Caring Leadership and Employee Bereavement: A Literature Review

Introduction and Scope of the Literature Survey

This literature review involved close scrutiny of books, journal articles, and materials from Internet sources on caring leadership, employee bereavement, and the connections between them, in six key areas. These were: (1) bereavement and funeral policies and procedures that currently exist for United States military personnel and their families (but not for personnel and/or families of other branches of U.S. government); (2) the history of military funeral honors practices, policies, and procedures; (3) relationships between caring leadership and attitudes, practices, and policies concerning empathy and support for employees in general, and employee bereavement in particular; (4) caring leadership as demonstrated by managerial support of, and help for, grieving employees; (5) workplace attitudes and best practices having to do with support for and management of bereaved employees; and (6) typical effects on employees and those around them of the deaths of loved ones and/or other serious losses, and how caring leaders can help at those times.

Upon comprehensive review, the available literature fell into five categories. The first was primary and secondary source material pertinent to funeral benefits for military personnel and/or other government personnel — for example, federal legislation and other published congressional proceedings, and related secondary source material. The second category was literature on caring leadership in general. The third category was literature on grief management in the workplace by caring leaders, particularly the ways that caring leaders treat bereaved employees and encourage others in the workplace to treat them, and on caring workplace attitudes in general toward employees' bereavement and grief. The fourth category focused on the particular workplace funeral and bereavement policies of selected public and private organizations — including companies, colleges and universities, and churches — and compared and contrasted their respective bereavement policies both among themselves and with United States military funeral policies and procedures. The fifth category focused on the potential risks, drawbacks, and benefits of changing (or expanding) current workplace bereavement practices, policies, and procedures within government and other workplaces, and on potentially granting funeral honors to government employees that would be equivalent, in appropriate ways, to military funeral honors.

The literature survey first examined various United States legislative documents pertinent to: (1) military funerals; (2) entitlements to military funerals; (3) the history and protocol of military funeral honors within the United States; (4) funeral leave for military and non-military government personnel; and (5) funeral leave — or the lack thereof — for non-military United States government employees.

One such legislative document was the Report to Congress on Military Funeral Honors for Veterans (1999), "as required by Section 567 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act" (p. 1). This document explained the history, background, and protocol of United States military funerals and summarized the proceedings of an earlier Congressional Executive Roundtable held on November 17, 1998. According to that document, the roundtable was attended by "over 100 representatives, including senior officials from the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs" (Report to Congress on Military Funeral Honors for Veterans, 1999, p. 3). The document further explained that the present American tradition of giving military funeral honors to the fallen has evolved over a long period of time and today incorporates both foreign military and American military historical elements; present military funeral protocol is rooted in both ancient foreign military protocols and past American military experiences.

According to that document, the ritual burial of fallen military soldiers originates from the military funeral traditions of the ancient Greeks. The funeral oration of Pericles was, in fact, the model used by President Lincoln for the Gettysburg Address. It was considered customary at Roman military funerals to call the name of the dead three times. More recently, however, in the early days of the American military, three musket volleys were substituted instead, serving both to announce the completion of the burial of the fallen soldier and to signify that the burial party was ready to resume battle.

Federal Legislation and Other Information on Military and Government Funerals, Funeral Leave, and Bereavement Leave

During the early days of the United States, it was the practice for Army commanders to bury their dead troops, whenever possible, in cemetery plots within the confines of their particular military posts (Report to Congress on Military Funeral Honors for Veterans, 1999). According to that document (pp. 10–11):

In 1861, Army General Order #75 ordered the Quartermaster General to provide a registered headboard to be secured at the head of each soldier's grave. In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Omnibus Act that established national cemeteries for soldiers who die in the service of the country. The music we now use for Taps dates back to General Daniel Butterfield of the Army of the Potomac, who, together with the brigade bugler, composed the music we now know as Taps. Taps was first used in connection with military funerals during the Civil War. In 1918, the U.S. Army began the practice of placing a flag over the coffin and, following the funeral service, presenting the flag to the next of kin.

