Case Study

Description

1. 1. Compare the way the case at LTL Trucking reflects forgiveness with the way Scripture teaches us to forgive.

• What are the similarities and differences?

1. 1. How can leaders shape the way this concept is applied in the workplace?

1. 1. Are these values discussed in current business/organizational literature? give examples

chapter 9 – Forgiveness as an attribute of leadership

David S. Bright

Forgiveness is a response to perceived negative experiences in the work- place in which the propensity toward harbored negativity is displaced or dissolved, allowing the forgiver to “refrain from causing the offender harm even though he or she believes it is morally justifiable to do so” (Aquino et al., 2003, p. 212). It is an important attribute of leaders because it buffers them against the potential harm and distraction that can result from the mistakes, misdeeds, and offenses of others (Bright, 2005). Forgiveness functions as a lubricant to the friction that occurs during the natural course of human interaction, in which the potential for inflicting or experiencing offense – via conflict, misunderstanding, hurt feelings, etc. – is an inherent possibility. Indeed, forgiveness is central to the establishment, preservation and maintenance of human relationships that make up and sustain organizations (Aquino et al., 2003).

This chapter addresses the question of why forgiveness is particularly relevant to leaders in organizations. Evidence from research on forgive- ness in a unionized company, LTL Trucking, provides an illustration of (1) the three different modes of forgiveness and their effects on organizational performance, (2) differences in modes of forgiveness among different levels of employees in the organization, and (3) how greater forgiveness in the workplace has substantial organizational benefits. The chapter shows that forgiveness allows for the continuation of inter- personal connections even in the midst of conflict, turmoil, or change; in fact, it can be practiced to create lasting, transformative effects on the interpersonal relationships that make it possible for organizations to function at high levels.

The attribute of forgiveness

First, it is important to understand several basic features of forgive- ness as an attribute of leadership (Cameron and Caza, 2002). Scholars see forgiveness as a fundamental human virtue, meaning that it represents a form of moral and spiritual “goodness” in the human experience (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). Forgiveness also belongs to that class of virtues that can be practiced only when the need for them is invoked (Bright, Cameron, and Caza, 2005). For example, while the virtue of integrity can be practiced continuously as a consistent demonstration of character, forgiveness is necessary only when the potential for conflict emerges. The way a person chooses to respond during these tough moments manifest his or her propensity to forgive or to be forgiving (Bright, 2005).

In common usage, the word “forgiveness” invokes several very distinct connotations, making it important to be precise about its meaning (Worthington, 2005; McCullough, Pargament, and Thoresen, 2000; Enright and Fitzgibbons, 2000; Freedman, 1998). In this chapter I focus specifically on forgiveness as an intrapersonal experience, where an individual participant in an organization chooses to overcome the potential negative emotions, thoughts, and behavioral tendencies that occur after he or she perceives that another person or group has com- mitted an offense against him or her. This is distinct from other usages, such as where an organization chooses to pardon or forgo punishing misbehaving members (e.g. a church forgives by refraining to expel one its members), or where creditors forgive debtors of financial obligations (e.g. the World Bank forgives the debt of a Third-World country). Moreover, forgiveness does not condone wrongdoing (i.e. implicitly accept wrongful behavior), it is not reconciliation (e.g. two or more parties may agree to work together even though they may harbor negative feelings toward one another), nor is it denial or forgetting. In lieu of these related concepts, forgiveness has to do with the choice points that determine how a person reacts during those moments when he or she is naturally tempted to act on negative feelings or thoughts against others who are seen as offensive (Yamhure Thompson and Shahen, 2002).

Case example: John and Sam

LTL Trucking is an international, unionized freight transportation company with about 28,000 employees. Over 80% of workers are staged in one of 29 terminals located across North America. The company is over 70 years old and has had a long history of difficult management–union relations. The biggest labor groups are truck drivers and dockworkers. Front-line managers have a reputation for being tough-minded and hard driving.

The following simple vignette about two leaders – a manager and a union steward – illustrates the relevance of forgiveness to the practice of leadership.

