We argue that sin-energy in organizations can be transformed into virtue.
We emphasize grounding, rhythm, and mandate.
We ask how leaders can design that.

The seven deadly sins turn out, in organizations, to be less scapegoats than raw, evolutionarily understandable sources of energy. When shaped through grounding and rhythm into virtues, they strengthen humanity, decisiveness, and performance. In this article, Charlotte Goedmakers and Koen de Snoo connect theology (sin and virtue), philosophy (virtue ethics), psychology (motivation, undercurrents, safety), and public administration (governance, mandate, decision rhythm), and build the bridge to practice: transformation from within that becomes visible in language, structure, and behavior. The guiding question: how do you design contexts that reliably channel sin-energy into virtuous action?

Introduction

The fascination with the seven deadly sins is back—though it never really left. Not as a wagging finger, but as a mirror: what we call “sin” touches precisely the place where humanity, moral choice, and biology intersect. In a recent interview in Trouw, neurologist Guy Leschziner explores how behavior that was long seen as depraved often has a biological component[1]. And how a new understanding of the brain and context can make us both gentler and more precise in how we speak about responsibility. He describes sin as omnipresent—“it touches the core of what it means to be human”—and as something that exists on a spectrum, with a sliding scale between everyday tendency and clinical disorder. At the same time, Leschziner emphasizes that our tendencies are not purely deterministic: brains change, environments influence us, and free will is probably distributed gradually. The seven deadly sins are not enemies outside of us. They are raw energy within ourselves and within our systems. Leschziner reminds us: these so-called “destructive” traits have evolutionary roots and are not purely bad. They are necessary, as long as we can shape them. That requires a learning journey that begins with understanding biology and context, organizes itself in rhythm around grounding and boundaries, and ends in mastery: deep self-insight, systemic awareness, and impactful action.

Sin as a mirror, not as accusation

Since Evagrius and Gregory the Great, vices have not only been seen as moral failure, but as inner tendencies that require formation. A language to interpret human ambiguity[2]. We often speak about moral action as if it is a matter of good versus wrong behavior, a binary choice that neatly orders reality. In doing so, we overlook the undercurrent of emotions, loyalties, and behavioral patterns. The energy that we traditionally call “sin” is not outside of us, but runs through our work. Thomas Aquinas places virtue as an acquired habitus that directs desire[3]. The focus therefore shifts from incident to character. This aligns with Aristotle’s virtue ethics: the mean is practiced in praxis, in concrete situations, not on a poster[4].

Psychologically and neuropsychologically we read the same melody: our behavior arises from the dance of motivation, context, and social reinforcement[5]. Emotion and attachment research shows that regulation is relational and embodied. We can rely less on our “willpower” than we hope[6]. Our moral judgments also turn out to be often intuitive and rationalized post hoc[7]. That argues for practical rituals that help us make better choices—not just think better[8]. In other words: if Aristotle had had a scrum board, “character formation” and “practice ritual” would have been on the sprint backlog, with a definition of done verified by your colleagues, not by your ego.

In organizations, it works the same way. There too, you can see the “seven deadly sins” as raw, often evolutionarily understandable forces. They become harmful when they move through the system unconsciously and without boundaries. They become fruitful when leaders can recognize them, channel them, and connect them to the purpose of the whole. Exactly there begins the learning journey of mature leadership: a transformation from within, in which personal development—inner work—and professional practice—outer action—grow together like a double helix and elevate one another into mastery.

Grounding as a condition for virtuous action

So the question is not how we ban sin from the organization, but how we convert this raw fuel into virtue, in such a way that people and performance both improve. That requires grounding coupled with clear frameworks, mandate, and repair rituals[9]. By grounding we mean safety, clarity, and rhythm. Without safety there is no truthfulness, without clarity there is no direction, and without rhythm there is no follow-through. In other words: an environment in which boundaries are clear and space exists to experiment, repair, and learn[10]. In such grounding, a leader can connect the moral compass to concrete choices in language, rhythm, and decision-making. Put differently: virtues are not abstract values on the wall, but working agreements about how we deal with our natural forces. This creates a new perspective on the seven “sins”: together with their counterform—seven virtues—they form seven beautiful polarities that anyone who wants to develop their leadership can learn to inhabit and walk.