Other documents on military funerals, history, protocol, employee leave, and entitlements surveyed for the study included: Military Funerals: A Brief History (2005); History of Taps (2005); Funeral Leave (2005); Military Funeral Support (2004); Funeral Honors Ceremony (2005); Banusiewicz (2004); and Military Funerals (2002). All of these sources contained information on military funeral protocol, including the facts that the military maintains a detailed body of regulations regarding its funeral procedures. When military personnel pass, there are federal laws and formal procedures in place to acknowledge them, based on Title 38 of the United States Code, Section 112. Military funeral protocols spelled out by federal law include: (1) at least two military personnel being sent to the funeral; (2) Taps being played by a bugler, if available, and if not, a recording of Taps being played; (3) a 21-gun salute being given to honor a fallen soldier under particular circumstances; (4) an American flag being first folded thirteen times by the military detail conducting the ceremony, with the folded flag then being given by the detail leader to the next of kin; (5) special words of condolence being spoken by the detail leader to the next of kin; and (6) a Certificate of Honor, signed by the current President of the United States, being made available upon request to the next of kin.

Also according to that document:

Section 1482 of Title 10 authorizes the Secretaries of the Military Services to pay for the necessary expenses of presentation of a flag of the United States to the person designated to direct disposition of remains of active duty members and eligible reservists. Section 2301 of Title 38 requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall furnish a flag to drape the casket of each deceased veteran (including retirees). After the burial, the flag shall be given to the veteran's next of kin. The Secretary shall furnish a flag to the next of kin of those who were on active duty after May 27, 1941. (p. 11)

Moreover, according to Military Funeral Support (2004), Funeral Honors Ceremony (2005), Banusiewicz (2004), and Military Funerals (2002), military funerals for active fallen United States military personnel are paid for in full by the U.S. Department of Defense.

The United States Code Title 38 (Veterans' Benefits), Part II, Chapter 23, "Burial Benefits" (2004) covers current federal law on military burial protocol, burial honors, rights and entitlements to military funerals, and some survivor benefits. Specifically, these sections of Title 38 are: (1) Sec. 2301. Flags; (2) Sec. 2302. Funeral Expenses; (3) Sec. 2303. Death in Department facility; plot allowance; (4) Sec. 2304. Claims for reimbursement; (5) Sec. 2305. Persons eligible under prior law; (6) Sec. 2306. Headstones, markers, and burial receptacles; (7) Sec. 2307. Death from service-connected disability; and (8) Sec. 2308. Transportation of deceased veteran to a national cemetery.

H.R. 4954, the Military Families Bereavement Leave Act (2004), was introduced into the United States House of Representatives on July 22, 2004, passed by both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, and signed into law by the president shortly thereafter. This law serves to authorize leave for the immediate family members of a member of the uniformed services who dies in the line of duty, in order to facilitate the attendance of immediate family members at the burial ceremony of the member, and for other purposes (p. 1).

According to Paragraph 5 of Section 2 of HR 4954: "The immense grief felt by the families of these members who have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the United States is compounded by the need of family members to miss work and other responsibilities in order to attend to burial duties, funeral services, and related family concerns, causing additional economic and personal hardship" (p. 2).

Additionally, Section 3 of HR 4954 states that "an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of seven days of leave because of the death of a parent, spouse, son, daughter, or person for whom the employee serves as designated representative, if the deceased died in the line of duty as a member of the uniformed services. Such leave is intended to permit the employee to prepare for or attend the burial ceremony of the deceased member of the uniformed services and may be paid or unpaid leave" (Military Families Bereavement Leave Act, 2004, p. 2).

Conversely, the United States federal government presently has no laws in place to similarly, or in any comparably formal way, acknowledge and honor the passing of federal government personnel other than military personnel.