John was a new terminal manager at an LTL Trucking facility. Eager to make his mark in this most recent assignment, he was on his way home from work on his first day when he saw one his terminal’s trucks parked at a convenience store. Stopping to investigate, he discovered that the engine was running, the cab unsecured, and the driver unseen – all of these factors appeared to be a violation of company policy. He waited. A few moments later the driver, Sam, exited the store with an ice cream cone in one hand and a handful of snacks in the other. John confronted Sam about the unsecured, running truck. John immediately promised a written reprimand, while Sam argued that he was just doing his job, that this was a common practice among all drivers, and that he didn’t like being followed and harassed. He promised to file a grievance. This initial encounter was less than idyllic.

The next morning John returned to the terminal office, eager to establish a positive labor relationship in an early meeting with union leaders. He was shocked when he saw Sam enter the room as a union steward. Both leaders were immediately defensive, experiencing a resurgence in the negative emotions, attributions, and words that they had voiced during their previous encounter.

This experience shaped the way that these two leaders interacted with one another for about three years. Each fought hard to represent his own interests, and each continued to see the other as a rival, as a challenge to his authority or personal dignity. Still, they found ways to work through the most pressing challenges; for instance, they worked through several contract bidding cycles, finding compromises that would allow them each to save face while appearing to fight for his cause. Then the company’s senior leadership decided that a cultural transformation in the company was needed for its long-term survival. High labor costs were driving out nearly all of their unionized rivals. At the time, 50% of their competitors were much leaner non-unionized carriers. Already, the company’s margin was barely 1%, and costs were rising. However, in contrast to their competitors who tried to force con- cessions from the union, they choose to bet on forging a new, friendlier and more collaborative relationship between union and management. The risks were huge.

As the main vehicle for igniting this shift, the company designed a series of interventions based in Appreciative Inquiry, a positive organizational development method that aims to help all employees become active, collaborative students of the organization. The intervention typically kicks off with a summit, in which several hundred employees at a given facility meet together for three days. The lead activity is usually an “appreciative interview” in which people pair up with someone they don’t know – usually someone who has a very different perspective – to learn about their deepest hopes, visions, and passions for engagement in the organization. The lowest-status dockworker might inter- view John, terminal manager, and the CEO might interview Sam, the union steward. Usually, these conversations lead to discoveries about the humanness of every member of an organization, and this produces a new respect for the unique role that each person plays within a whole system.

Through guided discussions, employees work together to discover the best qualities that currently exist within their facility, they dream about what could be if employee–management relations were working at their best, and then they organize into action teams to work on specific initiatives that will help to put some of these ideas into practice. Management, in particular, decided to view the Union not as a begrudging rival but as a collaborative partner that brought significant value to the ability of the company to operate. For example, the CEO began touting the Union’s importance in creating job stability, training highly skilled employees, and generating a strong atmosphere of safety. These meetings became widespread throughout LTL Trucking.

When the summit was introduced at John and Sam’s facility, both leaders decided to take seriously the opportunity to forge a new relationship. As an example, Sam led a team of four truck-driving col- leagues to develop a new marketing initiative, where truck drivers would not function merely as delivery agents but also as an active sales force. Driver Tom’s assignment was to haul freight to and from a small nearby town. Tom and Sam went to John with a proposal to sponsor a breakfast for all the business owners in the town. All they needed was a small budget to buy food and reserve a banquet room. John hesitated at first, but, based in part on his emerging esteem for Sam and Tom’s leadership, he finally agreed.

True to his plan, Tom personally invited every potential and existing customer to come to a “special event.” The breakfast included a program and a sales pitch, where he told the owners what he would personally do as a truck driver to ensure that their freight was handled well. He told them, “I am a truck driver for LTL Trucking, and this is what I will personally do for you to win and keep your business, because to you, I am LTL Trucking.” He asked them what they most wanted out of a trucking service. He took their feedback back to the terminal. The result of this audacious driver’s initiative was a nearly $1 million annual increase in revenue from this small town alone.

Sam’s team became notorious throughout the company for similar initiatives and activities. This was an enormous change from business- as-usual where the boundaries of the truck driver function were contractually spelled out in minute detail. The results of similar activities across LTL Trucking transformed the organization. During the past four years, millions of dollars in direct cost savings have emerged. More telling is the fact that the profit margin has increased from 1% to 12%, resulting in many millions more in profitability. A cross-sectional group of employees and managers recently recommended a change in job titles for workers at all levels: dockworkers are now “freight-handling professionals,” truck drivers are now “driver account representatives,” and terminal managers are now “regional service coordinators.” The changes have shifted fundamental assumptions about the scope of an individual’s responsibilities.

