A Daoist understanding of mindful leadership

Tan, C. (2023). A Daoist understanding of mindful leadership. Leadership. 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/17427150231157450 DRAFT Abstract This article seeks to contribute to the discourse on mindful leadership by drawing on Daoist philosophy as recorded in the Daodejing (Book on the Way and Virtue). Without a clear articulation of its normative underpinnings, mindful leadership can be easily (ab)used by the leaders for immoral agendas and outcomes. The existing literature describes Daoist leadership as antithetical to autocratic leadership, and is unimposing and ethical. Giving additional insights to the construct of Daoist leadership, this paper argues that a Daoist leader exemplifies dao (Way-making) and wuwei (noncoercive action). Way-making is about influencing followers towards a common goal through the leader’s de (virtue). In addition, a Daoist leader promotes wuwei through non-interfering, attractive, liberating and nurturing leadership practices. Daoist principles provide an ethical foundation of mindful leadership by replacing McMindfulness with attentiveness to moral virtues. By foregrounding the centrality of ethics in leadership, this study seeks to open a line of inquiry and further discussion on the normative basis of mindful leadership. Keywords dao; Daoist; Daodejing; ethics; Laozi; mindful leadership; wuwei ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction The construct of mindful leadership has increasingly been accepted and enacted in organisations and institutions across the world. Diverse corporations, ranging from Google to the US Army, as well as a number of Fortune 500 companies, have embraced mindful leadership styles, models and strategies. The currency of mindful leadership is aided by empirical research that reports a host of benefits from mindfulness exercises, such as greater productivity and reduced stress, absenteeism, and turnover (Ehrlich, 2017). Additional impetus to mindful leadership comes from endorsements of prominent leaders such as Bill George, who is Harvard Business School professor and the past CEO of Medtronic. However, a persistent criticism of mindful leadership (as well as mindfulness) is the marginalisation of ethics (Forbes, 2016; King & Badham, 2020; Levey & Levey, 2019; Purser & Loy, 2013). Without a moral grounding, mindful leadership can engender or perpetuate selfcentred and harmful practices. Critics of mindfulness have used the term McMindfulness to underline the quick-fix approach of leaders to achieve the organisation’s bottom-line through mindfulness practices (for a good discussion, see the collection of articles in Dhiman, 2021; Purser, Forbes & Burke, 2016). Purser and Loy (2013) who coined this term assert that McMindfulness has reduced mindfulness to “a banal, therapeutic, self-help technique” (p. 1). Arguing along the same line, Forbes (2016) contends that McMindfulness fosters selfaggrandisement against a neoliberal backdrop. A McMindful leader, it follows, employs mindfulness techniques to influence others to achieve one’s goals, with little regard for the 1 latter’s wellbeing. Not only does McMindful leadership neglect moral and communal responsibility, it generates egoism in the leader and blind conformity in followers. It is therefore salient to foreground the ethical underpinnings and repercussions of mindful leadership. Unfortunately, a review of literature shows a dearth of research on the moral basis of mindful leadership. A related observation is that the current body of research focuses primarily on leadership studies that are drawn from Anglo-American histories, traditions, developments, experiences and needs. What has remained relatively under-explored are conceptions of mindful leadership that originate from non-Western sources, authors, texts and societies. Such a development is regrettable since the ideas of mindfulness and mindful leadership in the West are traced back to Eastern traditions such as Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. Commenting that “the West determines the direction of history and provides the lens through which we see everything”, Puett and Gross-Loh (2016) posit that ancient Chinese philosophers present an alternative way for human flourishing (p. 246). Other researchers have also noted that research on leadership in China concentrates on validating theories from the West, rather than Chinese-inspired leadership ideas and practices (McElhatton & Jackson, 2012). Aiming to contribute to the cross-cultural conversations on mindful leadership, this paper proposes a conception of mindful leadership that is rooted in Daoist ethics. Although mindful leadership is well-supported by empirical evidence regarding its workplace benefits, this leadership concept needs to be rooted in moral principles. To address the critique of McMindfulness in mindful leadership, this paper turns to the ethics of Daoism. An indigenous tradition in China, Daoism has the longest history in East Asia and even pre-dated Confucianism. The reason Daoism has been selected for this study is that the notions of mindfulness and ethical leadership pervade Daoist teachings and worldviews (Author, XXXX; Blom & Lu, 2016). Rosker (2016) holds that classical Daoism “reveals numerous meditation techniques, which show the use of methods that are similar to mindfulness or at least represent a basis for its use” (p. 37). This article outlines a Daoist understanding of mindful leadership based on a textual examination of Daodejing (literally ‘Book on the Way and Virtue’). Attributed to Laozi, the Daodejing is a Chinese classic written during the Warring States Period (403-221 BCE). It is important to clarify that Laozi did not found Daoism, and that the term ‘Daoism’ only came into being several centuries after the Daodejing was written (Puett & Gross-Loh, 2016). Furthermore, the identity of Laozi has been contested, including questions on whether such a person actually existed and whether there is more than one author of Daodejing (Author, XXXX; Ames & Hall, 2003). In view of the controversy regarding Laozi, this paper shall use ‘Laozi’ to refer generally to the author(s) of Daodejing. This paper begins with an overview of