Reshaping lust: warmth with boundaries

Take lust, often associated with desire and boundary crossing. In teams, this energy shows itself not only in the realm of sexuality, but as lust for life: the vital drive for closeness, creation, speed, and excitement. Unconsciously driven, it becomes unbounded charisma, flirtatious boundary traffic, the fast move that skips consent, or the temptation to instrumentalize closeness. The mature counterforce is integrity with consciously welcomed eros: warmth with frameworks, closeness with role-clear boundaries, speed that explicitly checks whether everyone is still on board[11]. Consent is the new KPI. The leader who understands this subtly but clearly names where asymmetry is at play, makes permission not implicit but explicit, and keeps the relationship open precisely by making the boundary clear[12]. Practically, this requires using a micro-protocol of fact–effect–request, because if you don’t measure consent, you mainly measure noise[13]. In this way, the energy remains available for the work that matters, without damaging the fabric.

From gluttony to targeted temperance

Gluttony works in a similar way. In the contemporary organization, it takes the form of KPI stacking, project accumulation, and constant hunger for data, resources, and attention[14]. Hunger in itself is not reprehensible. It points to ambition and growth power. But when gluttony becomes the measure of all things, the system becomes exhausted and loses sight of what truly creates value. Temperance and sustainability form the virtue here: not as restraint to break courage, but as precision to direct energy. A leader who embodies temperance brings simplicity into systems and pruning into indicators[15]. He or she makes evaluation not a reckoning, but a learning tool. Pace is chosen based on sustainability and meaning, not adrenaline. This creates breathing space in the agenda and focus in execution, and the organization regains the rhythm in which learning and performance strengthen each other.

Turning greed into generosity and ownership

Greed shows itself as hands closing: holding onto budget, information, power, or credit. The reflex is understandable where insecurity and scarcity are felt, but systemically greed acts like sand in the engine. Generosity and ownership turn the tide. Generosity does not mean everything is simply given away, but that information flows and credit is publicly shared, so that trust grows[16]. Ownership means mandate low and support high: the decision as close as possible to the work, with backing that makes it safe to choose and to repair. When leaders shape this, loyalty shifts from one’s own island to the whole[17]. Design and steering become co-creative, for example because the design group and steering group truly carry the work together, and because there are rhythms in which successes and also the choices not made are shared. In such a rhythm, trust is not suggested, but visibly practiced.

Unmasking sloth: dedication in a healthy rhythm

What we call sloth often turns out, in organizations, to be apathy: a frozen system protecting itself against disappointment and overload. People appear “unmotivated,” while the mandate is diffuse, decisions are postponed, and unspoken loss paralyzes the starting point. The virtue here is dedication with rhythm. Not heroic sprints, but small clear steps, consistently taken[18]. Dedication requires precise language about what “done” means, distinction between exploring, deciding, and executing, and transparent lines within which responsibility can land[19]. In a daily stand-up that is to the point and ends with an explicit owner, energy returns. If a team repeatedly chooses one avoidance pattern to break through, follow-through takes priority over rigidity. The movement is small, but the impact is large: less noise, more flow, more self-direction.

Channeling anger into courage and gentleness

Anger has a dubious reputation in organizations. Because unchanneled anger is destructive, it is often suppressed even in mild form, after which it returns as cynicism or passive sabotage. Yet anger is clarifying: it points to a boundary, to what is no longer right[20]. The mature virtue is courage, carried by channeling gentleness. Courage to say the hardest thing. Gentleness to protect the relationship and not confuse the person with the problem. Leadership here consists of normalizing language for what affects us, creating places where friction can be voiced before it gets stuck, and inviting reflective conversations in which effect and intention can sit next to each other[21]. A simple, consistent feedback style of fact–effect–request makes it safe to say what needs to be said and then move on without residue.