The willingness of Sam and John as leaders to forgive and move beyond old grudges and a paradigm of conflict between labor and management is one reason for the emergence of these beneficial outcomes.

Three modes of forgiveness

A recent research project uncovered the dimensions of forgiveness that lead to such remarkable results (Bright, Fry, and Cooperrider, 2005). Figure 9.1 below outlines the different states of mind in individuals as they move through their reactions to offensive experiences (Bright, 2005; Yamhure Thompson and Shahen, 2002). The first box represents the ordinary, normative state of mind. All people carry with them certain expectations about how the relational world should work: how people should treat one another, how organizational policies should function, what constitutes appropriate language, what moral or ethical codes should be practiced, and so on.

Figure 9.1 Path to choice-point in the process of forgiveness

The operative word here is “should,” that is, every person has expectations about what is right and wrong, and so long as experiences conform with these expectations, he or she feels comfortable. For instance, John’s normative expectations when he first joined LTL Trucking were that company policies and the union contract were to be followed exactly. Sam’s expectations, on the other hand, were that drivers should be able to work in a comfortable environment, that they should be trusted to carry out their work, and that it was unsafe and inefficient to turn off a large diesel engine just for a few minutes. It was a common practice for drivers to keep truck engines idling during very short stops.

Step two represents the catalytic moment, the point in time when a person confronts an experience in which it appears that there is a violation in normative expectations: an employee fails to perform appropriately, a manager inappropriately uses abusive or vulgar language, or in the worse cases, blatant crimes are committed. John experienced this violation of his expectations when he found the unsecured truck parked at the convenience store. In his mind it was a clear violation of the company norms he was obliged to enforce. This feeling intensified when Sam’s reaction was defensive rather than conciliatory. “Why can’t he just admit that he is wrong?” was a predictable reaction for John.

For his part, Sam’s sense of violation occurred when he found John waiting at the truck. It was common for truck drivers to talk about being followed or stalked by company officials, an oft-cited point of resentment. He and other drivers might have felt that it was safer to leave the big diesel engine running rather than turn it off for just a few moments. His predictable reaction was, “You’re harassing me. You don’t trust me. I can be counted on by my job. I have a proven track record, and the fact that I’m respected by my peers is proof!”

Figure 9.1 shows that the immediate reaction in these moments is initial negativity, where the offended person feels anger, defensiveness, retaliation, or frustration. This “dissonance and distress” (Yamhure Thompson and Shahen, 2002, p. 407; Janoff-Bulman, 1992) is a normal outgrowth of a mismatch between one’s expectations and experiences, and it represents a choice-point (Glidewell, 1970). It is at this moment that forgiveness may or may not emerge.

The final box in Figure 9.1 illustrates that people tend to draw on one of three modes when responding to offensive experiences. The begrudging mode perpetuates negativity; the pragmatic neutralizes negativity, and the transcendent mode transforms negativity into positive ends (Bright, 2005; Bright, Fry, and Cooperrider, 2005). The remainder of the chapter discusses these three reactions to violated expectations, and it illustrates the consequences of each one of the three responses.

Forgiveness as an attribute of leadership 179 Table 9.1 – Embedded assumptions in modes of response to offense

The Begrudging Mode:At one extreme is begrudgement, which fosters the choice NOT to for- give but, rather, to hold on to the negativity. This mode is invoked when people feel threatened or disabled in their relations with offenders, making the need for self-protection a paramount concern. They may look for ways to justify the harboring of deep negativity, for example by creating stories that they have to fight back to survive in a highly competitive world where there are only winners and losers. People who choose this response mode may see forgiveness as an illusion and, at best, they use the possibility of forgiveness as a bargaining chip in the negotiations.

The initial begrudging mode selected by Sam and John led to a strained relationship that lasted for nearly three years. The assumptions that shaped this conflict were deeply rooted in over 70 years of animosity between union and management. Emotions, particularly negative ones, are contagious in organizations (Barsade, 2002). It is common for stories of egregious activities to be told and retold for many years. With each retelling of an offensive story, the anger, frustration, and animosity is reinforced and perpetuated. In LTL Trucking, there were tales of workers in this organization who kept mental score of the perceived offenses that others had committed against them, drawing on these slights as justification for acting out in retaliation. This included about 25% of the workers in Sam and John’s company (Bright, 2005; Bright, Fry, and Cooperrider, 2005).