Daoist leadership from a survey of the existing literature. The section identifies the broad themes in the extant publications and provides further insights from a textual analysis of Daodejing. The next segment turns to the concept of mindful leadership and highlights the de-emphasis of ethics in this leadership construct. The last part of the essay brings together the two types of leadership by expounding a Daoist formulation of mindful leadership. An Overview of Daoist Leadership At the outset, it is necessary to make clear the historical context as well as culturally specific conceptions of leadership and leaders in ancient China. Daoism as a school of thought originated during the Warring States period in China (600-300 BCE), which was a period marked by political and social unrest, warfare and suffering (Johnson, 2000). The widespread oppression motivated Laozi to write Daodejing – to castigate the immoral rulers and their toxic 2 leadership practices, and advocate an alternative form of leadership that is virtuous and beneficial for the masses. By ‘leader’, Laozi has in mind the sage who is the ideal ruler. As explained by De Bary and Bloom (1999): the Laozi describes the perfect individual, the sage, who comprehends the Dao and whose life and actions are ordered in accordance with it. It is clear that the sage is conceived of as the ideal ruler, for the Laozi [Daodejing] gives definite instructions as to how the sage’s government is to be conducted. The sage is to refrain from meddling in the lives of the people, give up warfare and luxurious living, and guide the people back to a state of innocence, simplicity, and harmony with the Dao [Way] (p. 78). A fundamental Daoist belief is that the original, perfect world has been damaged by the introduction of humanistic devised laws, regulations and social conventions. The natural world “is a state thought to have existed in the most ancient times, before civilisation appeared to arouse the material desires of the people and impel them to strife and warfare, and before morality was invented to divert their minds from simple goodness and to beguile them with vain distinctions” (De Bary & Bloom, 1999, p. 78). Daoists are particularly critical of the moral codes and rituals conceived by Confucians at that time, which imprisoned and divided the people based on a system of do’s and don’ts. A truly ethical leader, from a Daoist standpoint, is a sage who encourages others to return to the natural state where dao (Way) prevails (I shall elaborate on the notion of dao in a later segment). It follows that the implicit conception of leadership for Laozi is person-centric and rests on moral authority (for a good discussion of forms of leadership, see Prince, 2005). Although Laozi does not restrict ‘leadership’ to appointment-holders, his primary target audience was the ruling class as they were the only people capable of reading Daodejing in ancient China (De Bary & Bloom, 1999; Lin, Li & Roelfsema, 2018). As the elite office-bearers had deviated from virtuous leadership, Laozi’s mission was to urge them to restore order, peace and morality by becoming sages. Lest we think that only hereditary rulers can become sages, Laozi teaches that everyone can become a sage through moral self-cultivation. In this regard, Daoism reflects a dominant Chinese philosophical faith in the potentiality of all humans and the utmost importance of individual effort. Not everyone can become a ruler or office-bearer, but everyone can become a sage. A related question is whether Laozi limits sagehood to men. To be sure, the sages mentioned in the Daodejing are all men; it was culturally unacceptable in ancient China for women to appear in the public sphere and serve as political leaders. However, there is no passage in the Daodejing that disparages women. On the contrary, the classic supports gender equality through the reference to the complementarity of yin and yang, that represents female and male respectively (Wang, 2004). In addition, Daodejing exalts female qualities through passages such as Chapter 61 that states that the female overcomes the male by remaining still (Moeller, 2007). Hence Daoist leadership applies to both men and women as Laozi’s objective is a normative agenda of virtuous leadership for all humanity. Overall, Laozi’s construal of leader and leadership, despite being located within a particular historical and social milieu, remain applicable in modern times. His call for moral leadership and prescription of an ethical leader are timeless and universal, as the next section shall show. Three broad themes about Daoist leadership Having provided the background information of Daoism and Daodejing, this segment reviews the existing literature on Daoist leadership. Three broad themes about Daoist leadership are 3 identified: (1) this form of leadership is contrasted with autocratic leadership, (2) it is a form of unimposing leadership and (3) it emphasises ethics. First, a broad consensus among scholars is that Daoist leadership opposes authoritarian leadership. Amaglobeli and Celepli (2012) claim that Daoist leadership is antipodal to dictatorial leadership and is closer to democratic and servant leadership perspectives. According to them, “ambition and strive [sic] is considered one of the most desirable qualities in the Western (and particular – American culture)”; in contrast, a Daoist leader “discards his/her ambitious desires, acts without desires” (Amaghlobeli & Celepli, 2012, p. 50). In the same vein, Wagner (1995) contrasts Laozi with Machiavelli and argues as follows: Instead of gaining power for oneself at the expense of others, a [Daoist] leader is to care for others just as he or she cares for themselves. A leader will achieve prominence not by consciously seeking it; but, in fact, by denying it (pp. 121-122). Likewise, Prince (2005) posits that Daoist leadership is not about control and power but more about engagement, understanding and coordination. As he puts it, “Flexibility, awareness and connectedness are the key words here, not crude rules of conduct” (Prince, 2005, p. 116). Johnson (1997, 2000) also calls attention to the soft tactics and service of a Daoist leader. Secondly and following the first theme, Daoist