This ar ti cle presents the Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework (FLPTF), a novel model examining founding leaders’ transi ti on from business to philanthropy. Rooted in ontological principles and leadership theories, the FLPTF explores shi ft s in leadership styles and organiza ti onal dynamics. The ar ti cle iden ti fies a gap in the exis ti ng literature, highligh ti ng the need for comprehensive analyses of these transi ti ons, and o ffers a theore ti cal model. The model’s dimensions, built on cogni ti ve and behavioral aspects, allow for a thorough explora ti on of leadership styles as they unfold and develop through the leadership journey of company founders. The FLPTF serves as a theore ti cal guide and pragma ti c tool, an ti cipa ti ng challenges and opportuni ti es during the transi ti on process for poten ti al cases, which are named in the ar ti cle. It paves the way for deeper inves ti ga ti on into leadership evolu ti on shi ft s when founding leaders transi ti on from business to full ‐ti me philanthropy. Keywords: Leadership transi ti on, Philanthropy, Founding leaders, Leadership styles, Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework FOUNDING LEADERS’ PHILANTHROPIC TRANSITION FRAMEWORK: LEADERSHIP JOURNEY FROM BUSINESS TO (FULL ‐TIME) PHILANTHROPY Žiga Vavpo tič IEDC – Bled School of Management, Slovenia ziga.vavpo ti c@gmail.com Miha Škerlavaj School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway miha.skerlavaj@ef.uni ‐lj.si Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 19 1 INTRODUCTION As we navigate the 21st century, a pressing ques ti on emerges: will the future be shaped more by the innova ti ve drive of businesses or by the al ‐ truis ti c vision of philanthropy? Organiza ti onal lead ‐ ership has been a central theme in both the corporate and non ‐profit sectors, although with dis ‐ ti nct mo ti ves and opera ti onal mechanisms. Corpo ‐ rate leadership o ft en is directed toward genera ti ng profits and increasing shareholder value, whereas leadership in the non ‐profit and philanthropic sec ‐ tors focuses primarily on social welfare and posi ti ve societal impact (Khan & Khandaker, 2016; Smith et al., 2010). In recent years, a no ti ceable trend has emerged in which accomplished corporate leaders transi ti on from business to philanthropy. Several of these fig ‐ ures have inherited significant wealth and subse ‐ quently have pivoted toward philanthropic ac ti vi ti es, such as Lynn and Stacy Schusterman, the spouse and o ffspring, respec ti vely, of the late oil tycoon Charles Schusterman. In contrast, some leaders, while s ti ll managing their enterprises, have commi tt ed to do ‐ na ti ng substan ti al por ti ons of their wealth, as in the cases of Warren Bu ffe tt and George Soros. Concur ‐ rently, a rising cohort, including luminaries such as Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, have amassed their own fortunes, and have ventured into philan ‐ thropy (Forbes Wealth Team, 2022). Abstract Vol. 12, No. 2, 19 ‐34 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2023.v12n02a02 DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 19 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 20 Žiga Vavpo tič , Miha Škerlavaj: Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework: Leadership Journey from Business to (Full ‐Time) Philanthropy The gradual shi ft of corporate moguls transi ‐ ti oning from business to full‐ti me philanthropy is becoming increasingly prominent. Evidence of such transi ti ons include Bill Gates’s strategic pivot from Microso ft to the Bill and Melinda Gates Founda ti on (McGoey, 2015). A similar path recently was an ‐ nounced by Je ff Bezos (Simone tti & Kulish, 2022). Significantly, this is not a trend confined to the West. Jack Ma, one of China’s most esteemed en ‐ trepreneurs, has divulged his philanthropic inten ‐ ti ons in the realm of educa ti on within China (Doebele, 2019). Furthermore, this shi ft is dis ‐ cernible even in smaller na ti ons: for example, in Slovenia, Samo and Iza Sia Login, founders of Out ‐ fit7 Limited, sold their firm to fuel their philan ‐ thropic endeavors through the Login5 Founda ti on (Polajnar, 2021). Despite the evident trend of business leaders transitioning to philanthropy, there is a significant gap in our understanding of this shift. The extant literature indicates that there are significant differ ‐ ences between for ‐profit and not ‐for ‐profit orga ‐ nizations’ leadership (Viader & Espina, 2014; Young, 2013). However, research on leadership transitions from business to full ‐time philanthropy remains limited. The absence of a guiding frame ‐ work can result in philanthropic initiatives that are less impactful, misaligned with community needs, or even counterproductive. Philanthropic organi ‐ zations may encounter difficulties in aligning their goals, mission, and available resources, which sug ‐ gests that the leadership approach in philanthropy might require different competencies and strate ‐ gies compared with business leadership (Jung et al., 2016). Given the increasing trend of business leaders transitioning to philanthropy, understand ‐ ing this transition is crucial to ensure effective leadership in philanthropic organizations and to contribute to their overall success and impact (Brest & Harvey, 2018). Philanthropy is receiving self ‐space and re ‐ search in di fferent academic areas, and is no longer a part of non ‐profit studies or studies in the third sector (Harrow et al., 2021). Exis ti ng research has produced conflic ti ng findings on how business lead ‐ ers’ transi ti on impacts the success of philanthropy (Cha & Abebe, 2016; Hwang & Paarlberg, 2019). Ad ‐ di ti onally, prior research o ft en has focused on the organiza ti onal trends of for ‐profit and not ‐for ‐profit organiza ti ons without adequately addressing the role of founding leaders in such transi ti ons (Child, 2016; Nieto Morales et al., 2013; Ruvio et al., 2010). To address these gaps, this ar ti cle is anchored in two primary streams of the literature: philan ‐ thropy and leadership transi ti on. In the first stream, philanthropy is examined in terms of both its histor ‐ ical roots and its modern manifesta ti ons. Seminal works in this domain include those by Zunz (2014), Bona ti (2019), Reich (2018), Butoescu (2021), Har ‐ row et al. (2021), Einolf (2016), Roundy et al. (2017), Bishop and Green (2015), and Wollheim (2008), and have delved into its historical evolu ti on and modern perspec ti ves. The second stream examines leader ‐ ship transi ti ons, emphasizing the evolu ti on of lead ‐ ership styles, the dynamics between founders and managers, and the shi ft s between profit and non ‐ profit sectors. This is informed by the founda ti onal works of Bass and Riggio (2006), Bass (1985), Dierendonck (2010), Spears (2010), Keller and Meaney (2018), Hoch and Kozlowski (2014), Nan ‐ jundeswaraswamy and Swamy (2014), Ho ffman et al. (2011), Child et al. (2015), Viader and Espina (2014), Javaid (2021), Feldman and Graddy ‐Reed (2014), and Rogers (2015). Central to our study are Schein’s (1995) insights into the dis ti nc ti ve roles of founders and managers. His work serves as the bedrock upon which our Founding Leaders’ Philan ‐ thropic Transi ti on Framework (FLPTF) is built. This framework is intended to deepen the comprehen ‐ sion of leadership transi ti ons from business realms to philanthropic endeavors. By integra ti ng Schein’s leadership model, we complement and expand upon exis ti ng theories of leadership transi ti ons. Through our comprehensive review, we provide a deeper understanding of the complexi ti es and nu ‐ ances surrounding leadership transi ti ons, especially those transi ti oning from business to philanthropy. The main objec ti ves of this ar ti cle were as fol ‐ lows. First, to review the exis ti ng literature on lead ‐ ership styles in for ‐profit and philanthropic organiza ti ons, and to understand the constraints and opportuni ti es associated with transi ti oning be ‐ tween the two. Second, to integrate Schein’s lead ‐ ership model comparing founders and managers and leadership transi ti on to provide a theore ti cal founda ti on for understanding how leadership styles DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 20 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 21 evolve during this transi ti on. Lastly, to propose a conceptual framework, termed the Founding Lead ‐ ers’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework, to guide future academic studies of the transi ti on of found ‐ ing leaders from business to full ‐ti me philanthropy. In the broader perspec ti ve, understanding these transi ti ons is crucial for society as well, be ‐ cause it can facilitate the development of more ‐ef ‐ fec ti ve philanthropic organiza ti ons, which in turn can have a posi ti ve impact on social welfare and sustainable development (Ko ff, 2017). Through its theore ti cal contribu ti ons, this ar ti cle augments the knowledge base and s ti mulates further academic and prac ti cal engagements in the domain of lead ‐ ership transi ti ons to philanthropy. The transi ti on from entrepreneurship to full‐ti me philanthropy brings unique dynamics and challenges, many of which are yet to be fully understood. Each such journey o ffers a unique perspec ti ve on the transi ‐ ti on from business leadership to philanthropy, and could reinforce the relevance and poten ti al appli ‐ cability of the FLPTF. 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 From Individual to Full ‐Time Philanthropy Philanthropy, as Zunz (2014) men ti oned, has ancient roots; the term derives from the Greek for “love of humanity.” Early philanthropy was associ ‐ ated with religious ins ti tu ti ons, as noted by Bona ti (2019). Reich (2018) highlighted the surge of large ‐ scale philanthropy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, driven by wealthy individuals such as Carnegie and Rockefeller. The first private charitable founda ti on was founded by the English merchant Thomas Coram (Butoescu, 2021). Today, philanthropy encompasses various forms of giving by individuals, corpora ti ons, and founda ti ons, and is characterized by strategic and targeted approaches (Harrow et al., 2021). Individual philanthropy cons ti tutes a signifi ‐ cant aspect of charitable giving. According to Einolf (2016), individual giving o ft en is classified into di ‐ rect giving, bequests, and donor ‐advised funds. Furthermore, as Roundy et al. (2017) suggested, entrepreneurs increasingly have engaged in philan ‐ thropy, employing their business exper ti se to ad ‐ dress social issues, giving rise to the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship. Philanthropy, despite its altruis ti c inten ti ons, has faced cri ti cisms. Reich (2018) discussed how large ‐scale philanthropy inadvertently can reinforce power dynamics and inequali ti es. Moreover, Bén ‐ abou and Tirole (2010) noted that some corpora ‐ ti ons might engage in philanthropy primarily for reputa ti on management. The burst of enthusiasm for philanthropy has been due primarily to the rapid accumula ti on of cap ‐ ital in recent years and its uneven distribu ti on. Not all newly rich people become philanthropic. However, new wealth also creates new opportuni ti es. Mitchell and Sparke (2016) argued that we are at a historic mo ‐ ment in the development of philanthropy. “If only 5– 10% of new billionaires are crea ti ve in philanthropy, they will be able to completely transform philanthropy in the next 20 years.” (Wollheim, 2008, p. 12). Founda ti on giving is a form of philanthropy that typically is associated with private founda ti ons. Ac ‐ cording to Anheier and Leat (2018), private founda ‐ ti ons are established by individuals or groups of individuals to support specific causes or organiza ‐ ti ons. Private founda ti ons typically make grants to non ‐profit organiza ti ons, and they are exempt from paying taxes on their investment income. A par ti cu ‐ larly significant development in philanthropy is the emergence of philanthrocapitalism, also known as venture philanthropy. Bishop (2006) originally coined the term to describe the strategic applica ti on of mo ti ves and market methods for philanthropic purposes. It emerged due to the ine fficiency and in ‐ e ffec ti veness of tradi ti onal philanthropy. Philanthro ‐ capitalism revolves around the idea of “the growing role of private sector actors in addressing the biggest social and environmental challenges facing the planet” (Bishop & Green, 2015, p. 541). Haydon et al. defined philanthrocapitalism as “the integra ‐ ti on of market mo ti fs, moti ves, and methods with philanthropy, especially by HNWSIs (high ‐net ‐worth individuals) and their ins ti tu ti ons” (2021, p.15). Philanthropy has evolved, and elite philan ‐ thropy now is a dominant force in social, economic, and poli ti cal arenas, especially in the US and UK. Al ‐ though tradi ti onally seen as a benevolent gesture, DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 21 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 22 Žiga Vavpo tič , Miha Škerlavaj: Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework: Leadership Journey from Business to (Full ‐Time) Philanthropy it now is recognized as deeply connected to elite power dynamics. This influence o ft en focuses re ‐ sources on elite ins ti tu ti ons and causes, poten ti ally intensifying exis ti ng inequali ti es. Viewing philan ‐ thropy through the lens of power dynamics o ffers a more comprehensive understanding of its impact (Maclean et al., 2021). Full‐ti me philanthropy is a manifesta ti on of how the philanthropic landscape has evolved. In full ‐ti me philanthropy, individuals or organiza ti ons en ti rely dedicate themselves to philanthropy, o ft en focusing on grant ‐making. This some ti mes is re ‐ ferred to as career philanthropy. Notable figures such as Bill Gates, Warren Bu ffe tt , and John D. Rock ‐ efeller have become synonymous with this form of giving. Konrath (2014) noted that philanthropy does not necessarily involve monetary dona ti ons; individ ‐ uals also can donate their ti me, talent, or other re ‐ sources for societal good. Elizabeth and Charles Handy, as explained by Phillips and Jung (2016), have collaborated to de ‐ velop what is known as the “new philanthropists.” These are individuals who have acquired wealth and decide to pivot from focusing solely on financial suc ‐ cess to also helping those in need. These new phi ‐ lanthropists o ft en work in conjunc ti on with community members to ensure that their ini ti a ti ves are sustainable. In conclusion, individuals and organiza ti ons are playing increasingly dynamic and interconnected roles in the philanthropic sector. The emergence of full‐ti me philanthropy, philanthrocapitalism, and celanthropism signifies the evolu ti on and diversifi ‐ ca ti on of strategies in philanthropy. These ap ‐ proaches, characterized by innova ti on, strategic thinking, and, in some instances, the applica ti on of market ‐oriented methods, have the poten ti al to ad ‐ dress some of the world’s most pressing challenges. 