The outcome of this conflict, as reflected in table 9.1, was the perpetuation of deep-seated negativity. The deleterious impacts of such deep-seated negativity on both people and the organization leads to revenge, incivility, and conflict (Bies and Tripp, 1997; Andersson, 1999; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002). Needless to say, dysfunctionalorganizations (Dutton et al., 1997).

The pragmatic mode: In contrast, a pragmatic response to offense fosters a minimal form of forgiveness in which people actively work to neutralize the intra-personal negativity associated with the violation of expectation. The basis for doing so, however, is highly utilitarian. People might talk about the necessity of working together to achieve common aims, but they are focused on their own self-interests even when it is in their best self- interest to find a workable relationship with those who have offended them. “It’s not worth it to hold on to these [negative] feelings,” was a common statement heard in interviews at LTL Trucking. This statement indicates an awareness of the personal costs of deep-seated negativity, leading many to find ways to overcome it. Thus, compromise is com- mon, and forgiveness – at least to the point of displacing the negativity – is seen as necessary for sustained interpersonal interaction.

In LTL Trucking, the pragmatic mode was by far the most frequent. Through Sam and John’s negotiations as leaders on both sides of the management–labor divide, they had to find a way to put aside the negative feelings that came from their initial encounter. By their own account, this was not an easy process. They described several encounters where they “put aside” (i.e. displaced or neutralized) their negative feelings toward each other in order to push for a common agenda that would allow both of them to successfully accomplish the aims of their respective constituents. This willingness to find ways to come together was a predominant theme among most workers’ responses to offense, with over 90% invoking this mode in their general approach to the daily work interactions (Bright, 2005; Bright, Fry, and Cooperrider, 2005).

The transcendent mode: The third response identified in figure 9.1 is the transcendent mode, which describes a deeper form of forgiveness. Adopting this response enables the offended person to transcend negative emotions, to think broadly about the negative experience, and to consider how it might lead to positive outcomes. For instance, when people select this response mode they are concerned not only with themselves but also with others. Negative experiences present an opportunity for learning. People try to identify what good can come from the offense. From this perspective, forgiveness becomes a life-choice and an opportunity for achieving one’s highest potential as a person or leader.

In Sam and John’s case, they now talk about what they have learned from each other during the years since they forged a new relationship. Sam is learning from John about the fundamentals of the business, including the challenging tradeoffs that must be considered in making decisions. He also describes how he helps John engage a style of management that is supportive of workers. For his part, John has discovered how to recognize and draw on the best qualities of his work- force. Whereas they were once confrontational and antagonistic, they are now collaborative and supportive in their work relationship. LTL Trucking’s dramatic improvement in performance can be ascribed, in part, to the fact that at least 40% of its workers were choosing the transcendent mode in their responses to common workplace offenses (Bright, 2005; Bright, Fry, and Cooperrider, 2005).

Benefits of transcendent forgiveness

To understand why a transcendent mode of forgiveness has positive effects on organizational performance whereas a begrudging mode has negative effects, consider John’s insistence on reprimanding Sam, while Sam promised a grievance in retaliation. Each action was seen as offensive to the other, each had strong feelings about the encounter, and each had choice-points about how to respond to the negativity that he felt toward the other. It is hard to imagine that improved organizational performance in LTL Trucking would have been possible if labor employees had not overcome their animosity toward managers and vice versa.

Fredrickson (1998) demonstrated that negative and positive feelings operate in very distinct ways on how people think. When people’s experiences are dominated by negative emotions, they instinctively invoke a survival mode, a natural fight-or-flight impulse (Bion, 1959). This means that they are mostly concerned with how to protect themselves and others whom they see as members of their social group. This protection or fight mode is consistent with the assumptions of begrudgement. The range of action possibilities is very predictable and narrow: seek revenge on those who have hurt you, destroy them or their success if possible, make them suffer as much as you have suffered. In other words, negative feelings are associated with a narrowing effect on the alternatives people can consider in the ways they relate to one another (Fredrickson et al., 2000, 2003).

In contrast, positive emotions are associated with an expansion of thought-action possibilities. When people experience sensations such as happiness, contentment, or wonderment, they are primed to think creatively, playfully, and innovatively. Moreover, the range of issues to which they can pay attention increases dramatically. Positive emotions also create an “undoing” effect, meaning that they literally heal the mental and emotional ruptures that are associated with acute experiences with negativity (Fredrickson et al., 2000).

