ArticlePDF Available

Resilience and spirituality: a mixed methods exploration of executive stress

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Purpose The purpose of this mixed methods research study was to explore the relationships between spirituality, leader resiliency and life satisfaction/well-being. Design/methodology/approach Using an explanatory sequential design, the authors tested three research hypotheses to explore the relationships between the participants’ spiritual practices and level of resiliency, life satisfaction and sense of well-being. Data were collected from 101 executive MBA alumni of a US-based university. Following the quantitative analysis of the survey results, interviews were conducted with 25 executives who scored high in the frequency of spiritual practice to further explore how they applied their spirituality in stressful work situations. Findings The results found positive relationships between spirituality, resilience and overall life satisfaction. Participants who engaged in meditative practices had a significantly higher overall resilience score than non-meditators. Research limitations/implications Key limitations are sample size and the risk of common method variance. Though numerous procedural steps were taken to control for these issues, future research with a larger and more diverse sample is needed. Practical implications Organizational stress is pervasive and executive burnout is a risk factor for leaders and their organizations. This research offers practical suggestions for ways that human resource managers and organization development practitioners can provide prevention resources to their executives. Originality/value This research contributes to the literature by providing support for mindfulness/meditation training for executives. It also demonstrates the value of mixed methods research for a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of the participants.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Positive and proactive leadership: Disentangling the
relationships between stress, resilience, leadership style
and leader satisfaction/wellbeing
Journal:
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Manuscript ID
IJOA-05-2020-2221.R2
Manuscript Type:
Original Article
Keywords:
Leadership style, Resilience, Stress, Satisfaction/Wellbeing
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
1
Title
Positive and proactive leadership: Disentangling the relationships between stress, resilience,
leadership style and leader satisfaction/wellbeing
Purpose
This study analyzed the relationships between leader resilience, leadership style, stress, and life
satisfaction. It reflects an emerging theoretical framework that positions resilience as a capacity
that can be developed vs. a response mechanism driven by innate traits.
Design/methodology/approach
To test three research hypotheses, online survey data were collected from 101 E.M.B.A. alumni
of a U.S. based university using a cross-sectional, correlational research design. Results were
analyzed using multiple linear regression. The authors assessed resilience, leadership style, stress
and satisfaction/wellbeing using standardized inventories.
Findings
The results support previous research that has identified a significant relationship between
resilience and positive leadership. Unique to this study, however, is the finding that work process
behaviors (e.g., time management, cooperation, receptiveness) rather than traits (e.g., optimism,
self-esteem, locus of control) are the resilience factors most associated with a positive leadership
style. Work process skills significantly interacted with stress level to moderate leadership style.
Additionally, a positive leadership style moderated the impact of stressful life events on leader
satisfaction/wellbeing.
Page 1 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
2
Research limitations/implications
Key limitations are sample size and the risk of common method variance. Though numerous
procedural steps were taken to control for these issues, future research with a larger and more
diverse sample is needed.
Practical implications
Organizational stress is pervasive, and resilience is increasingly recognized as a foundational
leadership skill. This study provides empirical data documenting positive relationships between
resilience, constructive leadership, and leader satisfaction/wellbeing. This research also identifies
work process behaviors (e.g., time management, cooperation, and receptiveness) as the primary
resiliency factors associated with sustaining positive leadership behaviors in times of stress.
These results support previous research findings that have positioned resiliency as a capacity that
can be developed, providing further support for investing in resiliency training for leaders.
Originality/value
This research contributes to the literature by analyzing resilience more comprehensively than
previous studies. It extends the theoretical understanding of resilience beyond traits using a 160-
item inventory that assesses four discrete domains of resilience. The results provide support for
the importance of developing process skills in leaders to increase resiliency; thus, increasing the
probability they will model constructive leadership behaviors in times of significant stress.
Keywords
Leadership style, resilience, satisfaction/well-being, stress
Page 2 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
3
Introduction
The need for positive and proactive leadership is everywhere apparent, whether in the
corporate board room or the backroom of politics; yet, for many leaders, the rate and complexity
of change is leading to increased levels of stress and burnout (LePine et al., 2004; Maslach et al.,
2001; VanYperen and Hagendoorn, 2003). Avoiding burnout amid continuous change and
complex challenges requires resilience. Resilience is associated with psychological and physical
well-being at the individual level (Youssef and Luthans, 2012), as well as organizational
outcomes (Toor and Ofori, 2010); strategic agility (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011); and effective
leadership (Avey et al., 2011).
In the psychological literature, resilience has historically been defined as a trait. Based on
this definition, much of the empirical research to date has measured resilience using only
dispositional variables that enable people to bounce back rapidly from traumatic events (Rutter,
1985; Tusaie and Dyer, 2004). While this trait-based definition may be applicable in clinical
research, it does not necessarily translate to organizational applications (Fletcher and Sarkar,
2013; Robertson et al., 2015); nor does it recognize the process nature of resilience. Howe et al.,
(2012) explain that the dynamic nature of resilience sets it apart from stable personality traits
such as hardiness and mental toughness. Fletcher and Sarkar’s (2013) definition of resilience
captures this emerging perspective. They define resilience as a combination of mental processes
and behaviors that can protect an individual from the potential negative impact of stress. This
recent theoretical shift in the conceptualization of resilience emphasizes that resilience is a
capacity that can be developed rather than solely based on innate traits (Naswall et al., 2015;
Page 3 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
4
Robertson et al., 2015); however, due to the prevalence of trait-based resilience research, most
extant studies have used very brief trait assessments to measure resilience. A review of 10
resilience studies published since 2000 found that items used to measure resilience ranged from 3
to 25 (mode = 14), even for studies designed around process vs. trait definitions. For example,
Nguyen et al., (2016) used a brief nine-item resilience scale to measure employee resilience in a
population of white-collar professionals and Wang et al., (2017) also used a 9-item scale in their
study of resilience, leadership and work engagement in a population of retail sales employees.