2.2 Leadership transi ti on Leadership transi ti ons at di fferent organiza ‐ ti onal levels entail shi ft s in leadership roles and re ‐ sponsibili ti es as individuals progress in their careers. The nature of leadership varies depending on the hierarchical level within an organiza ti on, with lower management levels typically focused on controlling and direc ti ng tasks, whereas higher levels encom ‐ pass overseeing and controlling the en ti re organiza ‐ ti on. These transi ti ons require leaders to develop a be tt er understanding of the organiza ti on, the roles of various employees, and the market environment. Clear role defini ti ons and e ffec ti ve management of cultural dynamics are crucial for a successful lead ‐ ership transi ti on (Keller & Meaney, 2018). Leadership transi ti ons occur across various lev ‐ els within an organiza ti on, and each level necessi ‐ tates di fferent leadership styles and skill sets. Leadership styles also may vary at di fferent levels, and selec ti ng an appropriate leadership style is es ‐ sen ti al for building trust and ensuring organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Nanjun ‐ deswaraswamy & Swamy, 2014). Ho ffman et al. (2011) highlighted that one of the primary responsibili ti es of leaders is to provide a sense of vision, inspira ti on, agenda ‐se tti ng, and team management. Leadership style plays a signifi ‐ cant role in how these aspects are managed, and can determine the success of an organiza ti on. For the purpose of building the model, we fo ‐ cused on three specific leadership styles. The first is transforma ti onal leadership, which fosters an envi ‐ ronment of innova ti on and inspires followers to achieve remarkable results, as described by Bass and Riggio (2006). The second is transac ti onal leadership, a style centered on supervision, organiza ti on, and performance, involving a system of rewards and pun ‐ ishments, as outlined by Bass (1985). The third is ser ‐ vant leadership, a style that priori ti zes the needs of others above the leader’s own, emphasizing em ‐ ployee sa ti sfac ti on and community, as detailed by Dierendonck (2010) and Spears (2010). Transi ti ons between profit and non ‐profit orga ‐ niza ti ons entail dis ti nct shi ft s in leadership and man ‐ agement approaches. Moving from a profit ‐oriented business to a non ‐profit organiza ti on requires lead ‐ ers to adapt their mindset, skill set, and approach to align with the philanthropic goals and social missions of the non ‐profit sector . Not ‐for ‐profit organiza ti ons priori ti ze social service provisions rather than profit genera ti on, necessita ti ng leaders to develop skills in fundraising, donor engagement, and social impact assessment. Understanding the di fferences in target audiences, funding sources, and problem ‐solving DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 22 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 23 strategies between profit and non ‐profit organiza ‐ ti ons is essen ti al for leaders naviga ti ng this transi ti on (Child et al., 2015; Viader & Espina, 2014). Transi ti oning from a business to philanthropy involves a shi ft in focus from profit ‐making to mak ‐ ing a meaningful social impact. Business leaders who embark on philanthropic endeavors need to es ‐ tablish stronger connec ti ons with the community and integrate social responsibility into their business models. Philanthropy can enhance business con ti ‐ nuity and success by appealing to socially conscious consumers and promo ti ng corporate social respon ‐ sibility. Leaders must develop philanthropic literacy and skills in ethical decision ‐making, risk manage ‐ ment, and iden ti fying cri ti cal social issues to drive e ffec ti ve philanthropic ini ti a ti ves (Jansons, 2015; Shang & Sargeant, 2020). Some leaders transi ti on from business to full ‐ ti me philanthropy, dedica ti ng their ti me and re ‐ sources en ti rely to philanthropic endeavors. Philanthropy, as a concept, has deep historical roots, and its prac ti ce has been evident across cen ‐ turies. An examina ti on of the list of the top ten phi ‐ lanthropists, as presented by the EdelGive Hurun report, underscores this historical con ti nuity; of these ten, only two ini ti ated their philanthropic en ‐ deavors a ft er the year 2000. However, a noteworthy evolu ti on in the realm of philanthropy is the emerg ‐ ing trend of individuals dedica ti ng themselves full ‐ ti me to their charitable pursuits. Although the act of giving is not novel, this intensified, full ‐ti me com ‐ mitment to philanthropy represents a unique shi ft in how modern benefactors approach their contri ‐ bu ti ons to society (Javaid , 2021). Full‐ti me philanthropists focus on improving human welfare through charitable dona ti ons, sup ‐ por ti ng social causes, and engaging in philanthropic ini ti a ti ves. Prominent examples include leaders such as Bill Gates and Warren Bu ffet, who have made substan ti al contribu ti ons to various philanthropic causes. This transi ti on requires leaders to delegate the management of their business organiza ti ons and develop exper ti se in philanthropic psychology, strategic philanthropy, and e ffec ti ve altruism. Full ‐ ti me philanthropists play a vital role in driving posi ‐ ti ve change and maximizing their impact on society (Feldman & Graddy ‐Reed, 2014; Rogers, 2015). The transi ti on from founders to managers rep ‐ resents a cri ti cal phase in organiza ti onal develop ‐ ment. Founders have a significant influence on organiza ti onal culture, values, and problem ‐solving approaches. As companies grow and professional managers are introduced, tensions may arise be ‐ tween the original values and the focus on short ‐ term financial performance. The challenge lies in successfully transi ti oning to the next genera ti on of leaders while maintaining core cultural elements and adap ti ng to the changing external environment. Understanding the di fferences between founders and professional managers in terms of mo ti va ti onal, analy ti cal, interpersonal, and structural dimensions is crucial for managing this transi ti on e ffec ti vely (Davis et al., 1997; Schein, 1995). Based on the founda ti onal work of Schein (1995) about founders and managers, which we use as a grounded theory, a new model of dimensions is proposed to encompass a broader range of po ‐ ten ti al compara ti ve analysis between profit ‐driven business organiza ti ons and philanthropic entiti es. This model integrates leadership styles into the comparison. The model is informed not only by aca ‐ demic theory but also by the lead author’s personal ontological experiences as a leader in both profit ‐ driven and philanthropic