Four studies (a vignette-based experiment conducted in Portugal and Brazil, a two-wave multisource field study in Portugal, a three-wave field study in the United States, and a multisource field study in Portugal), in which conscientiousness, a "rival" of grit, was controlled for, provide theoretical and empirical evidence for a model testing what (e.g., grit in leaders), why (e.g., employee self-attributed grit), and when (e.g., leader support) grit supports thriving at work. First, gritty employees are more likely to thrive. Second, conveyed leader grit (i.e., grit as perceived by employees) predicts employee grit. Third, conveyed leader grit and leader self-attributed grit are conceptually different, and although the two relate positively with employee self-attributed grit, the former is a better predictor of employee self-attributed grit. Fourth, leader support operates as a boundary condition, in that the indirect association of conveyed leader grit with employee thriving is stronger when the leader is perceived as supportive. Our research also indicates that the concept of grit is more textured than habitually considered and that more attention must be paid to the boundary conditions of its development and impact.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to discuss the advantages and challenges of using virtuous language in business. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a theoretical exploration based on a literature review and philosophical analysis that uses a quantitative study from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) as its starting point. Findings This study argues that neo-Aristotelian leadership and positive leadership explain why companies whose financial filings use value-laden language that stresses the higher purpose of the organisation to outperform companies whose reports use the language of profit maximisation. While neo-Aristotelian leadership is based on Aristotle's Rhetoric, positive leadership is primarily influenced by research results from Positive Psychology and Positive Organizational Scholarship. The two approaches to leadership highlight something that conventional business research largely ignores, namely, the role of values as drivers of human behavior and the importance of character in leadership. Both research streams indicate that it is possible for organisations to do well and do good because they are seen as groups of value-driven individuals. Thus, using virtuous/positive communication is a possible means to do well financially and to (re-)humanize the business world of tomorrow. Research limitations/implications The BHI study investigates the outcomes of written language only; thus, it does not consider oral communication. Moreover, there is no "perfect level" of virtuous language in corporate environments. We should not expect the same precision in ethics as in mathematics. Practical implications By way of explaining how to best use virtuous language in a business context, this study helps business practitioners to do good and well. Social implications This study offers a pathway to (re-)humanize tomorrow's world of business, which is once again subjugating humanity to imagined technological imperatives. Originality/value By deliberating the benefits and possible downsides of using virtuous language in a business environment, this paper advances a topic that has recently gained considerable attention but is still in need for more research.

Virtuous leadership is crucial for advancing leadership ethics. By comparing Positive Leadership and its notion of virtuousness with neo¿Aristotelian leadership based on virtue, this article sheds light on this research field. We expound on the differences and commonalities between the two and present possibilities of how they can enrich each other and further ethical leadership theory. Our findings concern the purported Aristotelian roots of virtuousness, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the positive and the neo¿Aristotelian approaches, and the interplay between technical skills and ethical excellence in leadership. We propose the adoption of practical managerial tools and procedures from Positive Leadership, making them dependent upon the virtues to achieve flourishing within organizations and society at large.

This paper critically reviews and discusses the concept of organizational virtuousness as presented in positive organizational scholarship (POS). It identifies Kim S. Cameron, David S. Bright, and Arran Caza as the most influential researchers within this field and portrays commonalities, differences, and inconsistencies among the various notions of organizational virtuousness offered in positive organizational literature throughout the last 15 years. While the commonalities refer to attributes, levels of analyses, outcomes, and methodology, the variances concern the locus of residence, the priority of outcomes, indicators, supporting features and the virtues included in positive organizational virtuousness. The analysis further discusses the strengths and weaknesses of these differences and stresses the challenges which the POS movement needs to face in order to clarify its definition of organizational virtuousness and, maybe, converge on one unified meaning. Finally, these challenges are summarized and linked to future research proposals which offer potential ideas on how to further develop the concept of positive organizational virtuousness.

This article investigates the meaning of doing good and doing well in positive business. It examines the relationship between the two expressions and discusses their relevance, shedding new light on the significance of `positive¿ in positive business and positive organizational scholarship (POS). Thus, this article illuminates the ultimate end of positive states and practices. `Positive¿ primarily represents values and assumptions. These lead to the creation of beneficial situations and marked improvements, which put individuals and organizations on an upward trajectory toward achieving excellent functioning, assuring profitability in addition to sustainability and social well¿being. Doing well, with reference to economic performance and profits, is partly constitutive of doing good. This presents a new approach regarding the role of economic outcomes in positive business and POS. It means that financial criteria do not have priority. Profits are considered vital and necessary, but the final `raison d'être¿ of positive states and practices is the overall well¿being of the stakeholders.

This chapter starts by laying out the nature of the virtues and clarifying their importance in business. This first segment, apart from showcasing the evolution of Virtue Ethics in business and management, explains how the virtues refer to the `nature¿ and `final end¿ of human beings, applying to a full range of dispositions to action. A careful reading of Aristotle shows that the virtues, as `character excellences¿, also refer to inclinations and tendencies, actions and habits, and, indeed, even lives taken as a whole (Sison, 2003). Through a focus on moral character building, we aim to stimulate a lively discussion integrating ethics, sustainability, and responsibility.

Reflecting the rapid rise in popularity of recent initiatives such as the UN Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), this handbook exhaustively covers a variety of responsible management, learning and education topics, and provides an invaluable roadmap for this fast-developing field. Covering various perspectives on the topic, right through to contexts, methods, outcomes and beyond, this volume will be an invaluable integrative resource for practitioners and researchers alike, and is designed to serve a range of communities that deal with topics related to sustainability, responsibility and ethics in management learning and education.