These brief assessments have measured resilience as primarily a composite of internal traits (e.g.,
self-efficacy, perseverance, optimism, adaptability) and external protective factors (e.g., positive
support systems). There is an absence of resilience assessments in the literature that measure
discrete skills/behaviors associated with resiliency (e.g., time management, cooperation).
This research project addresses the above limitations by using Fletcher and Sarkar’s
(2013) process-based definition of resilience and by measuring resilience comprehensively,
assessing variables relating to traits, environment factors, and behaviors (Richardson, 2002;
Sarkar and Fletcher, 2014; Shelton et al., 2019). Specifically, in this study resilience was
measured using a 160-item standardized inventory that assessed resilience across four domains:
1) How leaders see themselves; 2) How they relate to others; 3) How they accomplish tasks
(work process); and 4) How they set and accomplish goals (Human Synergistics International,
1994). The resiliency results were compared to three leadership style domains: constructive
(transformational), passive, and aggressive (Lafferty, 2013) to determine whether leadership
styles vary according to resilience level and domain.
Page 4 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
5
This study also investigated the relationship of leadership style to leader satisfaction and
well-being (SWB) under varying levels of stress. A plethora of previous studies have found a
relationship between a leader’s style and the wellbeing of direct reports (Nguyen et al., 2016;
Nielsen et al., 2017; Skakon et al., 2010; Tepper, 2000; Wang et al., 2017). Both aggressive and
passive leadership styles have been found to be related to high levels of subordinate burnout
(Hetland et al., 2007; Skakon et al., 2010) with positive leadership styles associated with lower
levels of subordinate burnout and higher levels of subordinate job satisfaction (Densten, 2005;
Kanste et al., 2007; Morrison et al., 1997). There is, however, a void in research regarding how a
constructive/positive leadership style relates to the leader’s own personal sense of
satisfaction/wellbeing under varying levels of stress.
The primary purpose of this project was to build on an emerging theoretical framework
that positions resilience as a capacity that can be developed vs. a response mechanism driven by
innate traits (Naswall et al., 2015; Robertson et al., 2015; Sarkar and Fletcher, 2014; Shelton et
al., 2019). The authors sought to do so using a comprehensive 160-item assessment to identify
the resiliency factors most related to constructive leadership and a leader’s sense of personal
well-being. Understanding these relationships is critical for developing positive and proactive
leaders capable of avoiding burnout during times of disruptive change. The results of this
research have significant implications for Human Resource (HR) and Organization Development
(OD) practitioners and scholars, as well as for all who are impacted by the behavior of their
leaders.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Page 5 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
6
Though there is increasing support for the theoretical framework that positions resilience
as a capacity that can be developed vs. a response mechanism driven by innate traits (Naswall et
al., 2015; Robertson et al., 2015), there is a void in the literature relating to the identification of
the discrete behaviors/skills that comprise leader resiliency (Shelton et al., 2019). Thus, though
the process definitions of resilience recognize that it is a multi-faceted construct comprised not
only of psychological and environmental factors, but also of skills/behaviors, there is an absence
of data that identifies these behaviors (Richardson, 2002; Sarkar and Fletcher, 2014; Shelton et
al., 2019). This is, at least in part, due to the length and type of resiliency inventories used in
previous research.
This research project analyzed resiliency more comprehensively, measuring 18
behavioral scales across four discrete resiliency domains: how leaders see themselves; how they
relate to others; how they set and accomplish goals; and how they accomplish tasks (work
process). The literature already documents the strong relationship between subordinate resilience
and positive leadership behaviors. This research instead focused on how resilience interacts with
stress to influence leadership style and the satisfaction/well-being of those in senior leadership
positions.
Stress, Resilience and Leadership Style
Resilience is important at all levels of an organization; however, leaders have
extraordinary impact on the life of an organization, especially in times of stress. Resilient leaders
exhibit greater emotional flexibility, flexing their emotional responses to align with continuously
changing environmental stimuli (Waugh et al., 2011). Research also confirms that resilient
leaders are energetic, curious, open to new experiences and have positive emotionality (Klohnen,
Page 6 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
7
1996). Without resilience, leaders become brittle, losing their ability to make positive responses
to the stress of organizational life (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003).
Myriad research studies have investigated the relationship of leadership behaviors to
subordinate resilience (Nielsen et al., 2017, Nguyen et al., 2016; Skakon et al., 2010; Tepper,
2000; Wang et al., 2017); however, the relationship between a leader’s specific resiliency skills
and his/her leadership style has not been studied. In a time of rapidly escalating change, resulting
in an epidemic of leader stress and burnout (Cavanaugh et al., 2000), there is a need for both
scholars and practitioners to better understand how a leader’s resilience interacts with her/his
stress level to influence leadership style. There is also a need for research that explores whether
some resiliency skills/behaviors are more important than others in maintaining constructive
leadership behaviors even in times of significant stress.
H1a: Resilience moderates the relationship between stress and constructive leadership styles.
H1b: The moderating role of resilience in the association between stress and leadership style
varies by resilience domain.
