Conceptualizing and Contextualizing “Executive Wisdom” as a Framework for Business Leadership: A Grounded Theory Approach

The Concept of Wisdom

The early definitions of wisdom in modern studies focused on three aspects. First, understanding wisdom as expert knowledge or tacit knowledge, the German theorists (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000) define wisdom as an expert knowledge system that provides judgment about complex and uncertain problems. Similarly, Sternberg (1998) defines wisdom as tacit knowledge moderated by values toward achieving the common good. Second, wisdom is associated with personality traits. For example, Ardelt (2003) asserts that wisdom is a personal quality (being an integration of cognitive, affective, and reflective traits) and should not be limited to expertise. Third, wisdom deals with the important and complex matters in life (Staudinger, 1999). After analyzing numerous published descriptions of wisdom, Meeks and Jeste (2009) concluded that wisdom engages social decision-making, pragmatic knowledge of life, emotional homeostasis, pro-social behaviors, self-understanding, value relativism and tolerance, and dealing with uncertainty.

Another enduring conception that the early psychological studies offer is the distinction between personal wisdom and general wisdom (Staudinger et al., 2005; Staudinger & Glück, 2011). Personal wisdom is obtained via personal experiences and refers to insights about one’s own life. General wisdom, on the other hand, is not necessarily based on personal experience, referring instead to one’s concerns about human life and the world in general (Glück et al., 2013). Given this distinction, our study based on an organizational context is concerned more with general wisdom.

More recent empirical evidence further suggests two things. First, wisdom is a contextual decision-making capacity (Intezari & Pauleen, 2018) or reasoning (Grossmann & Brienza, 2018). That is, how people perceive wisdom in their personal life may differ from their perception of wisdom in the organizational context. Second, wisdom is fluid, as people can vary in their level of wisdom depending on the decision situation (Grossmann et al., 2020). One person can display (a lack of) wisdom in different facets of their life. As a contextual decision-making capacity, wisdom engages judgment about complex problems by integrating cognitive, affective, moral, and motivational qualities to guide one’s behavior toward optimizing one’s own and others’ potential (Kunzmann, 2004).

Wisdom in Business

While psychological studies of wisdom have significantly advanced our understanding of wisdom (such as wisdom in the personal life: Glück & Bluck, 2013), they do not offer a contextualized understanding of wisdom in the leadership and business context. It was not until recently that business and leadership scholarship moved toward incorporating wisdom as a relevant and important concept (McKenna, 2019; Rooney et al., 2010). Previous wisdom studies in business see wisdom as integral to morally responsible leadership (Steyn & Sewchurran, 2021) as wisdom involves judgment that extends leaders’ ethical consideration beyond simply determining the good action over the bad for the business.

This view expands the business ethics’ response to the separation thesis (Freeman et al., 2010), which, despite being critiqued by many scholars, may be a pervasively held view even among business and society researchers (Wicks, 1996). The separation thesis, which originates in the work of Hart (1961), distinguishes between “is” statements (descriptive claims about how things are) and “ought” statements (normative or prescriptive claims about how things should be). In the context of business and society or business ethics, the separation thesis is sometimes taken to mean that business decisions (the “is”) can be distinct from ethical decisions (the “ought”; Freeman et al., 2010; Wicks, 1996). The wisdom perspective offers an integrative viewpoint that highlights the profound ethical interconnectedness of business and society. This perspective aligns with the arguments put by Wicks (1996), emphasizing that business and society are not distinct entities but rather are interwoven. Therefore, ethics should not be viewed merely as an external adjunct or a superficial add-on to business operations. Instead, ethical considerations should be recognized as foundational, deeply embedded within the very fabric of business processes and decision-making. We propose that ethical soundness is simply not enough in managing the business-society relationship as the complexity of the business-society interaction needs a capacity for wise judgment about the well-being of self (business) and others (society; Intezari & Pauleen, 2014). It is this aspect of wisdom that offers a view of the inseparable interconnection between business and society.

Furthermore, while rational approaches to decision-making have proven to be highly useful in business decision-making, the approaches are limited in addressing the complexities inherent in socially burdensome problems and where there is high ambiguity and uncertainty around the impact of any possible solutions on multiple stakeholders with conflicting values (Elangovan & Suddaby, 2020). Such decisions require leaders to have more than analytical intelligence as human judgment and insight become critical in the decision-making process (Bierly et al., 2000; Hess & Bacigalupo, 2011; Rosanas, 2013). We contend that a common reason behind many leadership failures in today’s organizations is a well-intentioned but misguided application of codified and almost algorithmic “solutions” to complex problems (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). However, a wise leader’s decision-making portfolio ought to incorporate the capacity to gather relevant knowledge, understand the reasons and motivations for alternative choices, and apply rational processes (Elangovan & Suddaby, 2020).

Virtues are at the core of decision-making (Mintz, 1996; Sasse-Werhahn et al., 2020; Steyl, 2020), which is a critical quality for leaders when dealing with socially complex problems (Mumford et al., 2000, 2017). Given this moral foundation, wise judgment calls on perspicacity or excellence in judgment (sunesis) based on discernment (gnomē; Sasse-Werhahn et al., 2020; Steyl, 2020). It identifies the need for wise judgment in business situations where ambiguity and dynamism are high and information and time are low (Provis, 2010); the need to deal with competing logics (Sasse-Werhahn et al., 2020); and the importance of transcending the quotidian to consider the longer term (Sasse-Werhahn et al., 2020).

Wisdom Studies in Non-Western Cultures

The philosophical foundations of a contemporary wisdom theory draw mostly from Western philosophy, most notably the Aristotelian approach (Nonaka et al., 2014), and most studies of wisdom have been conducted in Western cultures such as the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. A review of the wisdom literature shows that most definitions of wisdom in psychology since the 1980s have been developed by North American and European scholars (Bangen et al., 2013). Nonetheless, non-Western conceptions of wisdom can offer a rich reservoir of ideas and beliefs that are little known in the mainstream Western world (Yang & Intezari, 2018).