Fredrickson’s work suggests that adopting a transcendent mode of forgiveness, in contrast to a begrudging mode, fosters positive emotionality and creates opportunities for others to experience positivity as well. People tend to feel positive emotions when they experience psychological safety, a sense of trust in their relationships with others, and being forgiven for offenses. When people are offended, the sense of trust is broken, or there is a lack of forgiveness, the narrowing effect of negativity will spiral. One of the ways transcendent forgiveness leads to enhanced organizational performance, in other words, is that it creates a positive mental and emotional mindset in which people can draw on the healing, restorative power of positive emotions.

Modes of forgiveness among different employee groups

The study of LTL Trucking also explored potential differences in the propensity of different categories of employees to be forgiving (Bright, 2005). First, a survey was created and distributed to a cross-section of employees at two LTL facilities, and 125 questionnaires were returned. Employees read three potentially offensive scenarios. For example, a peer scenario depicted a co-worker having a “bad day” who intentionally performed work incorrectly, then refused to correct it when requested to do so. As a result, the respondent was forced to make up for the co-worker’s lack of performance. Respondents read this story then responded to questions about how forgiving they would be if they were affected by the offense. A score assessing the propensity to be for- giving in each scenario was created, and differences between managers, truck drivers, and dockworkers were statistically explored. The mean scores are summarized in figure 9.2, showing that dockworkers were the least likely to be forgiving, managers were the most likely to be forgiving, and truck drivers were in between. The differences were statistically significant. Forgiveness appears to be strongly associated with job position (e.g. a person’s relative level in organizational hierarchy).

Forgiveness as an attribute of leadership

Figure 9.2 – Comparison between work groups in mean scores of forgiveness

Additional evidence for the relationship between forgiveness and employees’ job position was found by examining the responses of 45 interviewed workers who talked about their reactions to offenses in the workplace. These results are summarized in table 9.2 (Bright, 2005). More dockworkers and truck drivers than managers were likely to choose the begrudging response mode. Almost equal proportions of dockworkers, truck drivers, and managers selected the transcendent forgiveness mode, as indicated by the shaded area, although that response mode was rare. Most employees most of the time selected a pragmatic mode of forgiveness – “I will forgive if it benefits me” – although the transcendent and pragmatic modes combined were the most frequently selected category. The key summary finding in these analyses is that LTL Trucking’s front-line managers tended to be more forgiving than other employees.

Why are managers more forgiving?

Whereas it is impossible to say for sure, the nature of managerial work may help foster more pragmatic and transcendent modes of forgiveness and fewer begrudging responses. That is, the role of managers seems to require an advanced ability to cope with offense.

First, it is possible that people who have a more forgiving propensity are attracted to managerial roles in which interpersonal interactions are more frequent. The role of a front-line manager in LTL Trucking, as in other organizations, is highly demanding. He or she coordinates the work of up to dozens of workers, competes with other managers for resources, and tries to foster good communication with leaders and customers. In this role, maintaining good relations is imperative for success, and the consequence of holding grudges could be damaging both for relationships and for the company. Several managers talked of a certain persona as the ideal manager: tough-minded, but able to “let things slide off his back.” It might be that those who are not able to address their own negativity would not be selected for these positions, or if they are, might not last.

Conversely, this demanding environment may influence people in management positions to become more forgiving if they do not already possess the capacity for it. The more the job requires high quality relationships, the more likely that forgiveness is required to be successful. It is possible that any manager who does not learn to be forgiving, or to manage his or her own negativity, does not survive long in the role. If managers were to predominantly draw on the begrudging response mode, they could perpetuate retaliation from workers, a distraction in terms of time and efficiency. As one manager noted, “Your main focus is how the union feels that day. If your guys are already pissed off because of something from last week, it just falls apart from there.”

In contrast, the potential significance of forgiveness to leaders is substantial. Forgiveness can be employed by leaders to resolve conflict (Butler and Mullis, 2001), to increase the value of human resources (Kurzynski, 1998), as a means to rebuild cooperation (Bottom et al., 2002), and to promote an atmosphere of restorative justice (Bradfield and Aquino, 1999). For forgiving leaders themselves, the biological effects of forgiveness include physiological and psychosocial healing, and reduced illness and stress (Thoresen, Harris, and Luskin, 2000). It is related to greater creativity and learning, mental stability, enhanced cardiovascular fitness (McCullough et al., 2000), and emotional stability (Exline and Baumeister, 2000; Enright and Fitzgibbons, 2000). Leaders who have experienced forgiveness tend to be happier and more tolerant (Enright and Fitzgibbons, 2000), and those who have a for- giving disposition (Cameron and Caza, 2002) may have better social relationships, and greater life satisfaction and self-esteem (Ashton et al., 1998). These benefits of forgiveness for leaders are not trivial, and thus it should not be surprising to see a tendency toward forgiveness among managers who are placed in leadership positions.