Resilience, Leadership Style and Satisfaction/Well-being (SWB)
Satisfaction/well-being is referred to in the literature by the acronym SWB (Luhmann et
al., 2012). SWB includes not only psychological outcomes such as lack of distress or emotional
exhaustion, but also physiological outcomes such as blood pressure and energy level. Danna and
Griffin (1999) define well-being as a state of mental and physical health, including both personal
and professional satisfaction. Van Horn et al., (2010) note that well-being is comprised of
several factors including enthusiasm, job satisfaction and vigor.
Page 7 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
8
Satisfaction/well-being (SWB) is driven by more than just a summation of good and bad
life events. In fact, a high level of SWB is not contingent upon a low level of stress. Seery,
Holman, and Silver (2010) found that people with some past adversity reported better mental
health and well-being outcomes than individuals with no history of adversity. A positive
worldview, along with the skill of emotional regulation, appears to be the foundation for SWB.
A study by Luthans et al. (2011) found a positive relationship between measures of well-
being and Psychological Capital (Psy Cap) which is comprised of self-efficacy, hope, optimism,
and resilience. Cohn et al. (2009) in a time-based study found that positive emotions were
associated with increases in both life satisfaction and resilience. They concluded that resilience
acts as a mediator: “Change in resilience mediated the relation between positive emotions and
increased life satisfaction, suggesting that happy people become more satisfied not simply
because they feel better, but because they develop resources for living well” (Cohn et al., 2009,
p. 361). Mitchell et al. (2018) identified resilience as a moderator of performance that affects
one’s ability to self-regulate which, in turn, causes either energy depletion (i.e., burnout) or
enhanced functional behaviors. Fredrickson and Joiner (2002) found that positive emotions and
creative thinking, when considering multiple courses of action, led to significant increases in
functioning and well-being. Their time-based study found that positive emotions became
stronger over time creating an upward spiral of emotional well-being.
The above research documents the relationships between resilience and satisfaction/well-
being, but it does not address the relationship of these variables to leadership style. However, as
a leader’s cognitions (e.g., appraisal of the stressor) influence her/his response to stress (Fletcher
and Sarkar, 2013), and as a leader’s response to stress includes leadership behaviors, constructive
Page 8 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
9
leadership styles and their associated positive cognitions could be predicted to moderate a
leader’s stress response resulting in a greater sense of SWB even in times of significant stress.
H2: Constructive leadership styles moderate the relationship between stress and
satisfaction/well-being.
Methods
Sample and procedure
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of stress and resilience to
leadership style; thus, it was imperative that research subjects be established organizational
leaders. It was also important that participants not be from a single organization or industry. To
access experienced leaders from various industries and organizations, researchers selected a
population of EMBA alumni. Participants were recruited via email from the Executive MBA
alumni data base of a U.S. based University. Out of an email data base of 585 alumni, 119
completed the initial consent form. Participation was voluntary and confidential.
Upon receipt of a signed consent form, participants were sent a 19-question demographic
survey along with a 160-item resilience assessment and a 240-item leadership style inventory.
The researchers also collected data regarding 38 recent life events (stressors), as well as self-
reported measures of well-being and overall life satisfaction. All these standardized assessment
forms were collected digitally. Complete data sets were obtained from 101 respondents (17%).
The completion rate may have been negatively impacted by the number of assessments and the
time required to complete them, together with the fact that the respondents held demanding
executive-level positions. This sample was 29.7% female and 70.3% male which aligns with the
gender distribution of the EMBA alumni population. The largest age segment (32.7%) was the
Page 9 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
10
50-59-year-old-category. Table 1 contains detailed demographic characteristics of the survey
respondents.
<Insert Table 1 about here>
Measures
Resilience. The 160-item Stress Processing Report (SPR) was used to measure
resilience. The SPR (Lafferty, 1994) is grounded in cognitive-behavioral theory and was
designed specifically for organizational applications, rather than for clinical populations.
Previous research provides support for the SPR’s internal-consistency reliability and
convergent/discriminant validity (Cooke, 1986). Other studies have found strong relationships
between the 19 SPR scales and psychological and physiological responses to stress (Cooke et al.,
1988; Duvall, 2001).
The SPR measures stress–related cognitions and behaviors in four different categories:
Self, Others, Goals and Process. The Self domain is comprised of the following five scales: Self
Image, Past View, Control, Approval, Growth and Effectiveness. The Others’ domain is
comprised of scales measuring Inclusion, Interpersonal, Intimacy, and Trust. The Goals cluster
measures Goal-Directedness, Expectations, Future View (optimism), and Life Satisfaction. The
fourth domain, Process, measures how an individual completes tasks. The five scales are Time
Orientation, Time Utilization, Cooperation, Synergy, and Receptiveness. SPR composite scores
were computed as the sum of all items in the corresponding scales.
The SPR also collects personal and demographic data including a 38-item life event
checklist measuring recent life changes requiring adaptive behavior in three categories: Family,
Work, and Personal/Legal/Financial. The checklist is based on the research of Holmes and Rahe
(1967) and Cochrane and Robertson (1973). Participants answered whether these events occurred
Page 10 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
11
in the past 12 months (yes/no). A stress score was computed as the sum of all events, which
yielded an acceptable consistency (Cronbach’s = 0.63).
Leadership style. In order to be conceptually congruent with our measurement of
resilience, a leadership style inventory also grounded in cognitive-behavioral theory was
selected, the Life Styles Inventory (Lafferty, 2004). The Life Styles Inventory (LSI) is premised
on the concept that leadership style is primarily a function of thinking. “Your thoughts
characterize who you are and shape your life. What you think determines how you perceive
reality and how you relate to others, as well as how you solve problems and make decisions”
(Lafferty, 2013, p. 5). The assessment’s 240-items are grouped into three style domains
representing 12 different leadership styles. Lafferty (2013) labeled effective leadership behaviors
“Constructive” and identified two subtypes of ineffective behaviors, “Passive” and “Aggressive.”