While the primary focus of this article is on the Persian traditions and conception of wisdom, we acknowledge the vast expanse of non-Western philosophies and traditions that have equally rich and diverse interpretations of wisdom. From the Confucian ideals deeply rooted in Taiwanese culture (Yang, 2021), the transient beauty encapsulated in Japan’s Wabi-Sabi (Suzuki, 2021), and the community-centered Ubuntu philosophy of Africa (Atwijukire & Glück, 2021; Newenham-Kahindi & Stevens, 2021) to the introspective depths of Buddhist (Condon et al., 2019) and Hindu Prajña (S. E. Smith & Sharma, 2019) philosophies as well as the ancestral insights of the Maori matauranga (Spiller et al., 2011), Native Americans (Gladstone, 2021), and the Hispanic perspective (Valdez, 1994), the global tapestry of wisdom is vast and varied. These traditions, each with its unique perspective, show the richness and diversity of global thought on this timeless virtue.

While the ethical dimension of wisdom is central across cultures (Glück & Weststrate, 2022), previous studies show that culture can affect managers’ and employees’ ethical decision-making (Sims, 2009) and influence top management’s values in relation to social responsibility (Waldman et al., 2006). For example, in a study of a sample of 1,924 companies in 36 countries, Miska et al. (2018) report that the national culture can predict corporate sustainability practices. Similarly, Zhuang and colleagues (2005) report that organizational members’ adherence to ethical decisions and behaviors may vary across cultures. Wisdom, being culturally and contextually bound, requires business leaders to take into account the cultural characteristics when dealing with socially complex problems.

However, few studies have conducted an in-depth investigation about how wisdom is understood in a non-Western culture and how it manifests in leadership and business-society contexts. From a practical perspective, the interaction between business and society invariably involves ethical dissonances, which can be overcome by each party deeply understanding the other. Therefore, inquiry into a highly contextual conception of wisdom enhances the intellectual vitality of the concept (Weststrate et al., 2019), leading Grossmann and colleagues (2012) to call for more fine-grained cultural analyzes of wisdom-related qualities, in cultures other than that of the United States. Non-Western wisdom studies have mostly focused on Confucian (Yang, 2001, 2016) and Buddhist (Daniels, 2014; Jeste & Vahia, 2008; Levitt, 1999) traditions.

Studying wisdom in context across different cultures is now an emerging topic of interest in areas such as organizational studies (Kessler & Bailey, 2007; Küpers & Pauleen, 2013), leadership (McKenna et al., 2009; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2011), management (Bachmann et al., 2018), education (Cooke & Carr, 2014; McKenna et al., 2013), sustainability (Cugueró-Escofet & Rosanas, 2020), and decision-making (Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Intezari & Pauleen, 2018).

The Historical Concept of Wisdom

The Persian philosophical discourse of wisdom can be examined within two major historical periods: before and after the Muslim conquest of Persia (651 CE; henceforth, pre-Islam and post-Islam, respectively).

Business Context

With its rich history and geopolitical location, Iran presents a distinct business environment. Government has significant influence in key economic sectors, such as oil, transportation, and utilities; and the business-society interaction is deeply influenced by Islamic views, economic sanctions, and domestic political dynamics alongside modernization efforts. The cultural landscape, characterized by a preference for hierarchical organizational structures, high in-group collectivism, and a reverence for authority, informs the centralized decision-making processes prevalent in Iranian businesses, distinguishing them from their Western counterparts. Despite international sanctions, local enterprises have driven economic development and employment primarily through resilience and innovation, particularly in the growing entrepreneurship and startup sectors. Family businesses and a well-educated middle class play vital roles in this ecosystem, adapting to a low-trust environment while contributing to societal modernization and the promotion of gender equality and competency. Iranian businesses, while less formalized in corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices than Western standards, are nonetheless engaged in community welfare, driven by traditional Persian values of community service, reflecting a blend of capitalist drive and socio-cultural accountability.

Shared Fundamentals

Although Iran is an Islamic state, it differs from other Middle Eastern countries in that it still retains its own strong Persian (not Arab) tradition and is a Shi’a state rather than the predominant Sunni of the region. Nonetheless, most Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries share considerable religious fundamentals and cultural and historical territories, not the least of which is the response to the Crusades, and more recently, their response to European imperialism in the late 19th and 20th centuries (Frankopan, 2015). For example, in a study of the political perspective of CSR, Murphy and Smolarski (2020) found that most large companies in predominantly Muslim countries share a belief in their ethical duty to support governments in tackling sustainable socioeconomic growth and human rights issues. The shared religious fundamentals can extend the implications of this study beyond the region to other non-Middle Eastern Muslim societies. Moreover, due to the historical influence of the Persian philosophy in the region, the Persian conception of wisdom provides valuable insights into how wisdom is conceptualized in the Middle East.

Informants

We interviewed senior executives and business leaders in Iran. Due to their significant role in strategic decision-making in their organizations, senior executives and leaders make decisions that significantly impact multiple stakeholders including employees and wider society. To recruit these informants, we used online social networks including LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram, as well as our personal connections. To identify potential informants, we assessed informants’ eligibility by reading their social media biographies using three criteria: (a) being in a leadership position; (b) regardless of gender, education, experience, and age; and (c) having a non-Western cultural background. The third criterion was used to include participants who self-identified as Iranian, having been raised within the country and having not lived, worked, or been educated outside the country. This stipulation was imperative to ascertain that the data gathered were deeply anchored solely within the Persian culture, devoid of Western influences.

Our sample primarily comprises individuals we reached out to on LinkedIn, with a small portion derived from those contacted through our personal networks and two additional platforms. Once we identified potential informants, we then sent them an invitation message using the LinkedIn messaging feature. Initially, we sent a connection request and a very brief introduction to the research project. Once the invited person accepted the connection request and to be interviewed, a full invitational request was sent to them prior to the interview. The full invitation included the information sheet providing a more detailed explanation of the research project. We ensured that we recruited people from the private and public sectors; in addition, informants with different demographic characteristics were chosen to achieve theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The emergent interview questions (see Appendix B for the interview protocol) and conceptual categories directed the research to different people and contexts (Goulding & Saren, 2010). The diversity in the sample is important in GT as it helps with the “(1) dense development of properties of categories, (2) integrating of categories and properties, and (3) delimiting the scope of the theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 58).