According to U.S. Code Title 5, Part III, Subpart E, Chapter 63, Subchapter II (2005), the federal government does authorize, according to three separate sections of Title 5: (1) Sec. 6321, "Absence of veterans to attend funeral services"; (2) Sec. 6326, "Absence in connection with funerals of immediate relatives in the Armed Forces"; and (3) Sec. 6328, "Absence in connection with funerals of fellow Federal law enforcement officers." Title 5, therefore, authorizes the use of sick leave to attend a family member's funeral, and within Title 5, various procedures and rights to leave — paid or unpaid — for immediate survivors are delineated for: (1) funerals of law enforcement officers; (2) funerals of relatives in the Armed Forces; and (3) funerals of veterans (2005).

However, no other branches of United States government service are mentioned in terms of funeral protocols, survivors' rights, or leaves of absence for survivors anywhere within Title 5 of the U.S. Code. In fact, within the two agencies of U.S. government service whose work is very often arguably equally as dangerous as active military service — and in some cases more so — namely the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), no similar or equivalent funeral benefits or honors are offered in honor of fallen members of those agencies, their spouses, or other immediate survivors as are offered to military personnel and their families. The FBI, for example, offers annual leave, sick leave, family medical leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, and family-friendly leave, which includes "up to 40 hours (5 days) of sick leave in a leave year to care for a family member or to arrange or attend an immediate family member's funeral. In addition to the 40 hours of sick leave allowed, an employee may use an additional 64 hours under certain circumstances" (Benefits, 2005, p. 2).

The CIA's leave policies are very similar to those of the FBI (Sunoo & Solomon, 1996): no specific funeral leave or funeral honors are granted to CIA personnel, or to immediate relatives of CIA personnel killed in the line of duty (p. 8). However, according to one CIA employee whose 33-year-old husband was diagnosed with lung cancer and died two months later (p. 8), additional benefits were in fact forthcoming from the agency when she most needed them — but only due to an internal pool of donated annual leave and the compassion and generosity of her peers:

"Thank goodness the agency maintains a pool of annual leave donated by other employees. People who have excess leave time can donate it to the pool. It's so helpful for those involved in catastrophic situations. I never had to take leave without pay. My office gave me a week off after he died."

Like many employees of many workplaces nationwide, then, CIA employees — like the vast majority of other U.S. government employees (not to mention employees of most other public and private entities) — depend, following the death of a loved one, on workplace kindness rather than on a governmental guarantee of up to seven days of federally protected funeral and/or bereavement leave time, as is uniquely guaranteed to U.S. Armed Services members and their families (Sunoo & Solomon, 1996; Grief in the Workplace, April 2003; Bereavement in the Workplace, 2005; Tyler, 2003).

In summary, the United States federal government currently has no laws equivalent to either Title 38 or HR 4954 in place to similarly acknowledge the passing of non-military federal personnel, or the effects of their passing upon their loved ones. The federal government currently authorizes only the use of previously accrued sick leave to attend a family member's funeral. Separate procedures are also spelled out within Title 5 for leave that may be taken for funerals of law enforcement officers, funerals of relatives in the Armed Forces, and funerals of veterans. However, no other branch of government service is covered in terms of funeral leave protected by law — much less funeral honors for personnel other than military — anywhere within either Title 5 or Title 38.

Literature on Caring Leadership

The second category of available literature examined for the study was literature on caring leadership: both caring leadership in general, and caring leadership as it related to deaths, illnesses, or other serious personal setbacks of employees and/or their loved ones, and the management and support of bereaved employees. That literature included books, articles from academic and other journals, and various materials from Internet sources such as company, government, or other websites and policies and procedures information.

In the course of reviewing available literature on caring leadership, the author discovered that none of the private companies researched — including several of those best known for their overall benevolence toward employees, such as Southwest Airlines, General Electric, and Pitney Bowes (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004) — had any Internet-posted or otherwise publicly available funeral and/or bereavement policies. Therefore, the author was unable to compare the funeral and bereavement leave policies of those companies with those of other public and private entities that did make that information available.