Lafferty’s three leadership style domains align with one of the dominant theories in the field,
transformational leadership (Bass, 1990; Bass and Riggio, 2006).
The LSI Constructive domain is comprised of four leadership styles: Achievement, Self-
Actualizing, Humanistic-Encouraging, and Affiliative. The Passive/Defensive domain is also
comprised of four leadership styles: Approval, Conventional, Dependent, and Avoidance. The
Aggressive/Defensive domain’s four styles are Oppositional, Power, Competitive and
Perfectionistic. Previous research has confirmed the factorial validity and generalizability of the
inventory across diverse populations (Cooke and Rousseau, 1983; Ware et al., 1985); and there
is some support for inter-rater reliability and consensual validity between self-descriptions and
descriptions by others (Cooke et. al, 1987). Percentile scores based on the norms of the reference
population (range = 0 to 100) were used for the analysis.
Page 11 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
12
Satisfaction/Well-Being. Participants were asked to rate their level of satisfaction/well-
being (SWB) using 13 items included in the LSI. These items cover a variety of factors, such as
satisfaction with current job, career prospects, interpersonal relations at work, family life, health,
and personal growth and development. Respondents rated the items on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied). The average of the 13 items was
computed. The satisfaction scale yielded acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s = 0.86).
Control Variables. Potential control variables were collected in the demographic
questionnaire. They included gender, age, education, position and race/ethnicity. Education and
position were later omitted from the analysis as all respondents had completed their EMBA and
were in leadership positions.
The results below are presented in the order of the three hypotheses. All analyses were
carried out in SPSS Statistics version 25.
Results
Resilience as a moderator in the relationship between stress and leadership style
It was hypothesized that resilience moderates the relationship between stressful life
events and constructive leadership styles (H1a). Therefore, we first examined descriptive
statistics and bivariate correlations between the SPR domains, which index resilience in the
present study, stressful life events, and leadership style (as indexed by the LSI). Table 2 captures
the descriptive statistics and correlations for all measures. Cronbach’s reliability estimates
exceeded an acceptable threshold of 0.65 (DeVellis, 2003) except for stressful life events ( =
.63). We found positive correlations between constructive LSI leadership styles and each of the
four SPR domains “Self” (r = .30), “Others” (r = .38), “Process” (r = .28), and “Goals” (r = .31).
Page 12 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
13
Hence, as would be expected based on previous studies, leader resilience is strongly associated
with constructive leadership styles. There was a small correlation between stressful life events
and aggressive/defensive leadership style (r = .29). However, constructive and passive/defensive
leadership styles were only weakly and not statistically significantly related to stressful life
events.
<Insert Table 2 about here>
The lack of a significant relationship between stressful life events and constructive
leadership style supports the idea that a third variable—resilience—may moderate the
association. It therefore follows that a stronger association may be found among leaders with low
levels of resilience compared to leaders with high levels of resilience. Thus, we expanded the
analysis into multivariable models to examine the moderating role of resilience (H1a). Ordinary
least squares regression was used to better understand the relationships between resilience,
leadership style, stressful life events, and SWB and to explore how a leader’s stress level
interacts with these variables. Figure 1 graphically diagrams the regression models.
<Insert Figure 1 about here>
Tables 3-6 summarize 16 linear regression models designed to determine the interaction
between stressful life events and the four domains of resilience (SPR domains: Self, Others,
Process and Goals) in predicting the four dependent variables: the three leadership styles and the
respondents’ level of satisfaction/well-being (SWB). Each of the tables (3-6) analyzes how a
specific SPR resilience domain (entered as z-scores) interacts with stressful life events in the
Page 13 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
14
prediction of the four dependent variables in Models 1-4. The first three models in Tables 3-6 all
have one of the three leadership style domains as dependent variables. The dependent variable
for Model 4 is SWB. All models have the same three control variables (age, gender, and
race/ethnicity), and all the models include an interaction term between the SPR domain (i.e., the
resilience measures) and stressful life events.
<Insert Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 about here>
Results from regression models 1, 2, and 3 yielded one statistically significant interaction
across the four SPR domain. A statistically significant relationship was found between stressful
life events and the SPR “Process” domain in predicting constructive leadership styles (B = 1.81,
p < .05, = .35). Thus, H1a and H1b are supported. Resilience moderates the relationship
between stressful life events and constructive leadership style. However, this association
between stressful life events and constructive leadership style differs according to the level and
type of resiliency (i.e., resiliency domain). To illustrate this finding, Figure 2 is a plot of the
association between stressful life events and constructive leadership styles for two groups of
leaders—those with high (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) and low (i.e., 1 SD below the mean) scores
on the SPR “Process” domain. According to these findings, the process skills (as measured by
the SPR Process scale) were the only moderator of the relationship between stressful life events
and leadership style compared to the other resilience measures (i.e., behaviors represented by the
Self, Others, and Goals domains).
<Insert Figure 2 about here>
Page 14 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
15
Constructive leadership style as a moderator in the relation between stressful life events
and SWB
Multiple linear regression was used to examine the interaction between constructive
leadership style and stressful life events in the prediction of SWB (H2). Table 7 shows the
regression coefficient of the full model. This model analyzes how stressful life events interact
with each of the three leadership styles to predict SWB. Results show a statistically significant
interaction between stressful life events and constructive leadership style in predicting SWB (B =
0.11, p < .05, = .21).