We invited a total of 70 potential informants for interviews over five phases, of which 35 business leaders (52%) accepted and subsequently participated in the interviews. Of the total, 37% (n = 13) of informants were female, and 63% (n = 22) male, with an average age of 42 years, ranging from 27 to 67 years. The gender distribution in the sample is proportional to the gender mix of management in Iran. All informants except one had at least one university qualification (diploma (n = 1, 3%), bachelor’s (n = 6, 17%), master’s or MBA (n = 14, 46%) to PhD (n = 14, 34%). This demographic composition corresponds well to the composition of business leaders in Iran. Informants varied in terms of work experience (x̄ =19.6 years) and were from diverse professional fields, including banking and finance, education, medical and healthcare, city council, information technology and communication, utilities, and consultancy. The practitioners’ organizational hierarchical positions, which varied from front-line team leaders to CEO and senior executives, were from small- to medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 50 employees to large national organizations with more than 50,000 employees.

Analytical Process

Data were gathered and analyzed through a recursive process. Theoretical sensitivity guided the sampling. That is, each round of data gathering and analysis was directed by the findings of the previous interview rounds. Using substantive and theoretical coding, as well as constant comparison, ensured that the emerging themes were grounded in the filed data. We kept on moving back and forth between data gathering, coding, and data interpretation (analytic induction) until the emerging core category became strongly grounded in the field data (Binder & Edwards, 2010), and no new categories emerged relating to the core and sub-core categories. The whole process of data collection and analysis led to a rich and dense core category that integrated and explained the relationship among the sub-core categories (Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Data Gathering and Analysis.

For a detailed description of data gathering and analytical process, see Appendices C and D.

The Emergence of the Model

Following Kan and Parry (2004), we provide a thematic model of the hierarchical abstraction that depicts the relationship between conceptual codes, conceptual categories, and sub-core categories (Figure 2). Through the abstraction process, the analysis of the data moves from descriptive analysis to more theoretical and conceptual interpretation that provides an explanation of the subject matter (Goulding, 2002). The lowest level in the model (boxes) represents conceptual codes, and the higher abstraction level (circles) are the conceptual categories. One level higher up the model are the sub-core categories. The highest level of abstraction is the basic social process (the core category), technē-centric problem-solving ability, that integrates the three sub-core categories. The core category is so named because the features of technē predominated in the responses.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2

The Thematic Map of the Conceptual Codes and Categories.

Table 1 provides the definition of the sub-core categories as well as evidence of the multidimensional conception of wisdom.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Exemplary First-Level Excerpts.

Sub-core categories	Conceptual categories	Definition	Exemplary first-level excerpt (more exemplary excerpts in Appendix E)
Technē	Knowledge & expertise	Knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge	. . . to improve my wisdom, I would try more to increase my knowledge . (Informant 11)
	Experience	Experience and the ability to apply experience	As the experience increases [. . .], the wise managerial decision-making also improves, [. . .], the more experienced and cognizant leaders are, the wiser they become. (Informant 2)
	Rationality	Evidence-/fact-based, and non-emotional decisions, that are made through clear processes and reasoning	wise leadership is based on reasoning , and emotions have a very weak role in it . Wise leaders make decisions based on studying, scientific estimation, and specialized examination , (Informant 24)
	Situational awareness	The perception of environmental elements and events with respect to the leader and the problem at hand	Wise leadership decisions are based on reason, the correct understanding of the situation , [. . .] and our decisions become wiser and more effective if we get aware of others and the surrounding environment. (Informant 33)
Wise decision	Comprehensive	Looking at phenomena from different angles Showing deep understanding and paying great attention to details	A leader should examine all aspects of an issue (e.g., technical, financial, political, stakeholders, and other dimensions) and make decisions based on the results of this examination. (Informant 25) [. . .] experience gives depth to our knowledge, and this knowledge provides us with a more universal and comprehensive view of the environment. (Informant 17)
	Effective	The extent to which the decision completely resolves the problem at hand and/or lead to long-lasting impacts.	Unwise decisions have two features. One is that they do not solve the problem [. . .]. Sometimes leaders think that they have solved a problem; however, over time that problem comes back on the leaders’ tables . . . . (Informant 14)
	Foresight	Considering the long-term impacts of the decision.	[. . .] there are many unwise decisions in our organizations these days. [. . .], the lack of foresight and attention to the consequences and results of the decision , [. . .]. (Informant 22)
	Timely	The decision is neither rushed nor too late.	Not hasty: Unwise decision-making means hasty decision-making and lack of precise understanding of the issue. (Informant 24)
	Ethical	The decisions are based on ethical principles.	In a wise decision, all aspects should be taken into account. If ethics is not included, decisions might be made based on personal or group benefits (financial or non-financial) which are against the interests of the organization. (Informant 25)
Virtuous disposition	Consultative	Seeking professional advice and recommendations.	Usually, a leader does not have all the necessary specialties and knowledge , [. . .]. Moreover, a leader does not have the ability to achieve all specialties. Therefore, he should seek the help of advisors and specialists so that he can make wiser decisions. (Informant 16)
	Emotional regulation	The ability to exert control over one’s own emotional state to minimize the impact of emotions on the decision.	Wise leaders make decisions based on studying, scientific estimation, and specialized examination, and the introduction of emotions in this process can lead to inappropriate results . (Informant 24)
	Self-awareness	The extent to which the leader is aware of his/her strengths, weaknesses, and limitations.	A leader and decision-maker should at first have a complete awareness of his abilities, know his strengths and weaknesses . (Informant 20)
	Reflectiveness	Learning from previous experiences.	If the previous decisions were wise, I ask myself about why the decisions were wise , [. . .]. If I come to the conclusion that my decision was unwise, I would still do the same thing ; I set out to revise it and try to prevent it in my next decisions. (Informant 5)
	Selflessness	Organizational and social interests are paramount. The extent to which the greater good is prioritized over personal interests.	[. . .] wise decision-making is higher and better than reason-based decision-making. Because in wise decision-making, sufficient knowledge of the whole system [organization] is collected and the interests of the whole system—including the organization and other stakeholders—are taken into account. (Informant 20)

Table 2 outlines the definitions of the sub-core categories constituting the core category. The three sub-core categories contributed to and explained the basic social process (core category) of the technē-centric problem-solving ability moderated by virtuous disposition. The concept of technē is derived from Aristotle, who defines it as reasoned action underlying the art of production (Aristotle, 1984: NE VI, 1140a1–a20). Applied to organizations, it is understood as pragmatic, variable, context-dependent decision-making governed by a conscious goal such as producing a good or service (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Developing Sub-Core Categories.