Most available literature on caring leadership focused on caring leadership in general; not all sources touched specifically on caring leadership during times of employee bereavement, although a great deal of what was said on caring leadership in general could be easily applied to such situations. Among literature reviewed on caring leadership in general, Flexible Leadership: Creating Value by Balancing Multiple Challenges and Choices (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004) focused on key characteristics of caring leadership, including empathy, caring, good listening skills, and the ability to set high standards while still practicing empathy toward one's peers and employees. That book also challenged "the myth of easy leadership" (p. 10) and the idea that "one-minute" actions or a list of "leadership secrets" could create caring leadership. The authors argued instead that "there are few, if any, easy answers. Leadership is difficult and demanding, and leaders need to be flexible because the situation is constantly changing" (p. 11).

Being a flexible leader meant acting decisively when necessary, but also acting and reacting with flexibility and kindness. The book also offered a model of flexible leadership based on various situational factors and conditions, including: (1) "People-Oriented Leadership Behavior"; (2) "Programs and Systems for Adaptation"; (3) "Change-Oriented Leadership Behaviors"; and (4) "Programs and Systems for Human Relations" (p. 13).

Yukl & Lepsinger (2004) also focused on the importance, to flexible leadership, of supporting and recognizing others by "giving praise and showing appreciation to others for effective performance, significant achievements, and special contributions" (p. 158). As they further stated about supportive leadership: "A good measure of supportive leadership is how you react when a colleague or direct report is upset or worried. By listening attentively, and trying to show that you understand what a person is saying and feeling, you communicate strong concern and the desire to be helpful. Supportive leadership is also relevant when a personal problem is adversely affecting job performance" (p. 157). Such ideas on recognizing peers and employees as individual human beings, taking an active interest in them, and being supportive and empathetic when they have problems that interfere with work are all applicable to the management and support of grieving individuals within the workplace, although the authors do not specifically address that issue in the book.

Values-Based Leadership (Kuczmarski & Kuczmarski, 1995) focused on the loss of positive values in business and in society in general, due to anomie — feelings of normlessness and rootlessness that have set into American society in recent decades due to an overemphasis on the self, on personal pleasure, on immediate gratification, and on acquiring material possessions. Such less-than-constructive values, argue the authors, produce cynicism about leadership and authority in general, leading within company employees and society at large to an overall disregard for fair play and a feeling that everyone, including leaders, is only out for themselves rather than for their companies or individual employees. As the authors stated: "We need to undergo a fundamental shift that reestablishes values and beliefs in our personal and professional lives… A set of values that enables us to once again believe in our jobs, companies, and organizations; to believe in our families, churches, and communities; to believe in our government… More than ever before, we live in an age that necessitates our need to find reasons to believe" (p. 9).

The authors also suggested five steps today's leaders might take to counteract the pervasive effects of anomie within today's companies and begin instead to put positive values and forward-looking leadership back into the workplace. These were: (1) "Pluralize the workplace" — honor employees of all backgrounds, viewpoints, and expressions of diversity; (2) "Serve as employee advocates" — establish a mindset of serving employees rather than employees serving their organizations' leaders; (3) "Be a Socratic teacher" — ask questions to elicit understanding; (4) "Bridge people to a mission" — help employees design and build a bridge from their values to the organization; and (5) "Evoke professional passion" — help employees get excited about their work, take pride in their jobs, and feel emotionally committed to their colleagues (pp. 11–14). Although Values-Based Leadership does not explicitly discuss employee bereavement issues, it does implicitly suggest that, because effective leaders must take an interest in their employees as individuals and not just as workers, they must also be supportive and helpful in their attitudes toward, and management of, employees during times of personal loss, sadness, or crisis.

Wren (1998), in Management Innovators: The People and Ideas That Have Shaped Modern Business, traced the evolution of business practices by profiling key leaders in eleven management-related categories, including Inventors, Makers, Sellers, Movers, Communicators, Financiers, Working Smarter, Organizers, Motivators, Leaders, Quality Seekers, and a Guru category featuring Peter F. Drucker. The material most applicable to caring leadership and the caring management of grieving employees is the chapter on Motivators, which discusses the importance of leaders' understanding their employees as individuals and their needs as people — rather than simply as workers — and of leaders' serving consistently as reliable sources of support.