<Insert Table 7 about here>
To further illustrate this finding, Figure 3 shows a plot of the associations between
stressful life events and life satisfaction at high (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) and low (i.e., 1 SD
below the mean) levels of constructive leadership. For leaders with low levels of constructive
leadership, higher levels of stress were associated with lower levels of SWB. In contrast, the
relation between stress and SWB was close to zero among leaders with high levels of
constructive leadership. H2 is, therefore, supported. Constructive leadership styles moderate the
relationship between stress and satisfaction/well-being.
<Insert Figure 3 about here>
Discussion
This study was designed to analyze three hypotheses regarding the relationships between
stress, resilience, leadership style, and leader satisfaction/well-being. Our research compared
Page 15 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
16
three LSI leadership style domains to the four domains of resilience measured by the SPR. This
research is unique in that prior research has either conceptualized resilience as a single trait (e.g.,
self-efficacy) or a small cluster of traits/environmental factors (Naswall et al., 2015; Robertson
et al., 2015); consequently, very brief trait-based inventories have been used to measure
resilience (Nguyen et al., 2016; Wang et al., (2017). This research project used the 160-item SPR
that sorts resilient behaviors into four domains, thus providing a unique and much more
comprehensive analysis of leader resilience than other research to date.
The results of this study support previous research that has found a relationship between
resilience and leadership style. However, the unique contribution of this study is to examine that
relationship by analyzing resilience behaviorally in four domains. Our findings demonstrate that
resilience is a multifaceted concept, with the relationship between resilience and leadership style
varying according to the specific domain of resilience assessed (i.e., Self, Others, Process and
Goals). According to our findings, process skills, rather than other indicators of resilience (i.e.,
traits or environmental factors) have the strongest probability of diminishing the negative impact
of stressful life events on positive leadership behaviors. These results suggest that a leader’s
ability to develop Process skills (i.e., time orientation, time utilization, cooperation, synergy and
receptiveness), all of which are related to how a leader completes a task/project, are critical skills
for maintaining constructive (positive) leadership behaviors during times of high stress.
Interestingly the Process domain (i.e., time orientation, time utilization, cooperation, synergy and
receptiveness) is comprised of resiliency skills/behaviors that have not been previously studied.
Previous research has focused on assessing traits/factors primarily related to two SPR domains:
“Self” (e.g., self-image, control, approval) and “Goals” (e.g., optimism, motivation, focus).
Page 16 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
17
Additionally, most of the previous organizational research on resilience has focused on
the relationship of leadership style to the resilience of the leaders’ direct reports (Nguyen et al.,
2016; Nielsen et al., 2017; Skakon et al., 2010; Tepper, 2000; Wang et al., 2017). Our project
focused on leaders’ resiliency and how it interacts with said leader’s behavioral style and
personal sense of SWB. Research in cognitive psychology would predict that a leader’s level of
resilience would influence her/his ability to respond to stress positively (Fletcher and Sarkar,
2013), thus modeling more positive/constructive leadership behaviors regardless of stress level.
Research in positive psychology demonstrates that positive behaviors are associated with
positive cognitions (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Therefore, leaders who model
constructive leadership styles could be expected to have higher levels of SWB, regardless of the
level of environmental stress. The results of this study support the above theoretical
assumptions. The results of this study demonstrate that a constructive leadership style, and its
associated positive cognitions, enables leaders to sustain high levels of satisfaction/wellbeing
(SWB), even in times of significant stress.
Theoretical Implications
This study provides support for an emerging theoretical framework that positions
resilience as a capacity that can be developed vs. a response mechanism driven by innate traits
(Naswall et al., 2015; Robertson et al., 2015). This emerging theoretical framework
contextualizes resilience to be more in alignment with contemporary organizational theories such
as positive psychology (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014) and brain plasticity/lifelong
learning research (Parisi et al., 2019).
This study also provides theoretical support for previous research that demonstrates the
relationship of resilience and leadership style (Skakon et al., 2010) by demonstrating that level
Page 17 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
18
and type of leader resilience not only impact the leaders’ direct reports, but also leaders
themselves. How leaders feel about themselves (SPR “Self” scores) and how well they relate to
others (SPR “Others” scores), along with a focus on goals (SPR “Goals” scores) and the
processes used to achieve them (SPR “Process” scores) are all significantly related to the
Constructive leadership styles. Conceptually it makes sense that both Passive/Defensive and
Aggressive/Defensive leadership styles are negatively related to resilience. Leaders with
Passive/Defensive styles could be expected to exhibit behaviors relating to a low self-concept
and lack of goal directedness, while Aggressive/Defensive leaders could be expected to fail to
focus on relationships and effective work processes (e.g., cooperation).
This research also contributes to the literature by identifying a significant interaction
between life events (stressors) and constructive leadership styles in predicting overall life
satisfaction. Leadership style moderates the stress-satisfaction relationship.
Management Implications
Much has been written about the need for resilient organizations (Hamel and
Välinkangas, 2003; Kantur and Iseri-Say, 2012; Williams et al, 2017). Resilient organizations
require resilient leaders. Leaders who are experiencing burn-out should be made aware that
“Process” skills such as time management and cooperation may be at least as important as
personal traits or environmental factors in times of stress. Our findings also suggest that
developing resilience-related skills/behaviors can moderate a leader’s experience of stress,
sustaining a high level of SWB, regardless of the stress environment. These findings are relevant
not only for corporate executives, but also for leaders in all sectors of society, including the
public sector.