leadership is viewed as a form of unimposing leadership where the leader adopts minimalist management. Lin, Li and Roelfsema (2018) contend that Daoist leadership “is usually understood primarily as ‘no action’” and therefore is aligned with laissez-faire or unimposing leadership that is “characterised by frequent absences and a lack of involvement in critical circumstances” (p. 304). Johnson (2000) concurs that Daoist leadership gives weight to “a minimalist approach to leadership”, encapsulated in the adage: “governs best governs least” (p. 4; also see Johnson, 1997). Amaglobeli and Celepli (2012) elaborate that such a leader “gives followers an opportunity to define the mission themselves but not defining for them” (p. 50; also see Ma & Tsui, 2015). Hudson (2020) likens the easy-going style of Daoist leadership practice to water that is flexible, and free-flowing. The third major theme concerning Daoist leadership is that it stresses ethics. Different researchers highlight different moral values in Daoist leadership. For example, Wagner (1995) avers that Daodejing's leadership philosophy is “one of benevolence, individuation and selfconfidence, yet lack of pretension” (p. 121). Bai and Roberts (2011) and Bai and Morris (2014) conclude that Daoist leadership underlines virtues such as benevolence, propriety and faithfulness. Arguing along the same line are McElhatton and Jackson (2012) who shine the spotlight on the Daoist values of moral strength and benevolence. Lee, Haught, Chen and Chan’s (2013) empirical research draws attention to the ‘Daoist Big-Five’: altruism, modesty, flexibility. honesty and perseverance. Another empirical study on Daoist leadership conducted by Lin, Li and Roelfsema (2018) reports that Chinese expatriate managers in the Netherlands demonstrate the Daoist perspective of yin and yang to balance partial conflict and partial complementarity. Also examining the practice of Daoist leadership in business settings are Ma and Tsui (2015) who write that Chinese managers utilise dialectic thinking that balances opposite views. However, not all researchers agree that Daoist leadership places a premium on ethics. A case in point is Johnson (2000) who maintains that Daoist leadership rejects the traditional distinction between right and wrong and moral absolutes. However, it is inaccurate to view Daoist mindful leadership as repudiating or ignoring moral absolutes because Daoist mindful leadership is fundamentally virtue-centred. What Daoism rejects is not the distinction between right and wrong itself, but rather the dictatorial and dehumanising system and moral codes that prevailed in ancient China. That was the reason for Laozi to write Daodejing – to castigate the 4 immoral rulers and their toxic leadership practices, and advocate an alternative form of leadership that is virtuous and beneficial for the masses. Another point of contention is whether Daoist leadership is congruent with laissez-faire or unimposing leadership. Is it really the case that a Daoist leader practises ‘no action’ (Lin, Li & Roelfsema, 2018), leaves it to followers to define the mission themselves (Amaglobeli & Celepli, 2012) and governs the least (Johnson, 2000)? The perception of Daoist leadership as laissez-faire/unimposing stems from the Daoist concept of wuwei which literally means ‘no action’. But sinologists Ames and Hall (2003) have correctly noted, from their translation of Daodejing, that wuwei does not mean or imply inactivity or passivity. Instead, wuwei – and by extension, Daoist leadership – is about being non-interfering, attractive, liberating and nurturing. The next section shall give more details and offer additional insights on Daoist leadership by analysing passages in Daodejing. My main argument is that a Daoist leader models and promotes two essential concepts: dao (Way-making) and wuwei (noncoercive action). Dao (Way-making) Daoist leaders exemplify and rally followers around the ideal of dao (Way-making) through the leader’s de (virtue). The traditional character for dao in Chinese is made up of three elements: a road, and a human head and foot. Chang (1965) explains that the manner in which the hair on the head is portrayed shows that it is the head of a leader; the foot, on the other head, signifies a follower. Put together, the symbol in dao indicates “a leader and follower united in finding their path” (Chang, 1965, p. 52). Although dao is conventionally translated as Way, this paper follows Ames and Hall (2003) in rendering it as Way-making. They hold that dao “is primarily gerundive, processional, and dynamic: ‘a leading forth’” (Ames & Hall, 2003, p. 57). The Daodejing foregrounds the moral character and calling of a leader by contrasting dao (Way) with dao (robbery) (Chapter 53, Ames & Hall, 2003; all subsequent citations from the Daodejing are taken from this text unless otherwise stated: They are stuffed with food, And have wealth and property to throw away. This is called highway robbery (dao), Which ought not to be confused with Way-making (dao). Through two homophones (dao), Laozi distinguishes the moral leader who paves the Way for one’s followers from the immoral leader who is only interested in stealing from the people. Ames and Hall (2003) explain: There are those ‘robbers’ (dao) who live an opulent life-style on the backs of the common people. They are not to be confused with proper rulers who take the lead as ‘way-makers’ (dao) (p. 160). A morally excellent leader, from a Daoist viewpoint, does not take from the people through excessive taxation and deprivation of freedom and property. In another passage, Laozi reiterates ‘highway robbery’ leadership by pointing to oppressive practices during his time that result in widespread hunger, social disorder and distress (Chapter 75). Ethical leaders, from a Daoist perspective, “eschew the excessive, the superlative, and the extravagant” (Chapter 29). Instead of enriching oneself, a Daoist leader models and leads the Way (dao) through one’s de (virtue or power). It is a salient point that dao and de are both cited in the title of the Daoist classic: Daodejing literally means ‘Book on the Way and Virtue’. De is the fulfilment 5 and manifestation of dao by a sage in actual living (Watt & Huang, 