicant ( bD 4.380; pD 0.039). Hence, hypothe- sis 2 is supported. The results reveal a positive and signicant indirect effect of wisdom on inner ab- sencing through mindfulness (bD 2.565; pD 0.012). Hypothesis 4 proposed a negative and signicant in- direct effect, so hypothesis 4 is not supported. The results revealed competitive mediation, while we had hypothesised complementary mediation. The results reveal that the total effect of courage on inner presencing is negative (bD 8.375; pD 0.013). The direct effect of courage on inner presencing, in the presence of a mediator, was found negative and insignicant ( bD 5.355; pD 0.073). So, hypothesis 5 is not supported. The results reveal a positive and signicant indirect effect of courage on inner presenc- ing through mindfulness (bD 3.379; pD 0.005), hence hypothesis 7 is supported. The results conrmed com- petitive mediation. The results reveal that the total effect of courage on inner absencing is negative (bD 0.070; pD 0.067). The direct effect of courage on inner absencing, in the presence of a mediator, was found positive and signicant (b D 5.575; pD 0.049). Hence, hypothesis 6 is supported. The results reveal a negative and sig- nicant indirect effect of courage on inner absencing through mindfulness (bD 3.778; pD 0.006). We pro- posed that hypothesis 8 would have a negative and signicant indirect effect, hence hypothesis 8 is sup- ported. The results revealed competitive mediation. 4 Discussion Presencing and absencing are novel concepts de- scribing the interior dimension of work engage- ment. The effect of employees presencing is in an awareness-based system change characterised by more inclusive, just, and equitable organisations (Koenig et al., 2022). Absencing of employees leads to destructive organisational dynamics based on ex- clusion, unfairness, and deconstruction (Scharmer, 2009). There is a need to better understand what con- structs may predict the presencing and absencing of employees. Wisdom and courage are positive psy- chological capacities that lead to desired employee attitudes, behaviours, and performance outcomes (Luthans, 2002). We hypothesised that wisdom and courage increase inner presencing and reduce inner absencing at work, while the effect is mediated by mindfulness. Below, we discuss the ndings of this empirical study and enumerate their theoretical and practical implications. The rst two hypotheses examined the impact of wisdom on inner presencing and inner absenc- ing at work. Our results show that wisdom has a 74 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 negative impact on inner absencing, but not on in- ner presencing. We can conclude that wisdom is a possible explanatory variable of absencing at work (more wisdom, less absencing at work). The litera- ture on positive organisational behaviour has studied mostly the effects of self-efcacy, hope, resilience, optimism, subjective well-being, and emotional in- telligence on employee attitudes, behaviours, and performance outcomes (Luthans, 2002; Luthans, Avo- lio et al., 2007) and only lately included wisdom. Research has shown that wisdom has a positive effect on creativity and stress reduction (Avey et al., 2012) and work engagement (Huber et al., 2020). We con- tribute to this line of research by showing that one possible effect of wisdom is also less absencing at work. The third hypothesis expected that the relationship between wisdom and inner presencing is positively mediated through mindfulness. The results have shown that the mediation effect is negative and sig- nicant, and so the hypothesis is not supported. The fourth hypothesis proposed that the relationship be- tween wisdom and inner absencing is negatively mediated through mindfulness. The indirect effect of wisdom on inner absencing through mindfulness has been found positive and signicant, so this hy- pothesis is not supported either. Further analysis of the mediation effect has shown that the impact of wisdom on mindfulness is negative, while the im- pact of mindfulness on presencing is positive (and negative for absencing). The positive impact of mind- fulness on wisdom has been suggested by many wisdom traditions and conrmed by some stud- ies (Karunamuni & Weerasekera, 2019; Verhaeghen, 2020), the reverse impact of wisdom on mindful- ness is less researched. Based on Cook-Greuter’s study (2005) on post-conventional adults and Beau- mont’s study (2011) on younger adults, which found that wisdom increased mindfulness, we expected a positive impact. However, our ndings show that wisdom can also decrease the tendency for mind- fulness. Hy and Loevinger’s (1996) research on the development of ego structure shows that as adults progress through conventional stages of adult de- velopment, they improve reective judgment and perspective-taking (elements of wisdom) but lack the capacity for deep introspection and mindfulness (self- awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence). From an adult development perspective, there is a re- verse relationship between wisdom and mindfulness for conventional adults. Hypothesis 5 and 6 examined the impact of courage on inner presencing and inner absencing at work. The results show that courage has a positive impact on inner absencing. This is in line with Koerner’s (2014) study, which shows that the majority of peo- ple engage in courageous acts at work to preserve, repair, or reafrm their existing identity, while ac- cording to Scharmer (2009), any identity protection action increases the tendency for absencing. Luthans et al. (2006) initially stated that despite intuitive ap- peal, courage may not be welcomed in the workplace, but later proposed that courage should be studied as well (Luthans et al., 2008). Recent research has shown that exercising courage in one’s work leads to posi- tive work meaningfulness and individual eudaimonic life well-being (Deeg & May, 2022), increased cop- ing behaviour (Magnano et al., 2017), and improved working performance (Magnano et al., 2022). Our research has shown that courage can also have a neg- ative effect such as more absencing at work, and as such should be treated with caution. The next two hypotheses expected that the