organiza ti ons. This fusion of theory and prac ti cal insights is consistent with the principles of reflec ti ve prac ti ce and experien ti al learning. Schön (1983) posited that professionals can derive insights from their experiences to refine their prac ti ces, and Kolb’s experien ti al learning the ‐ ory underscores the significance of experience as a primary source of knowledge crea ti on. Leadership studies further emphasize this symbio ti c rela ti on ‐ ship; Bennis (2009) stated that the journey of be ‐ coming a leader is deeply intertwined with personal narra ti ves and challenges. Moreover, the narra ti ve inquiry approach in qualita ti ve research, as de ‐ scribed by Clandinin and Connelly (2000), places paramount importance on personal stories and lived experiences to understand and interpret phe ‐ nomena. Thus, the model’s integra ti on of theory with lived experiences not only aligns with these founda ti onal academic frameworks but also en ‐ hances its validity and applicability in real ‐world contexts, bridging the gap between academic re ‐ search and lived experiences. DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 23 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 24 Žiga Vavpo tič , Miha Škerlavaj: Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework: Leadership Journey from Business to (Full ‐Time) Philanthropy 3 FOUNDING LEADERS’ PHILANTHROPIC TRANSITION FRAMEWORK 3.1 Introduc ti on to the Framework The Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework is a model that systema ti cally dissects the journey of founding leaders as they transi ti on from a business ‐oriented environment to philan ‐ thropy. As founding leaders’ transi ti on from busi ‐ ness to philanthropy, their leadership styles evolve. The personal dimension of the FLPTF examines the shi ft in leadership styles. It was hypothesized for this paper that whereas transac ti onal leadership o ft en su ffices in the corporate world, as leaders move to philanthropy, transforma ti onal and servant leader ‐ ship styles may take precedence. This hypothesis re ‐ flects the general premise that the nature of philanthropy may demand a di fferent kind of lead ‐ ership than the business sector. The model is founded on a crucial aspect: lead ‐ ership style. The leadership style serves as the per ‐ sonal aspect of the transi ti on, embodying the characteris ti cs and strategies employed by the founding leaders grounded in transforma ti onal, transac ti onal, and servant leadership, drawing in ‐ spira ti on from the work of Bass and Riggio (2006). Cri ti cal to the Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework is the construc ti on of dimen ‐ sions that are both theore ti cally grounded and prac ‐ ti cally relevant. The dimensions are formed based on an ontological founda ti on, assessing what founders need to cogni ti vely think and behaviorally do to establish organiza ti ons. The first dimension is the cogni ti ve aspect. This facet focuses on the mental processes and thought pa tt erns that founders engage in. It assesses how leaders conceptualize, strategize, and evaluate dif ‐ ferent components involved in establishing an orga ‐ niza ti on. The second dimension is the behavioral aspect. Unlike the cogni ti ve aspect, the behavioral facet is concerned with the tangible ac ti ons and prac ti ces that founders adopt while se tti ng up an or ‐ ganiza ti on. These two dimensions together provide a comprehensive understanding of the transi ti on process from a business leadership role to a philan ‐ thropic one. The ontological basis subsequently is juxtaposed with Schein’s theore ti cal work on the leadership of managers and founders (Schein, 1995), which o ffers a rich tapestry of insights into organiza ti onal culture and leadership. The FLPTF leverages Schein’s theo ‐ re ti cal constructs (Schein, 1995) to refine and au ‐ then ti cate the dimensions further in crea ti ng a dimensional matrix. By integra ti ng both the cogni ti ve and behavioral aspects, the FLPTF dis ti ls a novel set of dimensions that are specifically tailored for com ‐ paring business and philanthropy realms. These di ‐ mensions not only allow a compara ti ve study between business and philanthropy, but also enable an examina ti on of leadership styles and set expecta ‐ ti ons for outcomes based on di fferent leadership ap ‐ proaches. As the founding leaders navigate the convergence of business and philanthropy, the FLPTF provides a comprehensive lens through which we can understand this transi ti on. The framework is not only a theore ti cal model, but serves as a pragma ti c tool for leaders to an ti cipate the challenges and op ‐ portuni ti es that lie ahead in their journey. Further ‐ more, it empowers stakeholders to understand the dynamism and complexity of this transi ti on. In summary, the FLPTF elucidates the complex journey of founding leaders as they transi ti on from business to philanthropy. With its founda ti ons in leadership styles, it allows for a nuanced analysis of personal changes. 3.2 Process of Building the Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework This sec ti on describes the research process to shed light on the development of dimensions and their integra ti on with the Schein model. A closer ex ‐ amina ti on of the steps involved in this process pro ‐ vides insights into the construc ti on of a robust research framework. Figure 1 illustrates the ini ti al phase, wherein leadership dimensions were iden ti ‐ fied based on relevant experiences. Subsequently, a framework was conceptualized by aligning these dimensions with the established Schein model, re ‐ sul ti ng in a new integrated framework proposal. Be ‐ ginning on an ontological standpoint grounded in personal experiences and extensive involvement in diverse managerial roles, par ti cularly through a longstanding professional rela ti onship with the Lo ‐ DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 24 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 25 gins, a cogni ti ve construc ti vist approach was used for this ar ti cle. The underlying ontological belief centers around the no ti on that knowledge and re ‐ ality are shaped by experiences and interac ti ons, aligning significantly with the principles of cogni ti ve construc ti vism (Piaget, 1954). Accumulated experi ‐ ences and insights gained from managing various organiza ti ons shed light on two pivotal components of leadership within the context of organiza ti onal establishment and steering: cogni ti ve and behav ‐ ioral aspects. This division aligns with the construc ‐ ti vist perspec ti ve, which recognizes the dynamic interplay between cogni ti ve thought processes and behavioral ac ti ons in shaping leadership roles and influencing organiza ti onal dynamics. In conceptual ‐ izing the leadership dimensions, the inten ti on is to introduce a structured approach for tracking longi ‐ tudinal changes in leadership styles. These dimen ‐ sions extend beyond cogni ti ve and behavioral aspects, encompassing dimensions such as morality. However, dimensions that elicit binary responses have been avoided inten ti onally, enabling a nu ‐ anced explora ti on of leadership transforma ti ons over ti me. At this preliminary stage of the research, the decision was made