Benefits of forgiveness to organizations

Forgiveness may also have a positive impact on organizational performance when it is practiced widely. In particular, forgiveness creates both buffering and amplifying effects in organizations. It buffers the organization from harm, and it amplifies positive effects לויטרה 20 מ”ג מחיר.

Buffering effects

A buffering effect is evident when organizations are more resilient to challenging circumstances, when they able to withstand stressful, difficult circumstances. For instance, researchers have found that forgiveness was a significant factor in the ability of organizations to recover from downsizing (Bright, Cameron, and Caza, 2005; Cameron, Bright, and Caza, 2004). Downsizing is usually associated with highly negative outcomes among surviving employees: injustice, life disruption, and personal harm (Cameron, Kim, and Whetten, 1987; McKinley, Sanchez, and Schick, 1995). Begrudgement is common, as evidenced by blaming, holding animosities, seeking vengeance, and displaying self-interest (Staw, Sandelands, and Dutton, 1981). Exceptions to these negative patterns emerge when employees forgive leaders for taking the decision to downsize, buffering the organization by enhancing resiliency, commitment, and a sense of efficacy (Masten and Reed, 2002; Dutton et al., 2002). Forgiveness deepens and enhances the ability to absorb the threat and trauma of downsizing and to bounce back from adversity (Dienstbier and Zillig, 2002; Fredrickson et al., 2000), and by enhancing the preservation of social capital and collective efficacy (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). These findings imply that organizations benefit from forgiveness when they experience difficult circumstances mainly by relying on forgiveness to buffer the trauma. Resilience, healing, and restoration are more likely.

Amplifying effects

Forgiveness also creates an amplifying effect within organizations. Because forgiveness has the potential to transform negative to positive emotions, it can lead to a contagion effect in organizations (Barsade, 2002). Where one person expresses forgiveness, others are also more likely to forgive, leading to a replication of virtuousness and an elevation in positive well being (Fredrickson, 2003). In turn, positive emotions build high-quality relationships among organization members (Dutton and Heaphy, 2003; BolinoTurnley, and Bloodgood, 2002). Observing and experiencing forgiveness unlocks an upward spiral, and increasing social connections in an organization (Feldman and Khademian, 2003). In essence, virtuous actions such as forgiveness lead to and inspire more virtuous actions.

The LTL Trucking case provides some evidence that the buffering and amplifying benefits of forgiveness were in play. One benefit of a transcendent mindset among employees is that they come to see each other as “more human,” more like oneself, and therefore, more forgivable. At one facility, the number of employees who expressed a willingness to draw on a transcendent mode of forgiveness increased substantially in the months after their participation in the organizational intervention based in appreciative inquiry. That is, focusing on a positive future helped employees become more inclined toward choosing transcendent forgiveness. Considering that LTL Trucking had a long history of labor– management conflict, fostering a more positive approach to employees’ willingness to select transcendent forgiveness was a necessary condi- tion for forging a new culture of collaboration. The indirect results, in terms of profitability and employee innovations, were impressive – note again the improved margin of profitability (an increase from 1% to 12%), a transformation in employee culture leading to a flattened leadership hierarchy, and numerous employee contributions of ideas that improved the bottom line.

How might leaders exercise transcendent forgiveness?

An adequate treatment of suggestions for practicing forgiveness is beyond the scope of this chapter, though many authors have written extensively on the topic (see especially Gustafson Affinito, 1999; also Enright and Fitzgibbons, 2000; Rye et al., 2000; Worthington, 2005). However, the results of this case analysis suggest not only many benefits of transcendent forgiveness, but also means to practice it.