1979). A Daoist leader exemplifies and advances credibility and trust (Chapter 17), compassion, courage, frugality and generosity (Chapter 67) and humility and non-contention (Chapter 68). Such a leader is not self-seeking (Chapter 2, 34), selfish (Chapter 7), domineering (Chapter 34), fear-inducing (Chapter 72) and ostentatious (Chapter 77). In a nutshell, a Daoist leader makes the Way for one’s followers by being an exemplar of virtue. As a role-model, such a leader serves others quietly and creates an environment in which all followers can flourish. Rather than selfaggrandisement, the Daoist leader cares for others within a trusting climate, enabling others to reach their potential (Wagner, 1995). To unite all to achieve the Way, the Daoist leader turns to a number of Daoist moral principles. Due to space constraints, the rest of the article focuses on a central Daoist concept: wuwei, which is detailed in the next segment. Wuwei (noncoercive action) A Daoist leader makes and leads the Way for the people through wuwei (noncoercive action). Also translated as ‘effortless action’ or ‘spontaneous action’, Slingerland (2014) describes wuwei as “the dynamic, effortless, and unselfconscious state of mind of a person who is optimally active and effective” (p. 7). A Daoist leader manifests wuwei by experiencing a state of harmony that integrates the body, emotions and the mind (Slingerland, 2014). From a Daoist worldview, wuwei does not mean or imply inaction, passivity or indifference. Rather, wuwei is expressed through concrete actions that show up four essential qualities: non-interfering, attractive, liberating and nurturing. First, wuwei leadership is non-interfering: Laozi writes about the importance of being “non-interfering in going about your business” (Chapter 63). For leaders, this means refraining from detrimental and unnecessary interference by imposing policies, laws and punitive measures. The Daodejing refers to “prohibitions and taboos” and “sharp instruments” that control and subjugate the masses (Chapter 57). Laozi adds that “sages keep to service that does not entail coercion” (Chapter 2). Another passage affirms the same message, “It is simply in doing things noncoercively that everything is governed properly” (Chapter 3). The ideal leader replaces alienation and isolation that proceed from interference with inter-connection and trust. Prince (2005) writes that Daoist leadership views power as “a fluid set of interrelations coordinated with and within a natural order” that requires engagement and accommodation by the leader (p. 106). Closely related to non-coercion is the quality of attraction. Highlighting the charismatic nature of a Daoist leader, known as a sage in Daoist parlance, Laozi observes that the “common people all fix their eyes and ears on the sages” (Chapter 49). We have already learnt about the sage in an earlier section. A sage attracts others to oneself through one’s moral character, as explained in the section on Way-making. Furthermore, a Daoist leader draws others to oneself by articulating a compelling vision, what Laozi calls “the great image” (Chapter 35): Seize the great image And the world will flock to you. Flocking to you they come to no harm, And peace and security prevails. The expression ‘seizing the great image” refers to “having an aspiration, and having the strength of character and imagination to forge a way that leads the human community forward to live in their most productive manner” (Ames & Hall, 2003, p. 132). A leader who crafts and presents an inspiring vision will succeed in winning hearts and uniting all followers to actualise 6 the desired outcome. It is therefore not true that a Daoist leader lets followers determine the mission themselves. The construction and articulation of a ‘great image’ by the leader explains why wuwei does not entail the absence of actions. We have seen from Chapter 35 cited above that a Daoist leader is expected to ‘seize the great image’. The common vision propounded by the leader serves to connect people and things, ensuring that they espouse the same goals. As articulated by Puett and Gross-Loh (2016), the reason a Laozian approach works is not just that you are being less overt or that everyone is calming down. It works because you are actively reconnecting things, these disparate people, in new ways. These different connections you’re making create a different environment. You are smoothing over the distinctions that had [sic] divided you from others (pp. 134-135). The third essential characteristic of wuwei is the promotion of a liberating environment for all to flourish. Chapter 34 describes Way-making as “an easy-flowing stream which can run in any direction”. A Daoist leader welcomes autonomy and agency (‘run in any direction’) in followers by being accommodating and inclusive (‘an easy-flowing stream’). Such a leader creates and sustains the necessary conditions for all things to “develop along their own lines” and “properly ordered of its own accord” (Chapter 37). Laozi also uses the analogy of a “nameless scrap of unworked wood” to signify a leader who frees the people from prior constraints imposed by society. Ames and Hall (2003) explain: “In seeking to assist in removing such constraints and to help in reestablishing an equilibrium among things, perhaps the best tool in the toolbox is the uncalibrated set-square – a nondescript scrap of unworked wood that realigns things by disaligning them” (p. 135). When leaders govern by becoming a nameless scrap of unworked wood, the “common people are of themselves like unworked wood” (Chapter 57). Consequently, the people “develop along their own lines”, “order themselves”, and “prosper themselves” (Chapter 57). Going hand in hand with liberating is the trait of nurturing one’s followers. Laozi points out that a Daoist mindful leader displays the following traits (Chapter 10): It gives life to things and nurtures them. Giving life without managing them. And raising them without lording it over them – This is called the profoundest efficacy (de). From a Daoist standpoint, nurturing involves the paradoxical act of “develop[ing] things but do not initiat[ing] them” (Chapter 2). What this means is that the leader does not micromanage or