Page 18 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
19
Numerous studies have found that a leader’s mood may be contagious (Glaso and
Einarsen, 2006; Johnson, 2008; Sy et al., 2005). Positive leadership behaviors (e.g., caring,
support, encouragement) not only prevent follower stress; they also improve employees’ stress
coping skills (Gilbreath and Benson, 2004). Skakon et al. (2010) reviewed 30 years of empirical
research to analyze the impact of leadership style on employee stress and well-being. Out of the
49 peer-reviewed articles analyzed, 20 were specific to leadership style and its relationship to
employee stress, burnout and affective well-being. The literature clearly indicates that leaders
who cultivate resilience in themselves are more skilled at elevating it in others (Avey, et al.,
2011).
These results are a call to action. Organizations need to develop leader resiliency training
programs which could be expected to result in an increased number of leaders with high levels of
satisfaction/well-being who, in turn, demonstrate more constructive leadership practices. An
investment in developing resilient leaders is not only the right thing to do; it is a financially wise
investment. Investment returns can be measured in the reduction of health-related burnout costs
coupled with decreased turnover resulting from more satisfied leaders and followers.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Future researchers would benefit from a larger sample that would provide the statistical
power to test other potential mediators and moderators of the leadership style/resiliency/
satisfaction relationship. Another limitation is the specificity bias inherent in a study that uses a
purposeful sample vs. a randomized one. This, of course, limits the generalizability of our
findings; thus, future studies need a more random sample of leaders who represent a variety of
leadership levels. More cross-cultural studies are also needed as leadership styles and workplace
stressors vary culturally.
Page 19 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
20
This study relied on self-reports which leads to concerns regarding common method
variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012); however, because common method biases are a primary source
of measurement error, the authors took several steps to minimize impact. Though the predictor
and criterion variables were obtained from the same raters, the three data sources, a demographic
survey and two standardized assessments (the SPR and LSI), were not administered sequentially,
thereby minimizing the consistency effect. Furthermore, the response options were quite
different for each of the two inventories. The resilience assessment (SPR) used a five-point
Likert scale with responses ranging from “Don’t Agree at All” to “Strongly Agree” while the
LSI has three response options: “Like me most of the time;” “Like me quite often;” and
“Essentially unlike me.” These distinctly different scale end points for the predictor and criterion
measures, along with their measurement of totally different constructs, could be expected to
minimize a consistency effect. Additionally, both the SPR and the LSI intermingle the
words/phrases relating to the different scales; thus, reducing the likelihood that earlier responses
impact subsequent ones. The length of the assessments, which take 30-45 minutes each to
complete, minimizes cross-item contamination. Also, as the respondents were alumni, not
current students, the social desirability bias should not have affected their selected survey
responses.
All the above common method bias controls were procedural. It will be important to
incorporate statistical controls into subsequent research (Tehseen et al., 2017). It is also
important to note that most studies of leader resilience have focused on the capacity for
resilience. Future research should explore the demonstration of it (Britt, et al., 2016). It is
recommended that future research designs obtain either behavioral verification of self-reported
data or replicate the data over time. Bi-directional research could provide an understanding of
Page 20 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
21
how employee behavior impacts a leader’s stress level, leadership style, and sense of
satisfaction/well-being.
There is also a need for future research that investigates how to cost effectively develop
organization-wide resiliency. The results of the Nielsen et al. (2017) meta-analysis of the
literature found that resiliency is needed at four different levels: individual, group, leader, and
organization (the IGLO model); however, they concluded that interventions focused on leaders
may be the most cost-effective means of achieving resilience at all four levels of an organization.
A meta-analysis of current best practices for developing leader resilience would be a useful
contribution to the resilience literature, as would the identification of valid and reliable ways to
identify and select resilient leaders. Standardized theoretical and operational definitions of stress,
resilience, and well-being are needed to bring more consistency to future research.
Conclusion
The results of our research study support an emerging theoretical position that purports
that organizational resilience is comprised of more than simply innate traits and environmental
factors. Learned behaviors/skills are critical to the successful navigation of stress. Work process
skills (e.g., time management, cooperation, receptiveness) were more significantly associated
with constructive leadership styles than were traits or environmental support. Furthermore,
constructive leadership styles moderated the stress response, resulting in higher levels of overall
life satisfaction/well-being for the leaders in this study who exhibited positive and proactive
leadership behaviors.
References
Page 21 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
22
Avey, J.B. Avolio, B.J., and Luthans, F. (2011), “Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader
positivity on follower positivity and performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22,
No. 2, pp. 282-294.
Bass, B.M. (1990), “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 19-36.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Psychology Press, New
York.
Britt, T.W., Shin, W., Sinclair, R.R., Grossman, M.R., and Klieger, D.M. (2016), “How much do
we really know about employee resilience?”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 378-404. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.107
Cavanaugh, M.A., Boswell, W.R., Roehling, M.V., and Boudreau, J.W. (2000), “An empirical
examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 65-74. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
Cochrane, R. and Robertson, A. (1973), “The life events inventory: a measure of the relative
severity of psycho-social stressors”, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 17, pp.
135-139.
Cohn, M.A., Fredrickson B.L., Brown, S.L., Mikels, J.A. and Conway, A.M. (2009), “Happiness
unpacked: positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience”, Emotion,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 361-368. doi: 10.1037/a0015952
Cooke, R.A. (1986), “Measuring stressful thinking styles: an analysis of the stress processing
report-form II”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 46, pp. 275-282.
Cooke, R.A. and Rousseau, D.M. (1983), “Relationship of life events and personal orientations
to symptoms of strain”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 446-458.