Core category	Sub-core categories	Definitions
Technē-centric problem-solving ability: The implementation of technē moderated by virtuous dispositions toward making wise decisions.	Technē	Possessing the ability to apply relevant knowledge, expertise, and experience in a highly rational manner and based on an extensive situational awareness.
	Wise decision	Considered decisions characterized by comprehensiveness, foresight, effectiveness, timeliness, selflessness, and ethics.
	Virtuous disposition	The inherent quality of character manifested by emotional regulation, reflectiveness, self-awareness, and being consultative.

The sub-core categories are now elaborated.

Technē

Our informants believed that a wise leader in making decisions needs to have technē above all else. They emphasized that in leadership, having relevant knowledge and experiences and the ability to apply the knowledge and experience in a rational manner based on an accurate understanding of the situation were essential aspects of wise leadership. These categories, which frequently emerged during the interviews, were aggregated under technē. As reported in Table D2 (in Appendix D), 497 (i.e., 45.5% of all the) conceptual codes were related to and categorized into the “Technē” sub-core category. Technē, for our purposes, is technical knowledge or competence (Eikeland, 2008; Nonaka et al., 2014) that is different from pure knowledge in that technē involves real-world consequences and effects (Nonaka et al., 2014). Technē, as identified by our informants, has four dimensions: knowledge and expertise, experience, rationality, and situational awareness. The comments provided in Table 1 (and more in Appendix E) comprise technē in the organizational leadership context.

Wise Decision

While technē is a vital aspect of wisdom (Tsai, 2020), our findings, which are congruent with those of Rowley and Slack (2009, see also Baltes & Kunzmann, 2004; Oakes et al., 2019), also showed that wisdom engages judgment and problem-solving in complex situations. Our informants identified wisdom in leadership by explaining the quality of their decisions. In response to the questions such as “how would you identify wisdom in your organization and leadership?,” informants referred to leaders’ decisions. Of all the conceptual codes, 31.6% (n = 345) were related to the second sub-core category, “wise decision.”

This finding is consistent with the literature in that wisdom is directly linked with the decision quality of leaders (Small, 2004). The early psychological studies of wisdom characterize wise people as problem-solvers who are able to synthesize alternative interpretations to provide solutions to the problem at hand (Kitchener & Brenner, 1990). Gibson (2008) identifies one of the aspects of wisdom as the capacity to decide. The quality of decisions, according to our informants, was determined by the extent to which the decisions were comprehensive, foresighted, effective, timely, and ethical.

Comprehensiveness is described as the extent to which the decision is made based on a thorough assessment of the issues at hand or by considering the situation from different angles. Wisdom draws upon the ability to see the bigger picture (Cammock, 2003). Biloslavo and McKenna (2013) assert that wise leaders have the ability “to view a given situation from multiple perspectives while screening out irrelevant factors, flexible thinking and possessing a multidimensional view of the world” (p. 118). According to Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde (1990), wisdom engages “holistic cognitive processes that move beyond a fragmented and impassive relativity, toward a more ‘universal’ or metasystemic awareness of interrelated systems” (p. 31). Our informants (Informants 25 and 17, Table 1) believe that leaders who do not comprehensively examine the phenomena from different points of view are unlikely to be able to make wise decisions.

Comprehensiveness also means showing a deep understanding of and paying great attention to details. For example, Informant 8, who is an experienced manager in the education sector, asserts that wisdom entails “scrutinizing” the situation and phenomena: “Wisdom makes the individual or people making the decision scrutinize the various aspects of the issue.” Comprehensiveness is linked to technē in that extensive knowledge and experience can help a leader gain an accurate understanding of different aspects of phenomena (Informant 17, Table 1).

Effectiveness is concerned with the degree to which the leader’s decisions lead to the intended outcomes. The informants associated wisdom with the effectiveness of the decisions that wise leaders make. They believe that wisdom guides the leader to make decisions that prevent the negative consequences that may happen if the problem were left unattended (Informant 14, Table 1). In this sense, effectiveness is linked to other aspects of wisdom, such as comprehensiveness and foresight (see Appendix E for more excerpts).

Cheong and Tsui (2011) argue that the effectiveness of a decision depends on the quality of the information and knowledge on which the leader makes the decision. The effective use of knowledge to make wise decisions that goes beyond mere technē is contained in this statement:

Wisdom engages making informed decisions based on knowledge with the observance of foresight and with the use of past experiences. That’s why wise decisions can be very significant in making changes to the organization. (Informant 26)

Foresight is described as the extent to which the future long-term possible consequences of alternatives identified and selected during the decision-making process are critically examined. The classic definition of foresight was provided by Martin (1995): “foresight is the process involved in systematically attempting to look into the longer-term future” by monitoring the indicators of emerging trends (p. 30). Ackoff (1999) defines wisdom as “the ability to perceive and evaluate the long-run consequences of behavior” (p. 14). Engaging abstract thinking and seeing beyond the horizon are established principles of wisdom (Rowley & Slack, 2009). Indeed, Aristotle identifies a phronimos (a wise person who displays Phronēsis) as being able to “see correctly because experience has given them the Eye” (Aristotle, 1984: NE 1143b14). Drawing upon philosophical and psychological descriptions of wisdom, such as Aristotle’s and Sternberg’s, Kok (2009) identifies vision and foresight as one main principle of wisdom. Halpern (2001) explains that wisdom comprises “a way for deciding which goals should be desired, a way that is based on a balance among self and other interests and short- and long-term goals” (p. 255). Lack of foresight, in addition to the lack of comprehensiveness and situational awareness, was identified by one informant as the main reason for many unwise decisions in organizations (see Informant 22, Table 1).

Timeliness means that wise leaders make decisions neither too early nor too late. As one informant stated, “The time aspect should also be included in wise decision-making.” (Informant 9). Intezari and Pauleen (2019) argue that wisdom in the leadership context involves making decisions at the “right time” (“critical time” according to Informant 31), meaning that

the decision is made when it will have the most positive impact. If a decision is made later than when it should be, the scope and the level of the problem’s negative impacts may increase. If a decision is made earlier than it should be, i.e., based on the initial signs of a decision situation, the decision-maker may not have enough time to investigate all the aspects of the decision situation (p. 167).