to categorize the dimensions into two broad umbrellas: cogni ti ve, and behavioral. Although there may be some overlap among certain dimensions, such as joyfulness, which can be argued to manifest both cogni ti vely and behaviorally, estab ‐ lishing these overarching categories simplifies the ini ti al understanding of the dimensions and facili ‐ tates the tracking of changes within them over ti me. The proposed dimensions were mapped onto an exis ti ng scien ti fic model; the Schein model was chosen for this purpose. The Schein model (1995), which compares founders and professional man ‐ agers, was used as the founda ti on for developing the research model because it delineates a nuanced dis ti nc ti on between the leadership of founders and professional managers, segmented across four piv ‐ otal dimensions. These dimensions—mo ti va ti onal and emo ti onal orienta ti on, analy ti cal orienta ti on, interpersonal orienta ti on, and structural/posi ti onal di fferences —serve to highlight the inherent con ‐ trasts in approach, mindset, and opera ti onal modus operandi between these two leadership archetypes. The model underscores the unique paradigms from Figure 1: First dimension proposal Source: The authors, 2022 DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 25 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 26 Žiga Vavpo tič , Miha Škerlavaj: Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework: Leadership Journey from Business to (Full ‐Time) Philanthropy which each leadership style emerges, sugges ti ng that their behaviors and ac ti ons are intrinsically ti ed to their founda ti onal roles within organiza ti ons. Building upon this founda ti on, this paper ex ‐ tends the model to include a comparison of three leadership styles (transac ti onal, transforma ti onal, and servant leadership) as well as an examina ti on of organiza ti onal change from profit to non ‐profit contexts, specifically focusing on the transi ti on from business to philanthropy. Schein’s model categorizes dimensions into mo ti va ti onal and emo ti onal orien ‐ ta ti ons, analy ti cal orienta ti on, interpersonal orien ‐ ta ti on, and structural/posi ti onal di fferences. This categoriza ti on o ffers a valuable framework for un ‐ derstanding the mul ti faceted nature of leadership. By leveraging Schein’s model, this research ex ‐ panded its applicability and relevance to address the specific research focus. This entailed developing a comprehensive framework that encompasses vari ‐ ous leadership styles and explores the dynamics of organiza ti onal change within the business and phi ‐ lanthropy context. Even though this research primarily focuses on comparing management styles based on profitability and non ‐profitability, whereas the Schein model compares founders and managers, it s ti ll provides in ‐ sigh tf ul dimensions for compara ti ve analysis. Schein proposed and grouped dimensions such as mo ti va ‐ ti on and emo ti onal orienta ti on, analy ti cal orienta ‐ ti on, interpersonal orienta ti on, and structural and posi ti onal di fferences. Building upon the Schein model, the researchers mapped these dimensions with their own framework. Notable modifica ti ons were made during the development of the model. Opera ti onal aspects were added to the analy ti ‐ cal orienta ti ons to enhance the comprehensiveness of the model. However, the structural dimension, which primarily pertains to the di fferences in the func ti oning of founders and professional managers, deliberately was excluded because it diverged from the research focus. Furthermore, the researchers acknowledge the cogni ti ve capacity of leaders to think in two ‐dimensional (either/or) or mul ti dimen ‐ sional (either/or/and) terms. For example, when contempla ti ng the organiza ti onal vision, leaders may consider altruis ti c mo ti ves, profit mo ti ves, or a combina ti on of both, as in social enterprises. Con ‐ versely, the concept of authen ti city does not allow for a dualis ti c interpreta ti on; an organiza ti on cannot be simultaneously authen ti c and inauthen ti c. As a result, some dimensions from the Schein model were merged into a single dimension in the new model to accommodate these complexi ti es. The two models are compared in Table 1 using as an example mo ti va ti on and emo ti onal orienta ‐ ti on. The dimensions or parts of dimensions in red and marked with an asterisk (*) within these tables indicate modifica ti ons made to the Schein model. Addi ti onally, dimensions marked with a plus sign (+) in Table 1 signify the absence of corresponding di ‐ mensions in the Schein model, emphasizing the unique contribu ti ons of the dimensions incorpo ‐ rated in the new model. The development of the final dimensions in ‐ volved several steps. Considering these steps, Figure 2 presents the final proposal for the dimensions. It encapsulates the comprehensive framework result ‐ ing from the integra ti on of opera ti onal aspects, the considera ti on of mul ti dimensional thinking, and the comparison with the Schein model. Figure 2 serves as a visual representa ti on of the dimensions, pro ‐ viding a clear overview of the proposed framework and further guiding the conceptual paper. To advance the research process further, busi ‐ ness and philanthropy were compared within the scope of the proposed dimensions. Taking a step be ‐ yond the ini ti al comparison, an a tt empt was made to predict how these dimensions might manifest in both types of organiza ti ons. Dimensions for which it was possible to make es ti ma ti ons were catego ‐ rized as high, medium, or low. In cases involving two ‐dimensional considera ti ons, an educated guess was made for the second component. For example, when examining territorial orienta ti on, a cosmopoli ‐ tan perspec ti ve was taken. Con ti nuing the research process, a similar es ti ‐ ma ti on focused on di fferent leadership styles— transacti onal, transforma ti onal, and servant. The approach followed a two ‐fold process. Firstly, an in ‐ tensity rate, categorized as high, middle, or low, was assigned to each dimension. Secondly, the poten ti al di fferences that may arise between leadership styles were studied, considering the relevant leadership dimensions. DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 26 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 27 Table 1: Comparison of Schein and Vavpo tič models: Mo ti vati on, and emo ti onal orienta ti on By incorpora ti ng these es ti ma ti ons, the research gained insights into the dis ti nc ti ve characteris ti cs and orienta ti ons associated with each leadership style. As the research process nears comple ti on, the next step involves specula ti on about the expected changes in leadership style based on the proposed dimensions. Tables 2, 3, and 4 present a comprehensive list of di ‐ mensions along with explana ti ons of the an ti cipated shi ft s in leadership style when transi ti oning from a profit ‐oriented business to a philanthropic organiza ‐ ti on. The aim is to iden ti fy and examine actual changes in leadership styles, comparing them with the predicted outcomes outlined in the table. The list of dimensions and corresponding pre ‐ dic ti ons o ffers a robust framework for understand ‐ ing the poten ti al transforma ti