The Relationship Edge in Business: Connecting with Customers and Colleagues When It Counts (Acuff, c2004) focused on the importance, to caring leaders, of building strong, trusting, and enduring relationships with employees through empathetic understanding, constructive actions, and meaningful communication. Subjects explored within the book included: (1) "Climbing the Relationship Pyramid," or what is required step-by-step to foster strong workplace relationships; (2) "What Strong Relationships Require," or the necessary emotional ingredients of lasting relationships with employees and peers — honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, and empathy; (3) "Good Questions Promote Meaningful Dialogue," or asking the right questions of employees and listening carefully to the answers in order to build meaningful relationships; and (4) "It's Not What You Know; It's What You Do," or, in essence, actions speak louder than words in the workplace and are also remembered and emulated longer and more often. Although management and support of grieving employees was not explicitly covered in this book, the section on meaningful dialogue implied that when leaders understand and support their employees — including understanding what is happening in their personal lives — they are better able to help guide employees through tough times personally while helping them remain professionally productive.

Kouzes (2000), in The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership: When Leaders Are at Their Best, outlined five practices of which exemplary leadership consists. These were: (1) "Challenging the Process," or finding new and innovative ways to reach goals or accomplish tasks; (2) "Inspiring a Shared Vision," or encouraging company unity through shared values, goals, and commitment; (3) "Enabling Others to Act," or encouraging and promoting the ideas, efforts, and initiative of others rather than discouraging or sabotaging them; (4) "Modeling the Way," or setting a good example for others through one's own words, attitudes, and actions; and (5) "Encouraging the Heart," or understanding people's heartfelt motivations and encouraging those motivations in order to help bring out the best in them. The author suggested that "Encouraging the Heart" also involves showing empathy toward one's employees and sharing their joys and sorrows, both professionally and personally.

Encouraging the Heart (Kouzes & Posner, 1999) focused on the idea of caring leadership as being strong rather than "soft" — as is often assumed — and on the fact that the word "encourage" contains within it the word "courage." Furthermore, the root of the word "courage" — "cor" — actually means "heart" in Latin and several other languages. Therefore, suggested the authors, to "encourage the heart" is actually to offer strong, courageous leadership that is in no way soft. The authors further suggested that one important way of encouraging the heart is to "put others first" (p. 78), which involves paying close attention to what others say and focusing on others, not oneself, in order to build trust. As they stated: "Central to putting others first is the capacity to walk in their shoes. Learning to understand and see things from another's perspective is absolutely crucial to building trusting relations and to career success" (p. 79). The authors also noted that effective caring leaders celebrated events or milestones together with their employees, since celebrations promoted good feelings, bonding, a caring attitude, and company loyalty. Moreover, it is important for caring leaders to initiate such recognitions not only of happy occasions such as holidays or occasions of having met goals, but also occasions noting "Loss: of old procedures, financial opportunities, contracts, a job, status, a colleague who has just died…" (p. 122). The authors stated in summary: "It's all about caring" (p. 148).

Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It (Kouzes & Posner, 2003) focused on issues of leadership credibility such as trustworthiness, integrity, and honesty toward employees. Caring leadership, suggested the authors, is based on trust, understanding, straightforward communication, empathy, and above all, credibility. As the authors stated, "Leaders need understanding. Responding to the demands of highly diverse populations is a social challenge and a personal struggle: 'Respect must run both ways'" (p. xxiv).