The time that a leader has to analyze and evaluate available and accessible information can affect the quality of the decision. Our informants frequently asserted that making hasty decisions when there is not adequate time to assess different aspects of an issue prevents the leader from making a comprehensive decision (comprehensiveness).

Ethical, the final aspect of wise decision, concerns whether the intended outcomes of the decision and the way that the outcomes are achieved are ethical. Our informants identified ethics as an aspect of wisdom (see Table 1 for exemplary excerpt). This finding that ethics and wisdom are intimately interlinked is supported by the literature (McKenna, 2005; Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2001). Baggini and Fosl (2007) describe wisdom as effective deliberation leading to an ethical course of action. According to Aristotle, “it is not possible to be good in the true sense without Prudence, nor to be prudent without Moral Virtue” (Aristotle, 1984: NE 1144bb, 30–32). Therefore, technē needs to be accompanied by ethics as, without a foundation of values, the leader would not be able to distinguish good from bad (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2011).

Ethics is necessary but not sufficient for wise decision-making. Ethics is essentially concerned with right and wrong moral conduct. Of course, wise leaders must have moral probity but must go beyond this to enact virtue. Neo-Aristotelian virtue is defined as “an acquired human quality, the possession and exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods” (MacIntyre, 2007, p. 191). Furthermore, these goods must be directed toward a telos “constituting the good of a whole human life” (MacIntyre, 2007, p. 203). One virtue identified by informants is selflessness. That is, while informants gave priority to the role of technē in wisdom, this is bounded by the extent to which the leader goes beyond self-interest. Yang (2011) argues that “outstanding leaders may display wisdom if they are able to produce positive influences on themselves, on others around them, on their organizations, and on the larger community” (p. 628). A further aspect of selflessness implied in the findings is a form of intellectual humility because it enables the wise person to see phenomena from different angles (comprehensiveness; Intezari & Pauleen, 2018). As noted by Informant 25 (Table 1), lack of ethics and comprehensiveness can lead the leader to be self-centric.

It is noteworthy, however, that only 54% of our informants identified ethics as a key aspect of wisdom. This may be because ethics is seen as irrational, aligning with the view of Heyler et al. (2016) that “ethical leader decision-making is influenced by emotion, bias, and intuition” (p. 794), although this is not clear from the data. Given that over 90% of our participants believed that wise leaders are highly rational, the proportionally lower emphasis on ethics shows some internal consistency in our findings. The consistency is also reflected (as discussed below) by our informants’ emphasis on emotional regulation (77%).

Virtuous Disposition

Our informants identified some particular patterns of behaviors associated with wise leaders. We refer to these behavioral patterns as comprising a disposition, with the disposition of a wise leader as virtuous. In personal psychology, disposition is defined as patterns of intentional actions that are the consequences of thought and reflection, although “with practice and experience the acts may appear to be spontaneous, habitual, or even unconscious” (L. G. Katz & Raths, 1985, p. 303). Dispositions are “summaries of act frequencies” that produce trends of actions (Buss & Craik, 1983).

Our informants identified five major categories that were associated with a virtuous disposition: consultative, emotional regulation, reflectiveness, self-awareness, and selflessness.

Consultative is described as the extent to which the leader seeks advice from experts. Seventy-seven percent of informants identified consultation as an important aspect associated with wisdom. Underlying this consultativeness is a virtue of intellectual humility. However, being consultative has a practical aspect, as leaders cannot necessarily have “all necessary specialties and knowledge” to deal with problems and issues they face (Informant 16, Table 1). Consultation can also help the leader see phenomena from different angles (comprehensiveness):

Consultation is beneficial in examining the various aspects of an issue. (Informant 18)

Emotional regulation, another aspect of a virtuous disposition, “is a process by which human beings control emotional behaviors” (Rosales et al., 2017, p. 1). As discussed in the Technē section, the informants believe that wisdom in leadership means being highly rational, which, in turn, requires emotional regulation to minimize the chance of their decisions being biased by emotions (Informant 24, Table 1).

This separation of emotion and rationality is more consistent with the traditional rationalist approach (Drucker, 1967) than recent research on decision-making (Heyler et al., 2016). The traditional approach describes decision-making as a rational process with clear steps based on the assumption that all probabilities can be objectively measured. Recent research, however, challenges the rationalist school by arguing that human decisions are influenced by non-rational factors such as moral awareness and emotions (Eberhardt et al., 2019; Heyler et al., 2016; Higgs et al., 2020). For example, experiments by Bechara et al. (2000) show that heightened emotions can improve decision-making. Similarly, in the business-society context, Friedrich and Wüstenhagen (2017) identify emotions as a key factor influencing organizational leaders’ decision-making during a period of sustainability-related upheaval within an industry. This informant’s claim is also inconsistent with conceptualizations of the wisdom construct. From the outset, Kramer (1990), for example, conceptualizes wisdom as the integration of cognition and emotion. Furthermore, most wisdom studies acknowledge the role of emotions in wisdom by arguing that factors such as emotions and ethics are crucial to decision-making, and the lack of these factors can lead to inappropriate outcomes (König & Glück, 2013). On the other hand, a wise person “locates the prudent course of action and resists the urgings of the passions and the deceptions of the senses” (Robinson, 1990, p. 14). Our informants believed that because the decisions that leaders make in their organizations are not free from emotions, a leader needs to regulate emotions:

A wise leadership decision is based on knowledge, and the role of emotions is very limited in it, though it is not zero. Decision-making is done by a human, and we know that a human has emotions and feelings. Therefore, we cannot say that emotion has no role at all, but its role should be minimized because in wise decisions, we need to distance a little from emotions to attain the intended goals. (Informant 20)

Self-awareness was another virtuous disposition that informants referred to in their conception of wisdom in leadership. Self-awareness is the extent to which the leader is aware of her strengths and weakness, what she (does not) know/s, values, and interests. Informants referred to self-awareness as a prerequisite for wisdom:

A wise person certainly starts with herself; she definitely prioritizes knowing herself. Moreover, the wise person uses a comprehensive view and knows others, the environment, and herself before issuing an order. In addition, she uses evidence, open viewpoints, and specialist help. (Informant 12)

Self-awareness moderates the link between technē and decision-making by indicating where a leader’s technē (technical skill and knowledge) may fall short, and therefore should seek advice (consultation). As discussed earlier, consultation can help a leader to make better decisions about the matters for which he or she lacks the required competence. More importantly, without self-awareness, a leader may fail to understand his or her shortcomings and, as a result, make decisions that may require knowledge or abilities beyond the person’s capacity. Self-awareness enables the leader to know where to seek help (for more excerpts, see Appendix E).