Softening envy through benevolent comparison

Envy is the shadow side of the need for recognition. It signals desire, but if left unspoken it can damage reputations and skew decisions[22]. The virtue is benevolence with appreciative comparison. Benevolence means allowing yourself to be mirrored by someone else’s success without diminishing yourself. Appreciative comparison means choosing the reference frame honestly: not the perfect outsider as the standard, but your own next step. Where promotion criteria are transparent and where celebrating success goes together with explicit learning, competition is not suppressed but healthily channeled. Publicly granting others their success then becomes not a symbolic gesture, but a social reinforcement of the insight that everyone’s performance serves the whole[23].

The counterforce to pride: humility and truthfulness

Pride, finally, is the defense strategy against vulnerability[24]. It says: I am my title, I am already finished. It shuts down the ability to learn, because mistakes must be hidden or rationally explained away. Humility and truthfulness open the windows. Humility is not making yourself small, but the willingness to examine your own assumptions and publicly repair where you were wrong[25]. Truthfulness requires that a team explicitly distinguishes between observation and hypothesis and is willing to test the hypothesis empirically[26]. In this way, reflection-in-action becomes a professional discipline and not a side issue. The leader who sets the example here starts a meeting with an assumption of their own that they want to test, and thereby retains the right to speak precisely by being vulnerably truthful.

From separate themes to a lived learning journey

When we treat these seven pairs, these seven polarities, not as separate themes but as one coherent path, a learning journey becomes visible in leadership development. Virtues do not come alive in a training program detached from the work. They are practiced in the real challenges, in the rhythms of meetings and decisions, in the language game, and in the way we deal with loss and repair. That is why a powerful program functions as a bridge: from vision to action through concrete design choices. The vision clarifies the intention: leadership as craft, transformation from within, and the double helix of inner work and outer action. The bridge translates this into rhythm, roles, and language in daily work. And the action anchors it in co-creative working forms: large gatherings in which a shared moral compass is forged[27], work ateliers around cases where “sin-energy” is converted into virtuous action, action learning cycles in which hypotheses are tested on the job[28], intervision that brings the undercurrent to light, and coaching that makes shame, boundaries, and power discussable. The embedding does not happen through a final report, but through train-the-trainer, ongoing intervision, and a simple, reliable learning platform. Evaluation is not a judgment afterward, but the rhythmic instrument through which the system learns to steer itself. Culture change is like physics: without “friction” there is no grip, without “rhythm” there is no movement, and without “boundaries” there is no space for development.

Realism, pitfalls, and the discipline of learning

From neuroscientific insights—without overestimating them—we can draw three practical lessons that support the design choices. First, there is a spectrum: behavior is rarely entirely virtue or entirely sin. It is a sliding scale in which context, stress, and reward play a role. Programs that normalize early social feedback prevent energy from escalating into harmful behavior. Second, there is an interplay between biology and environment: what we call “character” is continuously influenced by rhythm, relationship, and language. It is therefore pointless to steer solely on individual willpower when the system continues to invite gluttony or apathy. Third, moral codes retain their usefulness, not as threats, but as freedom enhancers. They offer a shared language through which we shape energy for the benefit of the whole. Those who take this seriously design agreements and rituals that invite behavior rather than control it.

There are pitfalls. A moralistic frame produces shame and hardening. The energy goes underground and returns elsewhere in a harmful form. A technocratic fix stacks indicators and dashboards on top of each other, which is again gluttony in a different jacket. The hero reflex leads to temporary fireworks, but creates no infrastructure.

And there are risks: resistance (emotional costs), time pressure (operational costs), and relapse into habits (cultural inertia).