One key idea in transcendent forgiveness is the ability to learn from negativity in one’s experiences. The way that leaders shape their own normative expectations about appropriate and inappropriate activity within an organization sets the stage for both offense and forgiveness. How does a leader choose to interpret the mistakes and missteps that potentially lead to the experience of feeling offended? On one hand, leaders can choose to see any perceived slight, in either human or performance issues, as an opportunity for learning rather than keeping score, discovery rather than retaliation, and as a moment for personal and organizational development. Fostering this transcendent perspective reduces the likelihood that a person will be offended in the first place.

When a leader does feel offended, the degree of forgiveness is determined by how actively he or she chooses to use the experience as an opportunity for development, growth, and learning on the one hand, or as a moment to simply “get over” or “get through” on the other hand. The literature suggests several ideas for how to forgive, including the following:

• Acknowledge the wound. A first step to forgiveness is to recognize that one is suffering the effects of an offense. Acknowledging one’s own feelings of hurt, anger, or disappointment is a first step toward choosing how to deal with the experience, even if others are unaware that a person feels offended. Writing one’s feelings in a journal can help this process. Write down a description of the offending event, outline the implicit assumptions that made the moment feel particularly egregious, and capture emotions and thoughts. It may also be helpful to talk with a very close confidant, especially someone who is far removed from the situation. It may not be helpful to bring out one’s feelings and thoughts in the immediate environment of the offense, though this depends on the strength of existing relationships.
• Reframe perceptions of the offense and the offender. Reframing encourages the offended leader to find out more about the offender and the circumstances that led to the offense. When a leader invokes his or her curiosity, he or she is now cognitively positioned to become other-focused and willing to learn, rather than self-focused and more inclined to accuse. Questions to ask might include any of the following:
• What experiences in the offending party’s background may cause the offending activity, for example, in one’s upbringing or current home life?
• What are the basic assumptions about work or life that shape the offending person’s perspectives and conclusions?
• How might I act if I were in this person’s shoes? The discovery of answers to these questions can guide the leader to greater understanding, and often help him or her to feel greater empathy with the offending party’s life experiences. Research shows that when people have empathy for others, it is easier to forgive them because we tend to see them as a reflection of ourselves.
• Separate the question of justice or other issues from the question of forgiveness. Justice deals with the social consequences of action, which should be debated and decided through the legal structure of organizations. Forgiveness focuses on how one deals with the intra- personal emotions and thoughts that are induced by offense. A person can forgive without forgoing the right to justice. Similarly, a person can forgive without reconciling, condoning, or sending the wrong message. The greatest beneficiary of forgiveness is the forgiver.
• Choose to forgive. Forgiveness is active, not reactive. Indeed, the basic tenet of forgiveness is that it is a choice to exercise control over and to transform one’s own reactions to potentially negative interpersonal experiences.
• Find strength in one’s belief structure. Though forgiveness has strong secular impact (Arendt, 1958), it is discussed and encouraged in most spiritual traditions. For this reason, most people find that the capacity for forgiveness is often directly linked to a community of spiritual practice or tradition. When leaders link to their most deeply held belief structures, they often find a reserve of strength that encourages transcendent forgiveness.

At the level of organizations, forgiveness can have an influence on the way that a company learns from its past. Research on high per- forming organizations suggests that they learn from mistakes, and may even try to recreate them (Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obsfeld, 1999; Weick, 2003). When forgiveness is a prevalent practice within organizations, it allows people to focus on opportunities, rather than on vengeance. Leaders will foster organizational benefit when they encourage organization members to forgive one another of mistakes and misdeeds, while simultaneously addressing the systemic causes of human error. In this sense, organizations may be more effective to the extent that they forgive, yet don’t forget.

Summary

The ability to exercise forgiveness is an important attribute of those who aspire to exercise strong leadership. Leaders in key positions have more influence on the culture and atmosphere of an organization than do other employees. They set an example that is contagious and that others draw on as a model for responding to challenging circumstances within an organization. Forgiveness is an important factor that helps create an atmosphere where relationships can develop in a more collaborative direction. Forgiveness is a means to repair workplace relationships (Aquino et al., 2003), and when organizations require that people work interdependently, it can mitigate the occurrence of dam- aged connections.

An understanding of forgiveness in the workplace serves to enhance such benefits for employees and foster greater organizational performance (Cameron, Bright, and Caza, 2004). That is, a better under- standing of forgiveness helps enhance the propensity to forgive, which, in turn, is central to the establishment, preservation and maintenance of interpersonal connections in organizations. Successful managers and leaders practice forgiveness as a strategy for maintaining the benefits