rela- tionship between courage and inner presencing is positively mediated by mindfulness (hypothesis 7), while the relationship between courage and inner ab- sencing is negatively mediated (hypothesis 8). Both hypotheses are supported. Mindfulness is treated as important psychological capital in organisations (Luthans et al., 2015). Recent research has conrmed that courage combined with mindfulness and other elements of psychological capital (hope, optimism, self-efcacy) improves resilience and reduces psycho- logical distress (anxiety, depression, stress) (Chiesi et al., 2022). We contribute to the eld of positive organisational scholarship by showing that mind- fulness reduces the negative effects of courage at work (i.e., less absencing) and fosters positive ef- fects (i.e., more presencing). In order to increase the positive effects and reduce the negative effects, we propose that courage should be combined with mindfulness. Any developmental initiative that aims to improve courage without mindfulness should be treated with caution. In the psychotherapeutic do- main, group interventions that develop mindfulness through courageous sharing of personal risks and threats are frequently practised (Sisti et al., 2014). Such an approach not only improves mindfulness, but also improves social connectedness (Kohlenberg et al., 2015). The results presented in this study hold various implications for those involved in the global U- theory movement (universities, governments, NGOs, corporations, freelancers, and start-ups engaged in U-labs around the world; U-labs had more than 57,000 members in 2022; https://www.u-school.org/ community/members), HR managers and corporate leaders who would like to introduce a presencing practice for the purpose of organisational transfor- mation, and OD practitioners interested in facilitating ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 75 awareness-based system change. The rst implication is that in the employee hiring process, selection cri- teria could also include an assessment of wisdom and courage. A candidate high on wisdom and low on courage will have a greater tendency to engage in presencing at work; thus, the selection should give preference to candidates who score higher on wisdom and lower on courage. The second recom- mendation is to devise employee developmental pro- grammes that aim to develop wisdom. An effective wisdom programme should develop four skills: mas- tery, openness, reectivity, and emotion regulation (Glück & Bluck, 2013). The third implication is that programmes that aim to develop and foster mindful- ness can be a double-edged sword if the organisation wants to foster presencing among employees. Em- ployees high on wisdom do not need mindfulness. There are numerous limitations to this study. The rst weakness is the small sample size and use of cross-sectional data. The sample size of 274 units provides 5.4 observations per estimated parameter, which is below the threshold level of 10, making the sample size insufcient (Nunnally, 1967, as cited in Westland, 2010). The sample is female-skewed. Next, wisdom and courage exhibit problems with con- vergent and discriminant validity. The behavioural indicators for inner presencing and inner absenc- ing are not assessed by an empirically validated instrument, and items are triple-barrelled. Further- more, there is a collinearity problem between wisdom and courage (predictor variable). The high degree of multicollinearity among predictor variables results in standardised path coefcients greater than C/ 1 (Deegan, 1978; Jöreskog, 1999). Multicollinearity also causes a suppression effect (one predictor suppresses an irrelevant variance in another predictor and thus enhances the ability of this predictor to predict a de- pendent variable) (Akinwande et al., 2015; Beckstead, 2012). Subsequent studies should consider the aforemen- tioned weaknesses and address them. Our rst sug- gestions would be to measure the absencing and presencing from more indicators that are not triple- barrelled, and then validate the instrument empiri- cally. Another promising line of research would be the qualitative in-depth study of forms of absencing and presencing at work and contextual factors that inuence these attitudes and behaviours. In terms of the study’s analytical procedure, we have followed Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach; however, we have not been able to cross-validate the data by splitting the sample in half, as the sample was not large enough. This shortcoming may be reconsid- ered in future studies, where a larger sample could be drawn. 5 Conclusion The paper draws on positive organisational be- haviour by studying the impact of wisdom and courage on presencing and absencing at work. Pres- encing and absencing are important phenomena to be studied because they can facilitate awareness-based organisational change. Wisdom has a negative impact on absencing at work. Courage has a positive effect on absencing at work. The impact of wisdom and courage on presencing and absencing at work is me- diated through mindfulness. Mindfulness negatively mediates the impact of wisdom on presencing at work and positively mediates the impact of wisdom on ab- sencing at work. Mindfulness mediates the impact of courage on presencing at work positively and the impact of courage on absencing at work negatively. Mindfulness should be promoted among courageous employees but not among those who are high on wisdom. References Akinwande, M. O., Dikko, H. G., & Samson, A. (2015). Variance ination factor: As a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis. Open Journal of Statistics, 5(7), 754–768. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step ap- proach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Atkins, P . W. B., & Styles, R. (2015). Mindfulness, identity and work: Mindfulness training creates a more exible sense of self. In J. Reb & P . W. B. Atkins (Eds.), Mindfulness in organizations: Foundations, research, and applications (pp. 133–162). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587793 .008 Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Hannah, S. T., Sweetman, D., & Peter- son, C. (2012). Impact of employees’ character strengths of wisdom on stress and creative performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1748-8583.2010.00157.x Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M., & Taris, T. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psy- chology. Work and Stress, 22(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10 .1080/02678370802393649 Baltes, P . B., & Staudinger, U. M. (1996). Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition. Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Ablex. Beaumont, S. L. (2011). Identity styles and wisdom during emerg- ing adulthood: Relationships with mindfulness and savoring. An International Journal of Theory and Research, 11(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2011.557298 Beckstead, J. W. (2012). Isolating and examining sources of sup- pression and multicollinearity in multiple linear regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(2), 224–246. https://doi .org/10.1080/00273171.2012.658331 Bentler, P . M., & Chou, C. H. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78–117. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004 Block-Lerner, J., Adair, C., Plumb, J. C., Rhatigan, D. L., & Orsillo, S. M. (2007). The case for mindfulness-based ap- proaches in the cultivation of empathy: Does nonjudgmental, 76 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 present-moment awareness increase capacity for perspective- taking and empathic concern? Journal of Marital and Family Ther- apy, 33(4), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007 .00034.x Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relation- ships between organizational virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766–790. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0002764203260209 Carmody, J., Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L. B., & Olendzki, N. (2009). An empirical study of the mechanisms of mindfulness in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20579 Chiesi, F., Vizza, D., Valente, M., Bruno, R., Lau, C., Campagna, M. R., Lo Iacono, M., & Bruno, F. (2022). Positive personal resources and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: Resilience, optimism, hope, courage, trait mindful- ness, and self-efcacy in breast cancer patients and survivors. Supportive Care in Cancer, 30(8), 7005–7014. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s00520-022-07123-1 Cook-Greuter, S. (2005). Ego development: Nine levels of increas- ing embrace [Unpublished manuscript]. Retrieved October 29, 2021, from https://www.bhavanalearning.com/wp-content/ uploads/9_levels_of_increasing_embrace_update_1_07.pdf Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and character strengths in ethi- cal decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1680-8 Davis, J. H., & Thompson, E. (2015). Developing attention and de- creasing affective bias. In K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 42–61). The Gulford Press. Deeg, M. D., & May, D. R. (2022). The benets to the human spirit of acting ethically at work: The effects of professional moral courage on work meaningfulness and life well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(2), 397–411. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10551-021-04980-4 Deegan, J., Jr. (1978). On the occurrence of standardized re- gression coefcients greater than one. Educational and Psycho- logical Measurement, 38(4), 873–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001316447803800404 Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P . (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindful- ness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10862-006-9035-8 Forza, C., & Filippini, R. (1998). TQM impact on quality confor- mance and customer satisfaction: A causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10 .1016/S0925-5273(98)00007-3 Glück, J., & Bluck, S. (2013). The MORE life experience model: A theory of the development of personal wisdom. In M. Ferrari & N. M. Weststrate (Eds.), The scientic study of personal wisdom (pp. 75–97). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9231 -1_4 Greenspoon, P . J., & Saklofske, D. H. (1998). Conrmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 965–971. https://doi .org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00115-9 Greeson, J., & Brantley, J. (2009). Mindfulness and anxiety disor- ders: Developing a wise relationship with the inner experience of fear. In D. Fabrizio (Ed.), Clinical handbook of mindfulness (pp. 171–188). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09593-6 _11 Grossmann, I. (2017). Wisdom in context. Perspectives on Psy- chological Science, 12(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691616672066 Grossmann, I., Karasawa, M., Izumi, S., Na, J., Varnum, M. E. W., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2012). Aging and wisdom: Cul- ture matters. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1059–1066. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446025 Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2015). The relationships of character strengths with coping, work-related stress, and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg .2015.00165 Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con- ditional process analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.paid.2017.01.047 Huber, A., Strecker, C., Hausler, M., Kachel, T., Höge, T., & Höfer, S. (2020). Possession and applicability of signature character strengths: What is essential for well-being, work engagement, and burnout? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(2), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9699-8 Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. (2013). Benets of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310–325. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0031313 Hy, L. X., & Loevinger, J. (1996). Measuring ego development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jonas, E., McGregor, I., Klackl, J., Agroskin, D., Fritsche, I., Hol- brook, C., Nash, K., Proulx, T., & Quirin, M. (2014). Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach. In J. E. Olson & M. P . Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 219–286). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0 -12-800052-6.00004-4 Jones, S. M., Bodie, G. D., & Hughes, S. D. (2019). The impact of mindfulness on empathy, active listening, and perceived pro- visions of emotional support. Communication Research, 46(6), 838–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215626983 Jordan, J. (2007). Taking the rst step toward a moral action: A review of moral sensitivity measurement across domains. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(3), 323–359. https://doi.org/ 10.3200/GNTP.168.3.323-360 Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefcient be ? http://www.statmodel.com/download/Joreskog.pdf Kabat-Zinn, J. (2013). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Bantam Dell. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engage- ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287 Karunamuni, N., & Weerasekera, R. (2019). Theoretical foundations to guide mindfulness meditation: A path to wisdom. Current Psychology, 38(3), 627–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017 -9631-7 Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press. Kiken, L. G., & Shook, N. J. (2011). Looking up: Mindfulness in- creases positive judgments and reduces negativity bias. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(4), 425–431. https://doi .org/10.1177/1948550610396585 Koenig, O., Seneque, M., Pomeroy, E., & Scharmer, O. (2021). Jour- nal of awareness-based systems change: The birth of a journal. Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 1(1), 1–8. https:// doi.org/10.47061/jabsc.v1i1.678 Koenig, O., Seneque, M., Sharpe, B., Ash-Harper, Z., Bergheim, S., Hodgson, A., & Odugleh-Kolev, A. (2022). Three horizons meets presencing for inclusive, just and equitable futures. Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 2(1), 127–145. https://doi.org/ 10.47061/jabsc.v2i1.3355 Koerner, M. M. (2014). Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 63– 93. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0641 Kohlenberg, R. J., & Tsai, M. (1991). Functional analytic psychotherapy: Creating intense and curative relationships. Plenum Press. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70855-3 Kohlenberg, R. J., Tsai, M., Kuczynski, A. M., Rae, J. R., Lagbas, E., Lo, J., & Kanter, J. W. (2015). A brief, interpersonally oriented mindfulness intervention incorporating Functional Analytic Psychotherapy’s model of awareness, courage and love. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4(2), 107–111. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.03.003 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 77 Konorti, E., & Eng, P . (2008). The 3D transformational leader- ship model. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 14(1), 10–20. Kross, E., & Grossmann, I. (2012). Boosting wisdom: Distance from the self enhances wise reasoning, attitudes, and behavior. Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 43–48. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0024158 Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking “why” does not hurt. Distinguishing rumination from reective pro- cessing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 709– 715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600.x Kummar, A. S. (2018). Mindfulness and fear extinction: A brief review of its current neuropsychological literature and possible implications for posttraumatic stress disorder. Psy- chological Reports, 121(5), 792–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0033294117740137 Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). Mindfulness research and the future. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 129–139. https://doi .org/10.1111/0022-4537.00155 Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindful- ness, authentic functioning, and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.012 Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organiza- tional behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.165 Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological cap- ital: Investing and developing positive organizational behavior. Positive Organizational Behavior, 1(2), 9–24. https://doi.org/10 .4135/9781446212752.n2 Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2006). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with per- formance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive orga- nizational climate-employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10 .1002/job.507 Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond. Oxford University Press. Magnano, P ., Santisi, G., Zammitti, A., Zarbo, R., Scuderi, V . E., Valenti, G. D., & Faraci, P . (2022). The relationship between sub- jective risk intelligence and courage with working performance: The potential mediating effect of workplace social courage. Eu- ropean Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12040031 Magnano, P ., Paolillo, A., Platania, S., & Santisi, G. (2017). Courage as a potential mediator between personality and coping. Per- sonality and Individual Differences, 111, 13–18. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.047 Miller, M. E., & Cook-Greuter, S. R. (Eds.). (2000). Creativity, spiritu- ality, and transcendence: Paths to integrity and wisdom in the mature self. Greenwood Publishing Group. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill. Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Wisdom. In The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://www.oed.com/ Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents: The development and valida- tion of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 891–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.adolescence.2006.04.011 Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Character strengths in fty-four nations and the fty US states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17439760600619567 Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014). Theory U and emergent in- novation: Presencing as a method of bringing forth profoundly new knowledge and realities. In O. Gunnlaugson (Ed.), Perspec- tives on theory U: Insights from the eld (pp. 207–233). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4793-0.ch014 Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classication (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. Peterson, C., Stephens, J. P ., Park, N., Lee, F., & Seligman, M. E. (2010). Strengths of character and work. In P . A. Linley, S. Har- rington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 221–231). Oxford University Press. https://doi .org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195335446.013.0018 Podsakoff, P . M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P . (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: Acritical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879 Rate, C. R., Clarke, J. A., Lindsay, D. R., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Implicit theories of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228755 Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Scharmer, C. O., & Kaufer, K. (2013). Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to eco-system economies. Berrett-Koehler Publish- ers. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137468208_12 Scharmer, O., & Yukelson, A. (2015). Theory U: From ego-system to eco-system economies. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 35–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jcorpciti.58.35 Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Dening and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P . Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (Vol. 12, pp. 10–24). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203853047 Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V ., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A con- rmative analysis approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326 Sekerka, L. E., & Bagozzi, R. P . (2007). Moral courage in the work- place: Moving to and from the desire and decision to act. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(2), 132–149. https://doi .org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00484.x Seligman, M. E. P ., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psy- chology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 Senge, P . M., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2005). Presence: An exploration of profound change in people, organizations, and society. Currency. Serrano Archimi, C., Reynaud, E., Yasin, H. M., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2018). How perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee cynicism: The mediating role of organizational trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 907–921. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10551-018-3882-6 Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237 Sisti, M., Stewart, J. M., Tsai, M., Kohlenberg, B., & Kohlenberg, R. J. (2014). Contextual bridges through the looking glass: Relational psychoanalysis and functional analytic psychotherapy. In J. M. Stewart (Ed.), Mindfulness and acceptance and the psychodynamic evolution (pp. 231–248). Context Press. Soper, D. S. (2023). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. https:// www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=89 Srivastva, S., & Cooperrider, D. L. (Eds.). (1998). Organizational wis- dom and executive courage. Lexington Books. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607 Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016). Mindfulness in organizations: A cross-level review. Annual Review of Organiza- tional Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 55–81. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062531 Thun, B., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2011). Virtuous leaders: Assessing character strengths in the workplace. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue canadienne des sciences de 78 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2023;25:64–78 l’administration, 28(3), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/ cjas.216 Trowbridge, R. H. (2011). Waiting for Sophia: 30 years of concep- tualizing wisdom in empirical psychology. Research in Human Development, 8(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609 .2011.568872 Verhaeghen, P . (2020). The examined life is wise living: The relation- ship between mindfulness, wisdom, and the moral foundations. Journal of Adult Development, 27(4), 305–322. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10804-019-09343-y Walton, D. N. (1986). Courage, a philosophical investigation. Univer- sity of California Press. Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Appli- cations, 9(6), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07 .003 Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0013164413495237 Woodard, C. R. (2004). Hardiness and the concept of courage. Con- sulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.56.3.173 Wright, T. A., & Goodstein, J. (2007). Character is not “dead” in management research: A review of individual character and organizational-level virtue. Journal of Management, 33(6), 928– 958. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307644 Appendix Table A1. Assessment of common method bias by common latent factor approach. Stand. l Stand. l Difference (model without common method factor) (model with common method factor) Perspective Wisdom 0.483 0.286 0.197 Learing Wisdom 0.6 0.25 0.35 Openmind Wisdom 0.504 0.288 0.216 Curiosity Wisdom 0.43 0.295 0.135 Creativity Wisdom 0.52 0.292 0.228 Honesty Courage 0.483 0.334 0.149 Bravery Courage 0.39 0.17 0.22 Persistency Courage 0.427 0.214 0.213 Zest Courage 0.491 0.259 0.232 CAMSr10 Mindfulness 0.704 0.611 0.093 CAMSr9 Mindfulness 0.48 0.427 0.053 CAMSr8 Mindfulness 0.697 0.592 0.105 CAMSr11 Mindfulness 0.738 0.652 0.086 CAMSr12 Mindfulness 0.616 0.536 0.08 IP3 InnerPRES 0.514 0.437 0.077 IP2 InnerPRES 0.664 0.534 0.13 IP1 InnerPRES 0.752 0.649 0.103 IA3 InnerABS 0.524 0.49 0.034 IA2 InnerABS 0.808 0.764 0.044 IA1 InnerABS 0.832 0.708 0.124