The remedy is always the same: normalize the undercurrent and make learning a discipline. Work with small, replicable experiments. Limit indicators to what actually triggers behavior. Embed what works into rituals and routines that hold even under pressure. And organize decision-making so that it is clear who has which mandate and decides, how we steer meaningfully through evaluations, and what repair looks like when reality talks back[29].

What becomes visible when virtues work

What can you expect when these principles are lived? You see more congruence between thinking, feeling, and doing. Language becomes more precise and decisions become faster and cleaner. You see patterns being broken: less delay, less noise, and more follow-through. You see trust grow, not because people “act nice,” but because it becomes normal to name tensions early and repair agreements. The seven virtues then appear not as slogans, but as tangible changes in how work gets done: integrity with warmth, temperance with focus, generosity with ownership, dedication with rhythm, courage with gentleness, benevolence with realism, and humility with truthfulness.

A concrete invitation for the coming months

The remaining question is an invitation. Which sin-energy do you recognize in yourself or your team? Not as blame, but as unshaped power. And which small virtue ritual, practiced consistently, would make the biggest difference in the coming months? Maybe it is the “intention check-in” that does not slow speed down but makes it cleaner. Maybe it is simply publicly repairing within two days when you were wrong. Maybe it is shrinking agendas, clearing one dashboard for every new number you add. These are not spectacular gestures. Precisely because of that, they work. They make visible that leadership is not a one-time act, but a craft in rhythm, carried by loving attention and pleasant clarity.

The core remains: speak precisely about the undercurrent, design virtue as a practical agreement, and practice small and consistently. Then morality loses its moralistic edge and becomes operational, visible in who we become, what we decide, and how we collaborate. That is leadership that serves both human and system, and transforms the raw energy of our tendencies into fuel for a mature, dignified, and effective practice.

Footnotes

[1] Trouw, “Van gulzigheid tot jaloezie: de zeven zonden vind je al in het brein” and “Deze neuroloog onderzocht de zeven hoofdzonden” (sources 1).

[2] Evagrius’ logismoi (eight vices) as inner tendencies that require formation; Gregory later canonizes the seven deadly sins (sources 2, 3).

[3] Virtue as acquired habitus: giving direction to desire and action (Aquinas; MacIntyre’s rereading) (sources 4, 5).

[4] Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: virtue is praxis; the mean is practiced, not displayed (sources 6).

[5] Autonomy and context: self-determination theory shows that sustainable change flourishes in autonomy-supportive environments (sources 7, 8).

[6] Emotion regulation is relational and embodied; context and safety influence behavior (sources 9, 10, 11).

[7] Moral intuitions are fast, reasoning is post hoc. All the more reason for rituals that make better action possible (sources 12).

[8] Deep learning: double-loop learning makes assumptions testable. Adjusting only intention or behavior is not sufficient (sources 13).

[9] Psychological safety and standards lead to learning and performance, provided they are connected to clear boundaries (sources 14).

[10] Governance principle: mandate low, support high, where evaluation is primarily a learning instrument (sources 15, 16).

[11] Thomas Aquinas on temperantia: temperance and chastity as virtue that gives desire direction and boundary (sources 4).

[12] Integrity with conscious eros: closeness requires explicit relational reciprocity and boundary work in asymmetrical relationships (sources 17, 18, 19).

[13] For practical micro-language see Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication (sources 20).

[14] Meadows on leverage points and the perverse incentives of poorly chosen metrics (sources 21).

[15] Temperance as precision: fewer indicators, more direction and decision architecture over data noise (sources 22, 23).

[16] Generosity and ownership as system choice: information flow and shared credit fuel trust and innovation (sources 24, 25).

[17] Grant on giver cultures, performance, and innovation (sources 26).

[18] Amabile & Kramer: small, visible progress—small wins—restores motivation (sources 27).

[19] Dedication in rhythm: small steps, clear owners; distinction between exploring, deciding, executing (sources 28, 29).

[20] The function of anger: it signals a boundary or injustice (sources 9, 30).

[21] Speaking safety works as a learning and performance lever when norms are clear (sources 14).