disempower followers. Instead, the leader develops things by enabling each follower to discover one’s potentials and talents, and providing the conditions and opportunities for all to thrive. On not lording over others (Chapter 10 cited above), Laozi explains that sages “act on behalf of things but do not make any claim on them” and “see things through to fruition but do not take credit for them” (Chapter 77). Such leaders “lov[e] the common people” (Chapter 10) and exhibit empathy by “tak[ing] the thoughts and feelings of the common people as their own” (Chapter 49). In nurturing others, a Daoist leader rejects authoritarian management style in favour of collaboration with and among the people. Puett and Gross-Loh (2016) comment, “Rather than think that power comes from strength prevailing over strength, we can understand that true power comes from understanding the connections between disparate things, situations, and people” (p. 120). 7 To sum up, a Daoist leader enacts wuwei by being non-interfering, attractive, liberating and nurturing. Such a leader is described as ‘excellent’ by Laozi, who calls attention to three types of leaders (Chapter 17): With the most excellent rulers, their subjects only know that they are there, The next best are the rulers they love and praise, Next are the rulers they hold in awe, And the worse [sic] are the rulers they disparate. Where there is a lack of credibility, There is a lack of trust. Vigilant, they are careful in what they say. With all things accomplished and the work complete, The common people say, ‘We are spontaneously like this’. The Daoist leader, unlike rulers who are feared or hated by the masses, is appreciated and lauded by the masses. The clause “their subjects only know that they are there” means that the leader is not in the limelight and instead works quietly behind the scene, tirelessly creating a conducive climate for followers to take ownership and thrive. Having discussed the concept of Daoist leadership, the next segment shifts the focus to mindful leadership. An Overview of Mindful Leadership There is no universally agreed definition of mindful leadership in the academic and popular discourses. Mindful leadership, to put it simply, is an example of a “floating signifier” (King & Badham, 2020, p. 166) – an idea that can and has been understood in plural and even competing ways. Researchers have introduced a variety of theories associated with mindful leadership. For example, Dunoon and Langer (2011) conceptualise three components of mindfulness that are relevant for leaders: the adoption of plural, non-judgemental perspectives, active self-evaluation and reframing, and sensitivity to language use such as avoiding prescriptive and absolute languages. Wells (2015) informs us that the conceptualisation for mindfulness for educational leaders is extracted from myriad sources such as the Buddhist origins of mindfulness (Kabat-Zinn, 2003), emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2000), social intelligence (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008) and neuroscience (Davidson et al., 2003). Despite the multiplicity of definitions of mindful leadership, what is common in the dominant conceptions is an emphasis on present-moment attention to and engagement with oneself, people, things and events. Bill George, in an interview, describes a mindful leadership as “being fully present, aware of oneself and other people, and sensitive to one's reactions to stressful situations” (George, cited in Silverthorne, 2010, p. 1). Mindful leadership eschews functioning on an auto-pilot mode; a mindful leader is alert to “the (often unconscious) collective habits and routines that drive collective impulses”, (Mortlock, 2021, p. 262). It follows that mindful leaders demonstrate mindful engagement, which refers to being aware of and reflecting on their lived experiences so as to advance personal growth and learning (Ashford & DeRue, 2012). Such leaders are exemplified by “the practice of being fully present, with qualities of emotional and social intelligence such as listening, not judging self or others” (Wells, 2015, p. 13). Rather than confined to ways of doing, mindful leaders are distinguished by ways of being. As explained by Saviano, Caputo and Prete (2018), the “dimensions of mindfulness such as being fully present, aware, accepting, and non-judgmental embody this way of being” (p. 643; also see King & Badham, 2020). Bringing to the fore the trait of self-awareness in mindful 8 leaders, McKee et al. (2008) posit that mindful leaders “are consciously self-aware and selfmonitoring; they are open and attentive to other people and to the world around them” (p. 45). Critique of mindful leadership A major critique of the prevailing formulations of mindful leadership is that they tend to be instrumental in nature, with insufficient attention to the ethical underpinnings and dimensions of leadership (Purser & Loy, 2013). As noted in the previous segment, the concept of mindful leadership revolves around focus, present-moment awareness and self-awareness. Mindful leadership is largely understood as and reduced to a certain management style that is utilitarian. The danger with a predominantly skills-based conception of mindful leadership is that it assesses and values followers primarily on their performance standards. Mindful leadership, to put it in another way, is tethered to technical rationality that pivots on technological and scientific know-how for routines and specifications. Mindfulness has become a tool to help leaders and their followers to be more productive without regard for ethical consideration and outcomes. To flesh out the limited attention to ethics in mindful leadership, it is useful to refer to three mindfulness practices recommended to leaders: collective mindfulness, mindful organising and organisational mindfulness (Weick & Roberts, 1993; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006, 2008). Briefly, collective mindfulness refers to “patterns of organising that result in a quality of organisational attention that increases the likelihood that people will notice unique details of situations and act upon them” (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2014, p. 