Reflectiveness, another dispositional virtue, is described as the ability and willingness to learn from mistakes by evaluating experiences of previous decisions. Reflection refers to an in-depth consideration of a situation, event, or phenomenon to understand one’s own thoughts and feelings about them. Antonacopoulou (2010) shows that self-critical reflection is a vital component part of wise leadership. Our informants described wise leaders as people who demonstrate high levels of flexibility in learning and developing their competencies. They actively reflect on their own thoughts and behavior and, in this way, learn from their mistakes. Reflective skills are valuable resources for a person’s decision-making capacity (G. F. Smith, 2008), by enabling the person to enhance their self-awareness and to learn from their mistakes (Sternberg, 1985). Reflecting on previous decisions is a way to avoid making unwise decisions in the future (Informants 5, Table 1).

Meeks and Jeste (2009) identify “reflective abilities” as a vital component of wisdom. Allee (1997) argues that not all problems can be solved by merely relying on data and objective information; rather by “wisdom solutions” which draw on reflection to clarify the person’s values and purposes toward achieving the most appropriate solution. In a similar vein, Merriam and Caffarella (1999) argue that wisdom consists of “the ability to move away from absolute truths, to be reflective, to make sound judgments related to our daily existence, whatever our circumstances” (p. 165). Ardelt (2003) includes reflection as one of the three dimensions of wisdom in her 3-Dimensional Wisdom Scale alongside cognitive and affective. Bolton (2010) explains that reflection “involves reviewing or reliving the experience to bring it into focus. Seemingly innocent details might prove to be key; seemingly vital details may be irrelevant” (p. 13). One can develop wisdom over time through reflective attention to the meaning of experiences (Gibson, 2008). In this sense, reflection sits between experience and decision-making to improve future decisions by reflecting on previous successes and failures (this relationship is illustrated in our theory, Figure 3, as a direct predictor of Wise decision, and a moderator of the Technē to Wise decision relationship). Reflection can involve simple recall plus considering previous experiences. The following informant identifies documentation (or storing in memory for future use) as a mechanism to record experiences for future reflection:

Learning is part of wisdom development—not necessarily by academic learning but through the practical and real one. [Wise leaders] document their successes and failures so that other people can use them and correct themselves. However, rarely you can see these days that top leaders and staff accept their failures and say that they have been wrong because they see the cost of acknowledging their failure is too high. Getting away from bias and documenting it to be used by others and correcting the wrong behaviors will greatly help develop wisdom. (Informant 21)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

The Executive Wisdom Model.

Informants also saw the role of reflection in terms of learning from mistakes to achieve selflessness (e.g., achieving organizational interests). This is another aspect of virtuous disposition, which will be discussed in the next section.

Selflessness, the final virtuous dispositional attribute, is described as displaying concern for the needs of others rather than one’s own. Going beyond self-interest (selflessness) to achieve organizational and wider social interests was identified by our informants as an important aspect of wisdom. Fifty-four percent of informants asserted that wisdom in a leadership context requires selflessness. Understanding and considering what is good for the organization and its stakeholders is critical in wise leadership (Gibson, 2008). As discussed earlier in the Findings section, informants defined wisdom as a rational and reason-based decision-making capacity. However, being knowledgeable and experienced and being able to make rational decisions do not necessarily lead to wise decisions. A purely reason-based decision that is directed toward self-interest of the decision-maker or a small group of people in the organization does not produce wisdom. The exemplary comment from Informant 35, who characterizes his organization as unwise, identifies the “selflessness” characteristic of wise leaders. The need to align reason-based decisions with societal benefit is conveyed in the following statement:

Wisdom in business is represented in the prioritizing of public interests over short-term ones, [. . .] Wisdom comes after reason and is totally acquired. Wisdom in business is represented in prioritizing public interests over short-term ones, using each other’s facilities, and increasing the efficiency level of organizations. Our current businesses are clear examples of unwiseness. (Informant 35)

Figure 3 illustrates all the aspects (three sub-core categories) of wisdom and their interrelationships based on our data. From this, we propose a model of wisdom in the leadership context, the Executive Wisdom Model (Figure 3). The model illustrates the basic social process that explains how leaders perceive wisdom and believe that wisdom manifests itself in leadership: the implementation of technē moderated by appropriate virtuous dispositions toward making wise decisions.

Technē and virtuous disposition together influence a wise decision. Furthermore, we note an important additional effect that emerged from our analysis of the textual data. Specifically, the degree of impact of technē on wise decision can be influenced by the sub-characteristics noted under virtuous disposition. The findings show that wisdom is a complex and multidimensional quality.

Theoretical Contribution

There is continuing interest in examining business practices through a contextualized perspective (Filatotchev et al., 2022). We used the wisdom theoretical lens to contextualize business leaders’ perspectives on what constitutes wise leadership in the business-society interaction, especially when dealing with socially complex problems. Our executive wisdom model seems well suited to the deep contemporary concern with sustainability by providing a fresh perspective to the complexity of climate change responses (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010), and related stakeholder engagement can no longer assume stable environments (Pirson & Turnbull, 2018). These findings have five important implications for theory development.

First, we have furthered a developing movement in wisdom studies to widen the scope of business ethics theory proposed by Provis (2010) and McKenna (2005). Although this process has gained considerable momentum, the core retains the Aristotelian concept of phronēsis, which asserts that excellence in action is the natural outcome of the virtuous person; furthermore, this comes about without necessarily engaging in deliberative thought processes (Finnigan, 2015) because it is embodied (McKenna, 2016). Such a notion rests axiomatically on Aristotle’s statement in the Nicomachean Ethics that “one cannot be practically wise without being good” (Aristotle, 1984: NE 1144a36). The essence of virtue is its “commitment to goodness” (Annas, 2011, p. 105) in all that we do. Phronēsis, for Aristotle, moves beyond mere technē (aptitude, professional/craft knowledge, and expertise). Technē is a “reasoned action underlying the art of production” (Aristotle, 1984: NE 1140a1–a20). Phronēsis “draws on the transcendent . . . to produce wise action” (McKenna & Rooney, 2019, p. 657). In this way, it extends the instrumental rationality of technē by incorporating dispositional and habitual actions “that fulfil the highest human potentialities” (Bragues, 2006, p. 342). This distinction was quite evident in the findings of this research, which were notable for the primacy afforded to technē. Significantly, the respondents did identify five characteristics of a virtuous disposition and also identified the temporal dimension of foresight. Being ethical was identified as a feature of wise decision, which was primarily determined by technē and a virtuous disposition (see Figure 3).