ons that may occur during the transi ti on from a profit ‐oriented business to a philanthropic organiza ti on. The predic ti ons align with the prevailing understanding that leaders in the philanthropic sector o ft en adopt more ‐altru ‐ is ti c orienta ti ons and exhibit transforma ti onal and servant leadership styles. These expecta ti ons find support in exis ti ng theories and empirical evidence on leadership in philanthropic contexts. For example, the predic ti on that leaders in phi ‐ lanthropic organiza ti ons will display a greater em ‐ phasis on altruism and adopt transforma ti onal and servant leadership styles aligns with prior research on leadership in the non ‐profit sector (Bell & Abbas, 2012; Bennis & Goldsmith, 2003). Leaders in these organiza ti ons frequently are mo ti vated by a sense of purpose and a desire to create a posi ti ve social impact, which corresponds to the altruis ti c mo ti va ti on dimension. Moreover, the emphasis on values, mission, and stakeholder well ‐being within the non ‐profit sector reinforces the expecta ti on of a transi ti on toward transforma ti onal and servant leadership styles. Addi ti onally, the predic ti ons pertaining to fac ‐ tors such as territorial orienta ti on, visionary ap ‐ proach, organiza ti onal focus, and inclusivity reflect the underlying values and characteris ti cs commonly associated with philanthropic organiza ti ons (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass & Riggio, 2006). These di ‐ mensions underscore the significance of considering the broader societal impact, engaging stakeholders, and fostering inclusive and empowering cultures within the philanthropic sector. DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 27 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 28 Žiga Vavpo tič , Miha Škerlavaj: Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework: Leadership Journey from Business to (Full ‐Time) Philanthropy 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Interpreta ti on of Findings Picture this: a seasoned business leader trading the corporate boardroom for a world of giving back. What if the boardroom’s bo tt om line was be tt ering lives? Would that be a step backward or forward? To truly discern our future’s architects, we must first grasp the nuances of leadership within philanthropy. This ar ‐ ti cle reveals the exci ti ng journey of founding leaders who make a grand leap from the business world to phi ‐ lanthropy. It o ffers insights into the essen ti als that make business and philanthropy ti ck and explores the enthralling ways in which they are alike and unalike. The topic not only provides a deeper understanding of the di fferences between business (for ‐profit) and phi ‐ lanthropic (non ‐profit) leadership but also focuses specifically on the transi ti on to full‐ti me philanthropy by crea ti ng the unique model to study it—the FLPTF. The FLPTF integrates Schein’s leadership model to create a holis ti c framework that addresses the change in leadership styles as founding leaders transi ti on from business to philanthropy. The framework is posi ti oned not just as a theore ti cal model but also as an analy ti cal tool that could serve as the basis for empirically studying real ‐life cases. The FLPTF considers both cogni ti ve and behavioral dimensions, providing a comprehensive guide for understanding the nuances of this transi ti on. The FLPTF is par ti cularly ground ‐breaking because it en ‐ capsulates the shi ft s in leadership styles during this transi ti on. This, in turn, elucidates the complex in ‐ terplay adding depth to exis ti ng models and giving birth to a novel framework that bridges theory and prac ti ce. Moreover, this framework makes a semi ‐ nal contribu ti on to leadership and organiza ti onal theory by applying Schein’s models in an under ‐ex ‐ plored context. Figure 2: Final dimensions by Vavpo tič based on Schein model: Dimensional matrix DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 28 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 29 5.2 Theore ti cal contribu ti on Leadership, as a field of study, has been dis ‐ sected extensively, with scholars predominantly fo ‐ cusing on individual leadership styles such as transforma ti onal (Bass & Riggio, 2006), transac ‐ ti onal (Bass, 1985), and servant leadership (Green ‐ leaf, 1977). These styles, although pivotal, o ft en exist in academic silos, with limited explora ti on of their interplay, especially in dynamic contexts such as transi ti oning from business to philanthropy. The incep ti on of the FLPTF marks a significant departure from tradi ti onal leadership studies. This framework innova ti vely amalgamates various lead ‐ ership styles, o ffering a tailored approach for lead ‐ ers who are at the crossroads of business and philanthropy. This synthesis not only addresses a Table 2: Expected change in leadership style through dimensional matrix: Mo ti vati on and emo ti onal orienta ti on DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 29 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 Žiga Vavpo tič , Miha Škerlavaj: Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework: Leadership Journey from Business to (Full ‐Time) Philanthropy 30 glaring gap in the literature but also poses intriguing theore ti cal ques ti ons about the fluidity and adapt ‐ ability of leadership styles in transi ti onal phases. By weaving in Schein’s leadership model (1995), the FLPTF gains a robust theore ti cal backbone, fur ‐ ther complemented by Yin’s (2017) endorsement of case study methodologies for dissec ti ng intricate phenomena. This dual anchoring ensures that the FLPTF is not just theore ti cally sound but also primed for empirical explora ti on. In addi ti on to its academic merit, the FLPTF stands as a pragma ti c guide, shed ‐ ding light on the nuances of leadership transi ti ons for prac titi oners and industry veterans. Table 3: Expected change in leadership style through dimensional matrix: Analy ti cal and opera ti onal orienta ti on DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 30 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 31 The FLPTF’s integra ti ve approach o ffers a panoramic view of leadership dynamics, especially in the context of transi ti oning from business to philan ‐ thropy. Although individual leadership styles such as transforma ti onal and servant leadership have been celebrated for their poten ti al to drive societal change and ins ti ll a service ethos (Bass & Riggio, 2006), the FLPTF elevates this discourse. It me ti culously contex ‐ tualizes these styles, highligh ti ng the unique chal ‐ lenges and opportuni ti es that the philanthropic landscape presents. This enriched perspec ti ve not only broadens the theore ti cal horizons but also sets the stage for a plethora of future research endeavors. The FLPTF, while harmonizing with broader leadership paradigms, also introduces fresh per ‐ spec ti ves that challenge some conven ti onal wis ‐ dom. By emphasizing the versa ti lity and adaptability of leadership in transi ti onal scenarios, it o ffers both a nod to and a cri ti que of established leadership tenets. This intricate dance of alignment and diver ‐ gence accentuates the framework’s pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of