The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) focused on knowing what leadership is really about: encouraging, motivating, energizing, and unifying people rather than simply being an authority figure; and on enlisting the support of others through caring, empathy, and through discovering a common purpose, finding a shared vision, and helping to set and articulate goals that can be shared by all. Organizational Behavior and Personnel Psychology (Wexley & Yukl, 1984) examined the dynamics of typical organizational behavior and what commonly makes organizations succeed or fail. Subjects covered included: (1) what personally motivates employees to work; (2) employee attitudes and job satisfaction; (3) communication processes; (4) leadership; (5) conflict management; and (6) the work environment overall, and how effective leadership helps to create a positive working environment for all.

In the article "Creating Caring Leadership for the 21st Century," Spears (2005) suggested that caring leadership began with the desire to serve others, or "servant leadership." Similarly, Feldman, in the article "Getting to the Heart of Leadership" (2002), suggested that leadership is not so much about control as it is about caring; that leadership is not about being a boss but about building a community; and that leaders do not "hold" territory but instead "co-create it" by letting go of their own ego involvement for the greater good of the company and others within it. Sheldrake (1999), in "The Changing Leadership Agenda," suggested that "caring for others, seeking to ensure their needs are met, and seeking to ensure that others grow and benefit are the criteria of effective leadership — not goals and profits" (p. 6).

Clayton (2004), in the article "Side-Door Leadership," suggested that the nature and definition of leadership itself is now changing. "In the postmodern milieu, people value following those worth being followed over pursuing those with the right titles. If you think you can lead just because you're the boss, you have no clue what leadership really means" (p. 1). As Clayton also noted, entire structures and traditional hierarchies of leadership are presently shifting toward the kind of leadership where one exhibits empathy, compassion, and a caring heart: "Structures and systems no longer hold the validity they once did. The traditional models are holding less and less water. The new breed of leader will listen with a caring heart and respond in humility to all those in the community" (pp. 1–2).

Studies have proven that caring leadership is not only preferred by employees but that it boosts productivity as well. According to Yukl & Lepsinger (2004), "there is hard evidence that the development and motivation of an organization's 'human capital' has a tangible impact on business results. A study of three thousand companies found that spending 10% of revenue on capital improvements boosted productivity by 3.9%; a similar investment in human capital increased productivity by 8.5% — more than twice as much" (p. 143). Further, "research at Sears found that a five-point improvement in employee attitudes about their job and about the company at a given store led to a 1.3-unit increase in customer impressions, which yielded a 0.5% increase in revenue growth" (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004, pp. 143–4).

In The Leadership Challenge, Kouzes & Posner (1987) pointed out that, in a survey they conducted of attributes that company employees valued most in a leader, "caring leadership" adjectives — such as honest, inspiring, caring, fair-minded, broad-minded, supportive, imaginative, courageous, cooperative, dependable, and straightforward — consistently headed the list.

As Kouzes & Posner further pointed out in Encouraging the Heart (1999), in a study conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL): "Using a battery of measurement instruments, CCL researchers looked at a number of factors that could account for a manager's success. CCL found that one, and only one, factor significantly differentiated the top quartile of managers from the bottom quartile: the single factor that differentiated the top from the bottom was higher scores on affection — both expressed and wanted. Contrary to the myth of the cold-hearted boss, the highest-performing managers show more warmth and fondness toward others than do the bottom 25%" (p. 9). Clearly, then, caring leadership is not only a desirable qualitative value in management but also a key factor in a leader's and a company's success and profitability.

Conclusion

The literature survey examined the history and protocol of military benefits, the history of military funeral legislation, and military funeral leave and protocol as defined by federal law. The literature survey next scrutinized available books, articles, and Internet materials on caring leadership in general and on caring leadership as it related to funeral leave benefits and the caring management of grieving employees. The survey also reviewed available literature on caring leadership as a value — both qualitatively and in terms of potential financial benefit to a company or organization. Next, the survey focused on analysis and comparison of funeral leave benefits offered by a variety of both public organizations and private companies to their employees, comparing them with each other and with those of U.S. military personnel. Finally, the survey suggested, based on available literature, potential benefits and drawbacks of granting non-military U.S. government civilian employees and their families funeral honors and leave equivalent to that currently guaranteed to United States military personnel and their families.