These findings advance our understanding of wisdom in leadership within the business-society context by showing that wisdom is more than just a personality trait or a state of mind. Recent studies of wisdom have significantly contributed to our body of knowledge, including models that aim to describe wisdom-related personality, explain the complexity of wisdom, and offer insights into the measurement of wisdom. The studies have generally leaned toward conceptualizing wisdom as a personality trait (Bauer et al., 2019; Staudinger et al., 2005). This was a prevailing approach in the psychological studies of wisdom in the U.S. and European studies. In organization and business studies too, wisdom is broadly referred to as a fixed and innate characteristic that can be enhanced through reflective learning. However, our study shows that wisdom in the non-Western leadership context seamlessly integrates reflective learning through making decisions that engage technē and a virtuous personality. This finding challenges the idea that individuals’ normative beliefs about the rightness of business-society factors such as CSR are tied to their fundamental personality traits (Mudrack, 2007). This leads to the second implication.

The findings can also help develop more valid and reliable measures that take into account the cultural and contextual aspects of wisdom in leadership and business-society studies. Most wisdom studies use the wisdom scales that have been developed in Western societies. For example, Ardelt’s (2003) 3D-WS is possibly the most frequently used scale in the country under study (Asadi & Intezari, 2020). Our findings revealing that wisdom is conceptualized as highly rational suggests that the three dimensions of the 3D-WS should not be treated as uniformly important; rather, their respective importance may vary across different societies and cultural contexts. For this reason, the 3D-WS model may not be a suitable scale for a non-Western population because in a non-Western society, a leader may be considered unwise if s/he displays affection in their decisions at the expense of rationality. This finding is congruent with the finding of Grossmann et al. (2012) that wisdom is culturally and contextually bound. We, therefore, encourage more inductive examination of leaders’ and laypeople’s perception of wisdom in various cultures and call for contextualized and culturally sensitive scales of wisdom.

A third implication for theory development is that this study provides a non-Western component for use in a comparative analysis with Western cultures. For example, would Western cultures valorize rationality to a similar extent as suggested by the finding of Westaby et al. (2010) that reasons are critically important for leaders rather than a commitment to the common good because they frequently need to justify their decisions within and outside the organization. Our finding shows that wisdom in a non-Western leadership context may be better explained by behavioral reasoning theory, which asserts that context-specific reasons are important in decision-making and behavior, rather than by behavioral intention theories such as the theory of planned behavior. This is consistent with the findings of Shotter and Tsoukas (2014) who highlight the pragmatic qualities of wisdom in leadership. The findings of Dasta et al. (2020) similarly show that people in Iran see wisdom to be more associated with “cognition” than with “spirituality.” While cognition is most evident in the pre-Islam traditions, spirituality is central to the post-Islam conceptions of wisdom.

A fourth significant implication for theory from this research is the conceptual category of ethics in the wise decision sub-core category. From a cultural perspective, it is noted that Western leaders in Intezari and Pauleen (2018) study also included ethics as a core aspect of wise leadership decision-making. Of note here is that Australia and New Zealand (where the Authors’ previous study was conducted) are secular countries, whereas Iran is a hybrid theocratic-republican state with strict moral codes. Yet, ethics rated only relatively moderately as a characteristic of wisdom, and there was no reference to morality or values. Only 54% of the informants identified ethics as an aspect of wisdom. This is not consistent with the Western account of wisdom, which heavily draws upon Aristotle’s work that identifies ethics as a central aspect of wisdom (McKenna, 2005; Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2001). This is particularly significant when one also takes into account the technē-centric bias of the leaders’ conception of wisdom. We would suggest that, given that Phronēsis is the supreme intellectual virtue resting on episteme and technē and that technical expertise alone is insufficient for practical wisdom, the word practical is actually superfluous as all wisdom must ultimately be expressed in practice. The defining difference is the presence of virtue: Phronēsis “is the ability to find some action in particular circumstances which the agent sees as the virtuous thing to do” (Hughes, 2001, p. 105; see also McKenna, Rooney, & Liesch, 2006, pp. 41–43).

The fifth implication that emerges from this research is the concept of a virtuous disposition. It is important that we distinguish the dispositional traits uncovered in this study from the notion of disposition as personality traits, which are “a comprehensive but finite, preferably small set of stable dispositions that remain invariant across situations and that are distinctive for the individual, determining a wide range of important behaviors” (Mischel & Shoda, 1998, p. 231). The most common personality traits are those known as the Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1997). While one of these traits, openness to experience, is positively related to wisdom (Ardelt et al., 2018), these dispositional traits cannot be considered as virtues. However, it is noteworthy that a later modification of the Big 5 personality scale, Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness (versus Anger), Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience (HEXACO) (Ashton & Lee, 2007), does add the virtues of honesty and humility. By disposition, then, we mean a suite of virtues that a person invariably exhibits in a range of decisions, particularly in important situations that involve value-based judgment, and where any decision is likely to have significant impacts on others and wider society. Such a definition aligns not only with (especially Aristotelian) philosophy (Aristotle, 1984; MacIntyre, 1985) but also with the psychological definition of virtue’s role in wisdom (Baltes & Kunzmann, 2004; Huynh et al., 2017).