[22] For social comparison see Festinger’s basic framework for upward/downward comparison and the effects on motivation (sources 31).

[23] Dutton & Heaphy; Cameron et al.: benevolence and public appreciation strengthen team performance (sources 25, 32).

[24] Kets de Vries: the hubris factor and “organizational fool” mechanisms (sources 33, 34).

[25] Vera & Rodríguez-López: humble leadership increases learning capacity and adaptability (sources 35).

[26] Schön: The Reflective Practitioner on making assumptions explicit and testing them in action (sources 36).

[27] Large group interventions: Weick & Sutcliffe (routines) combined with LGI literature (Bunker & Alban) (sources 28, 37).

[28] Experiential learning: Kolb’s cycle as a basis for on-the-job learning architecture, and Torbert’s action inquiry as a basis for testing hypotheses in action and linking development levels to decision practice (sources 38, 39).

[29] Schein on culture and psychological contracts: culture eats strategy. Structure rituals that invite desired behavior (sources 40).

Sources

Trouw, “Van gulzigheid tot jaloezie: de zeven zonden vind je al in het brein,” online under date code 202511282202; also published in print as “Deze neuroloog onderzocht de zeven hoofdzonden,” 30 November 2025.

Evagrius Ponticus. Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer. Kalamazoo (MI): Cistercian; 1981.

Gregory the Great. Moralia in Job. New York: Newman; 2014 (transl.).

Aquinas T. Summa Theologiae, II-I/II-II (sections on virtues and vices). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006 (ed.).

MacIntyre A. After Virtue. 3rd ed. Notre Dame (IN): University of Notre Dame Press; 2007.

Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.

Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227-268.

Mitchell SA, Aron L. Relational Psychoanalysis. Hillsdale (NJ): Analytic Press; 1999.

Lazarus RS. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.

Schore AN. Affect Regulation and the Repair of the Self. New York: Norton; 2003.

Van der Kolk BA. The Body Keeps the Score. New York: Viking; 2014.

Haidt J. The Righteous Mind. New York: Pantheon; 2012.

Argyris C, Schön D. Organizational Learning. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley; 1978.

Edmondson AC. The Fearless Organization. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2018.

Ostrom E. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.

Moore MH. Creating Public Value. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1995.

Gilligan C. In a Different Voice. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1982.

Meadows DH. Thinking in Systems. White River Junction (VT): Chelsea Green; 2008.

Senge PM. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday; 1990.

Rosenberg MB. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. 3rd ed. Encinitas (CA): PuddleDancer Press; 2015.

Meadows DH. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland (VT): Sustainability Institute; 1999.

Simon HA. Administrative Behavior. 4th ed. New York: Free Press; 1997.

March JG, Olsen JP. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press; 1989.

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.

Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, eds. Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; 2003.

Grant AM. Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success. New York: Viking; 2013.

Amabile TM, Kramer SJ. The Progress Principle. Boston (MA): Harvard Business Review Press; 2011.

Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the Unexpected. 3rd ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2015.

Hackman JR, Wageman R. A theory of team coaching. Acad Manage Rev. 2005;30(2):269-287.

Averill JR. Anger and Aggression. 1982.

Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat. 1954;7(2):117-140.

Dutton JE, Heaphy ED. The power of high-quality connections. In: Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco (CA): Berrett-Koehler; 2003. p. 263-278.

Kets de Vries MFR. The Leadership Mystique (and later works on hubris). London: Pearson; 2001.

Kets de Vries MFR. The organizational fool: balancing a leader’s hubris. Hum Relat. 1990;43(6):751-770.

Vera D, Rodríguez-López A. Strategic virtues: humility as a source of competitive advantage. Organ Dyn.2004;33(4):393-408.

Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.

Bunker BB, Alban BT. Large Group Interventions. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass; 1997.

Kolb DA. Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1984.

Torbert WR, et al. Action Inquiry. San Francisco (CA): Berrett-Koehler; 2004.

Schein EH. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass; 2010.