leadership studies. In summary, the FLPTF stands as a beacon in leadership studies, bridging tradi ti onal leadership styles with contemporary challenges. Its holis ti c ap ‐ proach not only augments academic discourse but also o ffers invaluable insights for leadership prac ti ce, especially in the mul ti faceted world of philanthropy. By melding diverse leadership paradigms and o ffer ‐ ing a comprehensive explora ti on of leadership tran ‐ si ti ons, the FLPTF encapsulates the evolving essence of leadership in today’s dynamic contexts. Table 4: Expected change in leadership style through dimensional matrix: Interpersonal orienta ti on DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 31 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 32 Žiga Vavpo tič , Miha Škerlavaj: Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework: Leadership Journey from Business to (Full ‐Time) Philanthropy 5.3 Implica ti ons for Founding Leaders and Organiza ti ons The FLPTF o ffers valuable insights for leaders and organiza ti ons transi ti oning from business to philan ‐ thropy. For founding leaders, the FLPTF maps the cog ‐ ni ti ve and behavioral shi ft s necessary for a smoother transi ti on, highligh ti ng the need for a possible shi ft to ‐ ward transforma ti onal and servant leadership styles (Bass & Riggio, 2006). For organiza ti ons, the FLPTF provides a roadmap for suppor ti ng these transi ti ons, aiding in the development of suppor ti ve cultures and training programs. It also can serve as a diagnos ti c tool for practiti oners to assess leader readiness for philan ‐ thropy and the alignment of leadership transi ti ons with organiza ti onal culture and objec ti ves. In essence, the FLPTF not only illuminates the complex transi ti on process but provides prac ti cal tools to guide and sup ‐ port it, benefi ti ng leaders, organiza ti ons, and stake ‐ holders in the philanthropic sector. 5.4 Conclusion, Limita ti ons, and Future Research Direc ti ons The FLPTF represents a significant stride in the field of leadership. The framework is comprehen ‐ sive, and, bridging theory and prac ti ce, it o ffers a systema ti c approach to understanding and navigat ‐ ing the complex terrain of leadership transi ti ons from business to philanthropy. A key limita ti on of the FLPTF is that it primarily addresses the personal view of the transi ti on, and puts less emphasis on the organiza ti onal perspec ‐ ti ve. Considering the well ‐established connec ti on between leadership style and organiza ti onal culture in the literature (Bass, & Riggio, 2006; Brown, 1992; Schein, 2010), incorpora ti ng an organiza ti onal lens could enrich the framework. Specifically, the orga ‐ niza ti onal culture serves as a crucial triangula ti on tool; changes in leadership style theore ti cally should precipitate concomitant changes in organiza ti onal culture. By examining organiza ti onal culture, addi ‐ ti onal insights could be gleaned and changes in lead ‐ ership styles could be validated as leaders transi ti on from business to philanthropy. Future research direc ti ons include applying the FLPTF in empirical case studies to validate its appli ‐ cability and e fficacy. Studying the long ‐term impacts of these transi ti ons on leaders and organiza ti ons can contribute to further refining and evolving the FLPTF. Addi ti onally, extending the framework to in ‐ corporate an organiza ti onal perspec ti ve and culture could provide a more holis ti c understanding of lead ‐ ership transi ti ons. This conceptual paper sets the groundwork for what could be a promising avenue for more in ‐depth studies and prac ti cal applica ti ons in leadership transi ti ons. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This ar ti cle is part of Žiga Vavpo tič ’s Ph.D. disserta ‐ ti on under the guidance of Professor Dr. Paul God ‐ frey, whose invaluable support and mentorship have been instrumental in shaping this research. EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK Članek predstavlja model prehoda ustanovnih vodij v filantropijo (Founding Leaders’ Philan ‐ thropic Transi ti on Framework ‐ FLPTF), nov model, ki preu čuje prehod ustanoviteljev iz poslovnega sveta v filantropijo. FLPTF, ki je zasnovan na ontoloških na čelih in teorijah vodenja, raziskuje spre ‐ membe v slogih vodenja in dinamiki organizacije. Študija opozarja na vrzel v obstoje či literaturi, s tem pa poudarja potrebo po celovi ti analizi teh prehodov, ki so se pojavili v zadnjih le ti h. Dimenzije modela, zasnovane na kogni ti vnih in vedenjskih vidikih, omogo čajo temeljito raziskavo slogov vo ‐ denja. Za vedno ve č primerov ljudi, ki se odlo čijo za prehod v filantropijo, lahko služi FLPTF kot teo ‐ re tič ni vodnik in pragma tič no orodje, ki an ti cipira izzive in priložnos ti v procesu prehoda. Odpira pot za globlje raziskovanje evolucije vodenja, ko ustanoviteljske voditelje preidejo iz poslovanja v poslovnem svetu v popolno filantropsko delovanje. DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 32 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 33 REFERENCES Anheier, H. K., & Leat, D. (2018). Crea ti ve philanthropy. Routledge. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W . L. (2005). Authen ti c leadership development: Ge tti ng to the root of posi ti ve forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315 ‐338. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta ti on. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transforma ti onal lead ‐ ership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. Bell, C., & Abbas, J. (2012). Leadership of nonprofit orga ‐ niza ti ons: Theories and methods. In Handbook of lead ‐ ership theory and prac ti ce (pp. 637 ‐664). Harvard Business Press. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1 ‐19. Bennis, W. (2009). On becoming a leader. Basic Books Bennis, W. G., & Goldsmith, J. (2003). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a leader (3rd ed.). Basic Books. Bishop, M. (2006). The birth of philanthrocapitalism: The leading new philanthropists see themselves as social in ‐ vestors. The Economist. h tt ps://www.economist.com/ ‐ node/5517656 [accessed 19 September 2021]. Bishop, M., & Green, M. (2015). Philanthrocapitalism ris ‐ ing. Society, 52, 541–548. Bona ti , I. (2019). The (un)healthy poor: wealth, poverty, medicine and health care in the Greco ‐Roman world. Akroterion, 64, 15 ‐43. Brest, P ., & Harvey, H. (2018). Money well spent: A strate ‐ gic plan for smart philanthropy (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press. Brown, A. (1992). Organiza ti onal culture: The key to e ffec ‐ ti ve leadership and organiza ti onal development. Lead ‐ ership & Organiza ti on Development Journal, 13(2), 3 ‐6. Butoescu, E. (2021). Charitable London: F(o)unding the First Philanthropic Socie ti es in the Metropolis. Amer ‐ ican, Bri ti sh & Canadian Studies, 36(1). Cha, W., & Abebe, M. A. (2016). Board of directors and industry determinants of corporate philanthropy. Leadership & Organiza ti on Development Journal, 37(3), 412 ‐429. Child, C. (2016). Tip of the iceberg: The non ‐profit under ‐ pinnings of for ‐profit social enterprise. Non ‐profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(2), 217 ‐237. Child, C., Witesman, E. M., & Braudt, D. B. (2015). Sector choice: How fair trade entrepreneurs choose between non ‐profit and for ‐profit firms. Non ‐profit and Volun ‐ tary Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 832 ‐851. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narra ti ve inquiry: Experience and story in qualita ti ve research. Jossey ‐Bass. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). To ‐ ward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20 ‐47. Dierendonck, D. (2010). Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management, 2010. Doebele, J. (2019, December 2). Jack Ma shares his plans for educa ti on philanthropy in China. Forbes. h tt ps://www.forbes.com/sites/jdoebele/2019/12/02/ja ck ‐ma ‐shares‐his ‐plans ‐for ‐educa ti on ‐philanthropy ‐in ‐ china/?sh=3c3a107a5c7f [accessed 13 August 2023]. Einolf, C. J. (2016). The new nonprofit almanac and desk reference: The essen ti al facts and figures for man ‐ agers, researchers, and volunteers. John Wiley & Sons. Feldman, M. P ., & Graddy ‐Reed, A. (2014). Local champi ‐ ons: Entrepreneurs’ transi ti on to philanthropy and the vibrancy of the place. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement in Philanthropy. Ed ‐ ward Elgar Publishing. Forbes Wealth T eam. (2022, January 19). America’s top givers 2022: The 25 most philanthropic billionaires. Forbes. h tt ps://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2022/ 01/19/americas ‐top ‐givers ‐2022 ‐the ‐25 ‐most ‐philan ‐ thropic ‐billionaires/?sh=4e38d93a3a6c [accessed 14 Au ‐ gust 2023]. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legi ti mate Power and Greatness. Paulist Press. Harrow J., Donnelly ‐Cox G., Healy J, Wijkström F. (2021). The management and organiza ti on of philanthropy: New direc ti ons and contested undercurrents. The In ‐ terna ti onal Journal of Management Reviews, 23(3), 303 ‐311. Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psy ‐ chology, 99(3), 390 ‐403. Ho ffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Su tt on, A. W. (2011). Person ‐organiza ti on value congruence: How transforma ti onal leaders influence workgroup e ffec ti veness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 779 ‐796. Hwang, H., & Paarlberg, L. E. (2019). The Energy Boom: Boon or Bane for Local Philanthropy? Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1899 ‐1915. Jansons, E. (2015). The business leaders behind the founda ‐ ti ons: Understanding India’s emerging philanthropists. VOLUNTAS: Interna ti onal Journal of Voluntary and Non ‐ profit Organiza ti ons, 26(3), 984 ‐1006. Javaid, A. (2021, June 25). EdelGive Hurun Philanthropists of the Century. Jagran Josh. h tt ps://www.jagranjosh.com/ ‐ general ‐knowledge/edelgive ‐hurun ‐philanthropists ‐of ‐ the ‐century ‐1624613515 ‐1 [accessed 15 August 2023]. Jung, T., Phillips, S. D., & Harrow, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge companion to philanthropy. Routledge. Keller, S., & Meaney, M. (2018). Successfully transi ti oning to new leadership roles. McKinsey&Company, n. May. DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 33 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2023 34 Žiga Vavpo tič , Miha Škerlavaj: Founding Leaders’ Philanthropic Transi ti on Framework: Leadership Journey from Business to (Full ‐Time) Philanthropy Khan, A. R., & Khandaker, S. (2016). Public and Private Or ‐ ganiza ti ons: How Di fferent or Similar are They? Ko ff, H. (2017). Diaspora Philanthropy in the Context of Policy Coherence for Development: Implica ti ons for the post ‐2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. In ‐ terna ti onal Migra ti on, 55(1), 5 ‐19. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experien ti al learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Pren ti ce ‐Hall. Konrath, S. (2014). The power of philanthropy and volun ‐ teering. Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, 1 ‐40. Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Yang, R., & Mueller, F. (2021). Elite philanthropy in the United States and United Kingdom in the new age of inequali ti es. Interna ti onal Journal of Management Reviews. McGoey, L. (2015). No such thing as a gi ft : The Gates Foun ‐ da ti on and the price of philanthropy. Verso Books. Mitchell, K., & Sparke, M. (2016). The new Washington consensus: Millennial philanthropy and the making of global market subjects. An ti pode, 48(3), 724 ‐749. Nanjundeswaraswamy, T . S., & Swamy, D. R. (2014). Lead ‐ ership styles. Advances in management, 7(2), 57. Nieto Morales, F., Wi tt ek, R., & Heyse, L. (2013). A ft er the reform: Change in Dutch public and private organiza ‐ ti ons. Journal of Public Administra ti on Research and Theory, 23(3), 735 ‐754. Phillips, S., & Jung, T. (2016). A New ‘New’ Philanthropy: From impetus to impact. In The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy (pp. 33 ‐47). Routledge. Piaget, J. (1954). The construc ti on of reality in the child. Basic Books. Polajnar, D. (2021). 7 Unicorn Drive: From Startup To A Billion Dollar Sale In 7 Years — A People ‐First Leader ‐ ship Success Story. Login5 Aphrodite Ltd. Reich, R. (2018). Just Giving. Princeton University Press. Rogers, R. (2015). Why the social sciences should take philanthropy seriously. Society, 52(6), 533 ‐540. Roundy, P., Holzhauer, H., & Dai, Y. (2017). Finance or philanthropy? Exploring the mo ti va ti ons and criteria of impact investors. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(3), 578 ‐597. Ruvio, A., Rosenbla tt , Z., & Hertz ‐Lazarowitz, R. (2010). En ‐ trepreneurial leadership vision in non ‐profit vs for ‐profit organiza ti ons. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 144 ‐158. Schein, E.H. (1995). The role of the founder in crea ti ng organiza ti onal culture. Family Business Review, 8(3), 221 ‐238. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organiza ti onal culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflec ti ve prac titi oner: How pro ‐ fessionals think in ac ti on. Basic books. Shang, J., & Sargeant, A. (2020). Insights into the future of philanthropic innova ti on: Philanthropic literacy for future leaders. Simone tti , I., & Kulish, N. (2022, November 14). Je ff Bezos’s philanthropic journey post ‐Amazon. The New York Times. h tt ps://www.ny ti mes.com/2022/11/14/busi ‐ ness/jeff‐bezos ‐charity.html [accessed 16 August 2023]. Smith, W . K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes si ‐ multaneously. Long range planning, 43(2 ‐3), 448 ‐461. Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteris ti cs of e ffec ti ve, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25 ‐30. Viader, A. M., & Espina, M. I. (2014). Are not ‐for ‐profits learning from for ‐profit organiza ti ons? A look into governance. Corporate Governance, 14(3), 361 ‐374. Wollheim, P . (2008). A Cause Greater than Self ‐Interest: The New Philanthropy. The Wilson Quarterly, 32(4), 8 ‐17. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applica ti ons: Design and Methods. Sage Publica ti ons. Young, D. R. (2013). If not for profit, for what? (1983 Print Edi ti on). Lexington Books. Zunz, O. (2014). Philanthropy in America: A History ‐Up ‐ dated Edi ti on (Vol. 103). Princeton University Press. DRMJ vol12 no02 2023 (print).qxp_Prelom 09/11/2023 14:15 Page 34