PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to define the concept of “discernment”.Design/methodology/approachThe paper defines and presents discernment in a manner that sheds light on the construct and sets the stage for future research.FindingsDiscernment, is a significantly more involving kind of approach to decision making for the leader. It does not rely on precedents, best practices, or benchmarking. It is to understand the self and organization in a holistic way, inviting constant self‐evaluation and adjustments in order to make good judgments that serve the greater whole.Research limitations/implicationsAdditional research is needed to empirically validate the concept through systematic investigations and devise a means to measure it.Practical implicationsThe paper assists leaders in understanding the “what” and “why” of discernment and provides an opportunity for self‐evaluation by leaders as to how well each leader engages in discernment.Originality/valueThe paper is original and makes the foundational contribution for a beginning stream of research.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to operationalize the concept of discernment and to present an instrument to measure it.Design/methodology/approachThe approach takes the form of a mixed‐method exploratory design that relied on principal component analyses and internal consistency performed on the resultant data set from a pool of items developed from the literature, as well as from a panel of experts. The investigation employed in‐depth interviews conducted with eight purposively selected leaders about their decision‐making processes and augmented the findings with data from 240 leaders, generated via an online survey.FindingsThe result is a three‐factor self‐rating instrument that measures courage, intuition, and faith, with Cronbach alpha values of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.85, respectively. These three factors appear to operationalize the concept of discernment.Research limitations/implicationsWhile the conceptual definition of the construct has merit, its completeness is subject to debate. If the conceptualization were incomplete, the results of the study would provide only a marginal understanding of the phenomenon. Moreover, an operational definition based on an incomplete conceptualization will fail to generate theory‐oriented propositions. Additional research is needed to establish population norms.Practical implicationsThe study contributes to the ongoing task of appropriating spirituality in organizational life, demonstrates that discernment has value in contemporary leadership and organizational praxis, and provides an instrument for self‐evaluation by leaders as to how well each leader engages in discernment. The instrument offers a leadership development tool to help identify high or low discernment.Originality/valueThe study is original and makes the foundational contribution for a beginning stream of research.

The Discernment Practices Indicator (DPI) reports three-factors: (a) Courage, (b) Intuition, and (c) Faith with Cronbach alpha values of (a) .85, (b) .89, and (c) .85, respectively. The Courage factor addresses the leader’s mental and moral courage; willingness to accept uncertainty; use of common sense; ability to seek new ways to look at old things; see a future full of possibilities, believing in the equality of all people; and to be firm, but loving, in addressing issues. The Intuition factor addresses the leader’s understanding of his or her emotions; willingness to make decisions, based on a hunch; as well as paying attention to body cues or thoughts that may flash across the mind. The Faith factor addresses the leader’s use of quiet time (to include prayer and meditation) to reflect and find meaning; use of principles of faith as guidance; as well as incorporating religious beliefs in professional undertakings.

No abstract

This study presents seven scales for the seven beatitudes found in Matthew 5: 3-10. Separate scales were created rather than a conceptual instrument with seven factors since the ‘concept’ of ‘Beatitude’ does not exist and since the seven beatitudes are related in various ways making them highly correlated. The seven scales were reduced to five items each. The resultant Chronbach alpha scores were .86, .95, .89, .92, .93, .93, .92 for each of the scales. The value of the seven scales lies in their ability to assist researchers to compare leadership effectiveness with the seven representative values and, in time after normative data is developed, to offer a measure to help with leadership selection.