Page 22 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
23
Cooke, R.A., Rousseau, D.M. and Lafferty, J.C. (1987), “Thinking and behavioral styles:
consistency between self-descriptions and descriptions by others”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 47, pp. 815-823.
Cooke, R.A., Rosseau, D.M. and Lafferty, J.C. (1988), “Personal orientations and their
relationships to psychological and physiological symptoms of strain”, Psychological
Reports, Vol. 62, pp. 223-238.
Danna, K. and Griffin, R. (1999), “Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and
synthesis of the literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 357-384.
Densten, I.L. (2005), “The relationship between visioning behaviours of leaders and follower
burnout”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 105-118.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Duvall, C.K. (2001), “The relationship between thinking patterns and physiological symptoms of
stress”, Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 29, pp. 537-545.
Fletcher, D., and Sarkar, M. (2013), “Psychological resilience: a review and critique of
definitions, concepts, and theory”, European Psychologist, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 12-23. doi:
10.1027/1016-9040/a000124
Fredrickson, B.L. and Joiner, T. (2002), “Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward
emotional well-being”, Psychological Science, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 172-175.
Gilbreath, B. and Benson, P. G. (2004), “The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee
psychological well-being”, Work and Stress, Vol. 18, pp. 255-266.
Glasø, L. and Einarsen, S. (2006), “Experienced affects in leader-subordinate relationships”,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 22, pp. 49-73.
Page 23 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
24
Hamel, G. and Välinkangas, L. (2003), “The quest for resilience”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 81, pp. 52-63. Retrieved from http://www.hbr.org
Hetland, H., Sandal, G.M., and Johnsen, T.B. (2007), “Burnout in the information technology
sector: does leadership matter?”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol.16, pp. 58-75.
Holmes, T.H. and Rahe, R.H. (1967), “The social readjustment rating scale.”, Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 11, pp. 213-218.
Howe, A., Smajdor, A., and Stokl, A. (2012), “Towards an understanding of resilience and its
relevance to medical training”, Medical Education, Vol. 46, pp. 349-356.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04188.x
Human Synergistics International. (1994). Stress Processing Report. Plymouth, MI: Human
Synergistics, Inc.
Johnson, S.K. (2008), “I second that emotion: effects of emotional contagion and affect at work
on leader and follower outcomes”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 1-19.
Kanste, O., Kyngäs, H., and Nikkilä, J. (2007), “The relationship between multidimensional
leadership and burnout among nursing staff”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 15,
pp. 731-739.
Kantur, D. and İseri-Şay, A. (2012), “Organizational resilience: a conceptual integrative
framework”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 18, pp. 762-773.
Klohnen, E.C. (1996), “Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-
resiliency”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 1067-1079.
Lafferty, J.C. (1994), Stress Processing Report, Human Synergistics International, Plymouth,
MI.
Page 24 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
25
Lafferty, J.C., (2004), Life Styles Inventory I: Self-Description, Human Synergistics
International, Plymouth, MI.
Lafferty, J.C. (2013), Life Styles Inventory I: Self-Development Guide, Human Synergistics
International, Plymouth, MI.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E., and Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (2011), “Developing a capacity for
organizational resilience through strategic human resource management”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 243-255.
LePine, J.A., LePine, M.A., and Jackson, C.L. (2004), “Challenge and hindrance stress:
relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 883-891. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883
Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M. and Lucas R.E. (2012), “Subjective well-being and
adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 592-615.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M., and Rawski, S.L. (2011), “A tale of two paradigms: the impact of
psychological capital and reinforcing feedback on problem solving and innovation”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 333-350.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
Mitchell, M.S., Greenbaum, R.L., Vogel, R., Mawritz, M.B., and Keating, D.J. (2018), “Can
you handle the pressure? The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals, self-
regulation, and behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Advance online
publication. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0646
Morrison, R.S., Jones, L., and Fuller, B. (1997), “The relation between leadership style and
empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 27,
pp. 27-34.
Page 25 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
26
Naswall, K., Kuntz, J., Hodliffe, M., and Malinen, S. (2015), “Employee Resilience Scale
(EmpRes) measurement properties”, Resilient Organisations Research Report, 2015.
Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M.B., Ogbonnaya, C., Känsälä, M., Saari, E. and Isaksson, K. (2017),
“Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: a
systematic review and meta-analysis”, Work and Stress, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 101-120. doi:
10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463
Nguyen, Q., Kuntz, J.R.C., Naswall, K., and Malinen, S. (2016), “Employee resilience and
leadership styles: the moderating role of proactive personality and optimism”, New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 13-21.
Parisi, G.I., Kemker, R., Part, J.L., Kanan, C, and Wermter, S. (2019), “Continual lifelong
learning with neural networks: a review”, Neural Networks, Vol. 113, pp. 54-71.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., and Podsakoff, N. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 539-569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Richardson, G.E. (2002), “The metatheory of resilience and resiliency”, Journal of Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 307-321.
Robertson, I.T., Cooper, C.L., Sarkar, M. and Curran, T. (2015), “Resilience training in the
workplace from 2003 to 2014: a systemic review”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 3. doi.org/10.1111/joop.12120
Rutter, M. (1985), “Resilience in the face of adversity: protective factors and resistance to
psychiatric disorder”, British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 147, pp. 598-611.