410). Collective mindfulness is the propensity to act with focus, whole-heartedness and concern; it is attained by infusing it into the organisation’s day-to-day routines, rules, operations and interactions among staff in small groups. Implemented alongside collective mindfulness is mindful organising. Sutcliffe and Vogus (2014) describe mindful organising as “a function of a collective’s (such as a subunit or work group) attention to context and capacities to act” and “provides a basis for individuals to interact continuously as they develop, refine, and update shared understanding of the situations they face and their capabilities to act on that understanding” (p. 410). Mindful organising is enacted through five processes: a focus on failure, resistance to simplify interpretations, careful attention to operations, devotion to resilience, and enactment of malleable decision structures (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2014). Finally, organisational mindfulness takes place at the strategic level where the top administrators make executive decisions (Jayawardena-Willis, Pio, & McGhee, 2021). Leaders who put into practice organisational mindfulness foster a culture of openness, preserve employees’ attentional resources, develop a flexible state of mind in all staff, as well as facilitate a better allocation of attentional resources and stronger information processing (Hanson et al., 2021). It is evident that the above three mindfulness approaches for leaders – collective mindfulness, mindful organising and organisational mindfulness – are functionalist and nonmoral. A mindful leader, accordingly, is one who adopts a flexible state of mind, helping all staff to be skilful in analysing failure and solving problems, among others. But these qualities, although critical for organisational success, are not ethical attributes in themselves. Purser and Loy (2013) rightly argue that mindfulness – and by extension, mindful leadership – has become an “ethically-neutral technique for reducing stress and improving concentration”, and factors that are “conducive to wise action, social harmony, and compassion” have been jettisoned (p. 2). It needs to be acknowledged that the neglect of an ethical basis for mindful leadership in the current scholarship does not mean that values are totally absent in the prevailing concepts of mindful leadership. A case can be made that having a sense of focus or the development of 9 intelligence are pragmatic values that contribute to effective management. The quality of perspective-taking, it may be further argued, presupposes values such as empathy and respect. However, the before-mentioned attributes, although valuable, are not virtues that reflect the character of the leader or the ethos of the organisation. Virtues are “excellences of character, trained behavioural dispositions that result in habitual acts” (Pojman, 1990, p. 163). To clarify this point, it is instructive to distinguish two types of virtues: moral and nonmoral virtues. According to Pojman (1990), virtues are moral when they are grounded in and motivated by moral principles, which are guidelines on what is right or wrong. Instances of moral virtues are compassion, kindness and benevolence. Nonmoral virtues such as endurance, rationality and diligence, on the other hand, are not tied to moral principles. Nonmoral virtues, although necessary and useful for effective leadership, can be capitalised on for immoral purposes: think of a leader who manipulates and exploits followers, investors and shareholders by committing embezzlement and other fraudulent acts. Nonmoral virtues, in themselves, are insufficient without the co-existence of moral virtues. Without an explicit and tenable moral foundation, mindful leadership can be easily (ab)used by the leaders for nefarious agendas and outcomes. Clearly, the prevailing concepts of mindful leadership need to be challenged and revised to incorporate moral principles, motivations and considerations. The next segment proposes one such interpretation of mindful leadership that is framed by Daoist ethics. Daoist Mindful Leadership The preceding has delineated Daoist and mindful leadership respectively. The last part of this paper brings the two types of leadership together by proposing a Daoist approach to mindful leadership. The first point to note is that a Daoist leader is a mindful leader who is “fully present, aware of oneself and other people, and sensitive to one's reactions to stressful situations” (George, cited in Silverthorne, 2010, p. 1). Laozi has much to say about mindfulness through meditation (Chapter 12), the achievement of the integration of one’s physical and spiritual aspects (Chapter 10) and being conscious of the present moment (Chapter 14). However, a Daoist mindful leader does not simply observe things, people and events in a non-judgemental manner; neither does such a one prioritise nonmoral mindfulness strategies such as mindful organising. Rather, Daoist ethics undergirds and motivates a Daoist mindful leadership. Instead of McMindfulness that sidelines normative considerations, Daoist mindful leadership revolves around attentiveness to moral virtues. The Daoist approach to mindful leadership goes beyond vague terms such as ‘good’ and ‘right’ leadership by clarifying the substance of and moral principles for mindful leadership. Both dao (Way-making) and wuwei (noncoercive action) are moral virtues for mindful leadership. The reason is that these two cardinal Daoist ideas are necessarily tied to moral principles that guide leaders, managers and other stakeholders on what is right or wrong. As explained earlier, a Daoist mindful leader does not rob (dao) from the people, and instead leads the Way (dao) through one’s virtue (de). Daoist leadership, in short, is inherently mindful as a leader needs to be cognisant of one’s moral feelings, thinking and actions, moment by moment. It is helpful to contrast Daoist mindful leadership with the concepts of collective mindfulness, mindful organising and organisational mindfulness discussed earlier. Dao and wuwei, unlike these three mindful concepts, are not result-oriented strategies that enable leaders to run the organisation efficiently. A Daoist mindful leader does