This finding has implications for the moral psychology of corporate reputation in that those who act from virtue (i.e., behaving well even when no one is watching) compared to those who act in conformity to virtue (for the sake of personal gain or other egoistic interests) can obtain long-term reputation. This is because, unlike at the firm level, reputation at the individual level is non-instrumental given that it is the outcome of the person’s disposition and character (Alzola, 2019). Comparing the virtuous dispositional traits that emerged from the previous study (Intezari & Pauleen, 2018) and this provides a useful theoretical advance. This is because our findings show a moderating role for virtuous disposition in leadership wisdom. We have identified five components of a virtuous disposition that moderate the relationship between technē and a leader’s wise decision: consultativeness, emotional regulation, reflectiveness, self-awareness, and selflessness. More specifically, being consultative is an indication of intellectual humility; emotional regulation is an indication of equanimity and temperance; reflectiveness and self-awareness indicate (self)honesty; and selflessness indicates a commitment to the well-being of self and others (Vittersø, 2016). Leaders who are consultative are more likely to gain a rational view about their decisions than when they rely on their own individual guesses (Hueffer et al., 2013). That is because people display fewer cognitive biases (Ubel et al., 2011) and tend to decide more rationally when giving advice to others than when making decisions for themselves (Helfinstein et al., 2015; Zou & Savani, 2019). Previous studies also show that dispositions such as emotional regulation (self-control) are associated with reliance on deliberative decision-making and reason (Jordan & Rand, 2018). Jordan and Rand (2018) also report that caring (selflessness) is associated with the pro-social willingness to pay costs to benefit others. The impact of reflection on wise decision-making is also evident in the literature. For example, Brown (2006) states that individuals make prudent decisions when they receive feedback, especially when they are uncertain about the consequences of their actions.

Practical Implications

Our findings have three practical implications. First, a business leader must be technically competent in terms of formal training (knowledge), leavened by experience, and have the capacity for rational thinking. Rational thinking aligns with the virtuous dispositional trait of emotional self-regulation. This finding extends our understanding of the implication of N. W. Katz’s (1979) skills model in a non-Western developed economy. Our findings show that leaders in this specific non-Western context regard technical competence as equal to or more important than social and conceptual competence for a leader to be able to make comprehensive, foresighted, effective, timely, and ethical decisions.

The second practical implication is that an effective business-society interaction requires leaders to have a high level of situational awareness or the capability to understand the context of the problem being addressed. This higher-order cognitive functioning is reinforced by neuroscience: “Wisdom arises as higher-order cognitive regions, such as the prefrontal cortex, work to regulate immediate reward and emotional processing in striatal and cingulate cortex structures” (Williams & Nusbaum, 2016, p. 386). However, there is surprisingly little research on the way in which wisdom is applied according to the circumstances of a particular context. Contextual wisdom is usually concerned with the context of life stages (Staudinger & Kunzmann, 2005) and being (un)wise in different domains of life (Schwartz & Sharpe, 2006; see also the difference of personal and general wisdom in the study by Staudinger, 2013). Recently, some attempts have been made to develop a context-sensitive measure of wisdom, with Brienza and colleagues (Brienza et al., 2018) developing a measure of cognition in wise reasoning. This aspect, the effect of contextual circumstances on the salience of wisdom attributes, suggests a useful area of future research. The third implication relates more generally to socially desirable outcomes. Within an organizational context, developing and sustaining wisdom principles increases the likelihood of pro-social behaviors and decisions (Bangen et al., 2013), which in turn is likely to enhance the propensity of organizations to be socially responsible in their actual practices rather than merely in their declarations and strategies such as greenwashing. Enriching the discourse on political CSR theory, our findings offer pragmatic measures that leaders can employ to avoid populist ideologies about CSR (Al-Esia et al., 2024). This contributes to people’s well-being, we contend. Therefore, the findings can provide insights into developing ethics- or sustainability-oriented executive training programs. Wisdom has been increasingly called for in business and leadership training programs (Maxwell, 2012, 2016).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

As research on wisdom in a non-Western leadership context has been limited, we used GT methodology to explore the topic in a new context. Our iteration between the field data and the extant literature allowed us to gain new insights into wise leadership in a non-Western society. We also recognize the limitations to our study, which provides opportunities for future studies.

First, the incorporation of demographic information such as gender, industry sector, or managerial levels into this data analysis could have provided a more nuanced understanding of the conception and practice of wisdom among different types of leaders in different types of organizations. A possible avenue of future research might be a comparative examination of wisdom across multiple demographic sections. For example, given that the findings of this study show that technē was considered significant in wisdom, we strongly suggest that future studies examine how the following variables may affect people’s understanding of wisdom: different educational levels; formal and informal general or field-specific training; years of experience; complexity of work; and type of work (e.g., caring industries such as health compared with engineering or IT).

The second limitation is associated with virtuous dispositions. Our data analysis yielded five virtuous dispositions: consultativeness, emotional regulation, reflectiveness, self-awareness, and selflessness. However, we suspect that virtuous dispositions are not stable states and have unequal levels of impact on how a decision-maker relies on his or her technē to make high-quality decisions. We do not have the data to show how the impact of the five virtuous dispositions varies in different situations (e.g., where time is/not limited; where death or serious injury is possible; or where a heightened duty of care is required). We speculate that each virtuous disposition may be different in its degree of impact on the relationship between technē and wise decision across different phases of a decision-making process. The impact can also vary depending on whether a leader makes decisions individually or collectively. Future research can build upon our theorizing by conducting exploratory or confirmatory research about the dynamic and varying impact of the virtuous dispositions.

The third limitation of the study pertains to the sample source. Data were exclusively gathered from one non-Western country, which potentially circumscribes the generalizability of the findings beyond what we have already mentioned in the Introduction, Contextual Background, and Discussion sections. While the study provides invaluable insights into the conceptions of wisdom in leadership and business within this specific cultural context, it is imperative to approach any extrapolations beyond this domain with prudence. The unique socio-cultural, historical, and political nuances of the country (as mentioned in the Contextual Background section) might have profoundly shaped the participants’ perceptions and experiences, which may not be representative of other non-Western or Western contexts. Hence, future research is strongly encouraged to replicate this study in various cultural milieus. Such endeavors would not only enrich the existing literature on wisdom in leadership but also provide a more comprehensive and cross-cultural understanding of the phenomenon and its implication for the cross-cultural business-society dynamics.

Finally, the dominance of religion in the country in which this study was conducted may create the expectation that ethics should have been identified by most participants. Because our study did not test for religiosity, we can only infer that wisdom and religion are independent factors. We cannot make any strong conclusion about the relationship between wisdom and religion based on our data in this study. This is a useful area to explore further in future studies.