not treat mindful leadership strategies as purely a means to an end, nudging staff on to be more ‘useful’ through mindfulness exercises, while neglecting the moral issues, concerns and repercussions at the workplace. Beyond technical rationality, productivity and profit-making is a Daoist accent on the moral character of the leader, the ethical mission of an organisation and the holistic welfare of all staff. Prince (2005) rightly observes that Daoism presents a version of leadership that shifts 10 away from “codes, prescriptions and specifications” towards “a located and responsive social skill developed through doing rather than thinking – an emphasis on internal ‘knowing’ and experience rather than on external instruction” (p. 106). Foregrounding the moral character of a leader, a sage role-models wuwei by being non-interfering, attractive, liberating and nurturing. A Daoist leader ‘walks the talk’ through present-moment awareness, thereby attracting followers to oneself. The ‘great image’, as explained earlier, is a shared vision that unites the people and draws them to the leader naturally. Sethi (2009) gives details on the paramount importance of role-modelling: The virtuous cycle of mindfulness can best be unleashed by an enlightened and evolved CEO who believes in and role-models the practice and the process. This CEO in turn will need to have the entire executive team own the process and each level needs to take ownership for cascading it to the next level. Mindfulness principles need to be incorporated within all the teams and across the organisation by including them in leadership development programmes and processes, evaluation and performance reviews, and feedback mechanisms (p. 10). Within an organisation, it is necessary for all the stakeholders to communicate and agree upon a shared dao (Way) which is a common vision of the good. A Daoist formulation of mindful leadership also supports the furtherance of a learning orientation and not a performance orientation in a workplace. A performance orientation is fuelled by a personal desire to prove and exalt oneself (Ashford & DeRue, 2012). In contrast, a learning orientation casts light on the mastery of new knowledge and competencies by all individuals. Research shows that a learning orientation advances “an increased motivation to learn, the ability to maintain that motivation following initial failure or setbacks, and greater learning from experience” (Ashford & DeRue, 2012, p. 149). Through Way-making and non-coercion, an organisation led by a Daoist mindful leader achieves a vibrant and flourishing organisational culture that values the well-being and active participation of all staff (Levey & Levey, 2019). Conclusions The post-pandemic world that we live in calls for mindful leadership notions, models, theories and practices that meet the demands of a complex, uncertain and perplexing future. Beyond positional leadership is a form of leadership that motivates appointment holders to be present and attentive to evolving needs, rather than operating on an auto-pilot mode. Leaders are confronted daily with multiple demands and multi-tasking which makes them less efficient and more stressed. Sethi (2009) underlines a ‘leadership paradox’: “To arrive at better answers they need to really think out of the box, but past success (and the hubris that comes with it) has imprisoned them in the box” (p. 10). Arguing that most leadership training neglects the development of the internal awareness of the leader, Levey and Levey (2019) envision leaders who are mindful, selfless and compassionate. However, a major critique of mindful leadership is that the existing formulations tend to be instrumental in nature, with an inadequate exploration of ethics in leadership. Lacking a moral grounding, mindful leadership is reduced to McMindfulness that is purely instrumental and potentially exploitative. What is needed in the current conceptions of mindful leadership is a pivot to moral virtues which are grounded in and motivated by moral principles. This paper has attempted to bridge Daoist leadership and mindful leadership by providing a corrective to the latter through Daoist ethics. It has been noted that a Daoist mindful leader displays two essential concepts: dao (Way-making) and wuwei (noncoercive action). 11 Daoist mindful leaders exemplify and rally followers to achieve a common goal through de (virtue). A Daoist leader makes and leads the Way for the people by being non-interfering, attractive, liberating and nurturing. The conception of Daoist mindful leadership delineated in this article offers an ethical foundation of mindful leadership from a Chinese philosophical perspective. Slingerland (2014) contends that “the early Chinese tradition, with its embodied model of the self, offers an important corrective to the tendency of modern Western philosophy to focus on conscious thought, rationality and willpower” (p. 13). Hudson (2020) suggests that Western leaders could unlearn their taken-for-granted worldviews by synthesising Eastern influences so as to gain managerial wisdom. It needs to be clarified that Daoist mindful leadership is not the only or best interpretation of mindful leadership. The construction of the ethical pillars of mindful leadership needs to engage with and include a plurality of cultural traditions. It is hoped that this essay serves as a platform to generate inquiry and discussions on the ethical dimensions and underpinnings of mindful leadership across cultures. References Author (XXXX) Amaghlobeli, G and Celepli, M (2012) Understanding Taoism leadership from the Western perspective. Journal of Business 1(2): 47-52. Ames, RT and Hall, DL (2003) Daodejing: “Making this life significant”. A philosophical translation. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Ashford, SJ and DeRue, SD (2012) Developing as a leader: The power of mindful engagement. Organisational Dynamics 41: 146–154. Bai, X and Morris, N (2014) Leadership and virtue ethics. Public Integrity 16(2): 173-186. Bai, X and Roberts, W (2011) Taoism and its model of traits of successful leaders. Journal of Management Development 30(7/8): 724-739. Blom, R and Lu, C (2016) Contextualising post-modernity in Daoist symbolism: Towards a mindful education embracing eastern wisdom. Educational Philosophy and Theory 48(12): 1266-1283. Chang, C-y (1965) Creativity and Taoism: A study of Chinese philosophy, art and poetry. London: Singing Dragon. Davidson, RJ, Kabat-Zinn, J, Schumacher, J, Rosenkranz, M, Muller, D, Santorelli, S. et al. (2003) Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine 65: 564–570. de Bary, WMT and Bloom, I (1999) Chinese tradition from earliest times to 1600. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Dhiman, SK, Ed (2021) The Routledge companion to mindfulness at work. Oxon: Routledge. Dunoon, D and Langer, EJ (2011) Mindfulness and leadership: Opening up to possibilities. Integral Leadership Review 11(5): 1–15. Retrieved from http://integralleadershipreview.com/3729-mindfulness-and-leadership-opening-up-topossibilities/ Ehrlich, J (2017) Mindful leadership. Organisational Dynamics, 46(4), 233–243. Forbes, D (2016) Critical integral contemplative education. In RE Purser, D Forbes, & A Burke (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Culture, context, and social engagement (pp. 355– 367). Cham: Springer. Goleman, D (2000) Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Goleman, D and Boyatzis, R (2008, September) Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 74-81. 12 Hanson, MD, Randall, JG, Danna, GC and Le, HQ (2021) Enhancing workplace learning through mindfulness. In S. K. Dhiman (Ed.), The Routledge companion to mindfulness at work (pp. 295–315). Oxon: Routledge. Hudson, TE (2020) If sages worked in tech: Ancient wisdom for future-proof leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 13(4), 43-47. Jayawardena-Willis, TS, Pio, E and McGhee, P (2021) Why manage with insight? A Buddhist view that goes beyond mindfulness. In S. K. Dhiman (Ed.), The Routledge companion to mindfulness at work (pp. 280–292). Oxon: Routledge. Johnson, CE (2000) Taoist leadership ethics. Faculty Publications School of Business Paper, 32, 1-10. Johnson, CE (1997) A leadership journey to the East. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(2), 83-88. Kabat-Zinn, J (2003) Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. King, E and Badham R (2020) The Wheel of Mindfulness: A generative framework for secondgeneration mindful leadership. Mindfulness, 11(1), 166–176. Lee, YT, Haught, H, Chen, K and Chan, S (2013) Examining Daoist big-five leadership in cross-cultural and gender perspectives. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(4), 267-276. Levey, J and Levey, M (2019) Mindful leadership for personal and organisational resilience. Clinical Radiology, 74, 739–745. Lin, L, Li, PP and Roelfsema, H (2018) The traditional Chinese philosophies in inter-cultural leadership. The case of Chinese expatriate managers in the Dutch context. Cross-cultural & Strategic Management, 25(2), 299-336. Ma, L and Tsui, A (2015) Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 13-24. McElhatton, E and Jackson, B (2012) Paradox in harmony: Formulating a Chinese model of leadership. Leadership, 8(4), 441-461. Moeller, H-G (2007) Daodejing: A complete translation and commentary. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Mortlock, JT (2021) More than meditation: How managers can effectively put the science of workplace mindfulness to work. In S. K. Dhiman (Ed.), The Routledge companion to mindfulness at work (pp. 251–265). Oxon: Routledge. Pojman, L (2012) Ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Boston: Wadsworth. Prince, L (2005) Eating the menu rather than the dinner: Tao and leadership. Leadership, 1(1), 105-126. Puett, M., & Gross-Loh, C. (2016) The path: What Chinese philosophers can teach us about the good life. Farmington Hills: Thorndike Press. Purser, RE, Forbes, D & Burke, A, Eds (2016) Handbook of mindfulness: Culture, context, and social engagement. Cham: Springer. Purser, RE and Loy, D (2013, July 1) Beyond McMindfulness. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289 Rosker, JS (2016) Mindfulness and its absence – The development of the term mindfulness and the meditation techniques connected to it from Daoist classics to the Sinicised Buddhism of the Chan school. Asian Studies, 4(20), 35-56. Saviano, M, Caputo, F and Prete, DM (2018, August) Mindful leadership for sustainability: A theoretical and conceptual path. Paper presented at the Twenty-first International Conference on Excellence in Services, Le Cnam, Paris, France. Retrieved from 13 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334884310_Mindful_Leadership_for_Sustain ability_A_Theoretical_and_Conceptual_Path Sethi, D (2009) Mindful leadership. Leader to Leader, 51, 7–11. Silverthorne, S (2010) Mindful leadership: When east meets west. HBS Working Knowledge. Retrieved from https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/mindful-leadership-when-east-meets-west Slingerland, E (2014) Trying not to try: The ancient art of effortlessness and the surprising power of spontaneity. Edinburgh: Canongate Books Ltd. Sutcliffe, KM and Vogus, TJ (2014) Organising for mindfulness. In A. Ie., C. T. Ngnoumen, & E. J. Langer (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of mindfulness (pp. 407–423). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wagner, CK (1995) Would you want Machiavelli as your CEO? The implications of autocratic versus empowering leadership styles to innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 4(2), 120-127. Wang, R (2004) Women in Daoism. China Review International, 11(1): 69-72. Watts, A and Huang, AC-L (1979) Tao: The watercourse way. London: Penguin Books. Weick KE and Sutcliffe, KM (2008) Information overload revisited. In G. P. Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organisational decision making (pp. 56– 75). New York, NA: Oxford University Press, Weick KE and Sutcliffe, KM (2006) Mindfulness and the quality of organisational attention. Organisation Science, 17, 514–524. Weick, KE and Roberts, KH (1993) Collective mind in organisations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381. Wells, CM (2015) Conceptualising mindful leadership in schools: How the practice of mindfulness informs the practice of leading. Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 2(1), 1–23. 14