Page 26 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
27
Sarkar, M. and Fletcher, D. (2014), “Ordinary magic, extraordinary performance: psychological
resilience and thriving in high achievers”, Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 46-60. doi: 10.1037/spy0000003
Seery, M.D., Holman, A.E. and Silver, R.C. (2010), “Whatever does not kill us: cumulative
lifetime adversity, vulnerability and resilience”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 99, pp. 1025-1041. doi: 10.1037/a0021344
Seligman, M.E.P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014), “Positive psychology: an introduction.”
In: Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Springer, Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_18
Shelton, C.D., Hein, S. and Phipps, K.A. (2019), "Resilience and spirituality: a mixed methods
exploration of executive stress", International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol.
28, No. 2, pp. 399-416. doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-08-2019-1848
Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V. and Guzman, J. (2010), “The impact of leaders on employee
stress and affective well-being: a systematic review of three decades of empirical
research”, Work and Stress, Vol. 24, pp. 197-139.
Sutcliffe, K.M., and Vogus, T. (2003), “Organizing for resilience”, In K.S. Cameron, J.E.
Dutton, and R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship, pp. 94-110. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Sy, T., Cote, S. and Saavedra, R. (2005), “The contagious leader: impact of the leader’s mood on
the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 295-305.
Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., and Sajilan, S. (2017), “Testing and controlling for common method
variance: a review of available methods”, Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 4, No.
Page 27 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
28
2, pp. 146-175.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision,” Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 43, pp. 178-190.
Toor, S., and Ofori, G. (2010), “Positive psychological capital as a source of sustainable
competitive advantage for organizations”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 136, No. 3, pp. 341-352.
Tusaie, K., and Dyer, J. (2004), “Resilience: a historical review of the construct”, Holistic
Nursing Practice, Vol. 18, No. 10, pp. 3-8.
Van Horn, J.E., Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B. and Schreurs, P.J.G. (2010), “The structure of
occupational well-being: a study among Dutch teachers”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 365-375. doi.org/10.1348/096317
9041752718
VanYperen, N.W and Hagendoorn, M. (2003), “Do high job demands increase intrinsic
motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 339-348. doi.org/10.5465/30040627
Wang, Z., Li, C. and Li, X. (2017), “Resilience, leadership and work engagement: the mediating
role of positive affect”, Soc Indic Res Vol. 132, pp. 699–708. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-
016-1306-5
Ware, M.E., Leak, G.K. and Perry, N.W. (1985), “Life Styles Inventory: evidence for its
factorial validity”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 56, pp. 963-968. doi:10.2466/
pr0.1985.56.3.963
Waugh, C.E., Thompson, R.J. and Gotlib, I.H. (2011), “Flexible emotional responsiveness in
trait resilience”, Emotion, Vol. 11, pp. 1959-1067.
Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M., Shepherd, D.A. and Zhao, E.Y. (2017),
Page 28 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE LEADERSHIP
29
“Organizational response to adversity: fusing crisis management and resilience research
streams”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 11, pp. 733-769.
Youssef, C.M., and Luthans, F. (2012), “Positive global leadership”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 539-547.
Page 29 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Table 1
Demographic details of the respondents
N
%
Gender
Male
71
70.3
Female
30
29.7
Age
Under 40 years old
19
18.8
40-49 years old
20
19.8
50-59 years old
33
32.7
60-69 years old
18
17.8
70 or more years old
11
10.9
Education level
Bachelor’s degree
1
1
Some graduate work
8
7.9
Master’s degree
82
81.2
Doctoral degree
8
7.9
Missing
2
2.0
Organization level
Non-management
11
10.9
Line management (supervising non-management personnel)
11
10.9
Middle management (managing managers)
15
14.9
Senior management
18
17.8
Executive / Senior Vice President
14
13.9
CEO/President
12
11.9
Owner
14
13.9
Missing
1
1.0
Prefer not to answer
5
5.0
Salary
$30,000 or less
3
3.0
$30,001 to $45,000
1
1.0
$45,001 to $60,000
5
5.0
$60,001 to $75,000
4
4.0
Page 30 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
$75,001 to $100,000
15
14.9
$100,001 to $125,000
15
14.9
$125,001 to $150,000
8
7.9
$150,001 to $175,000
9
8.9
$175,001 plus
23
22.8
Missing
2
2.0
Prefer not to answer
16
15.8
Marital status
Single
11
10.9
Married
65
64.4
Divorced
7
6.9
Widowed
1
1.0
Missing
16
15.8
Prefer not to answer
1
1.0
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian
87
86.1
Black or African-American
6
5.9
Asian or Asian American
3
3.0
Hispanic/Latino
2
2.0
Missing
3
3.0
Religion
Roman Catholic
33
32.7
Protestant
28
27.7
Hindu
1
1.0
Jewish
1
1.0
Mormon
2
2.0
Atheist or agnostic
6
5.9
Something else
13
12.9
Nothing in particular
6
5.9
Spiritual, but not religious
11
10.9
Page 31 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Variable
Mean
SD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
Age
2.
SPR – Self
25.73
3.30
.84
.14
3.
SPR – Others
25.79
3.98
.82
.08
.74**
4.
SPR – Process
23.85
3.23
.79
.11
.54**
.70**
5.
SPR – Goals
25.50
4.34
.87
.11
.77**
.68**
.58***
6.
LSI – Constructive
64.9
22.06
.85
-.03
.30**
.38**
.28**
.31**
7.
LSI – Passive/defensive
47.39
21.20
.84
-.23*
-.42**
-20*
-.15
-.28**
.14
8.
LSI – Aggressive/defensive
51.81
23.90
.88
-.23*
-.22*
-.28**
-.39**
-.16
.12
.41**
9.
Stressful life events
2.61
2.42
.63
-.15
-.30**
-.33**
-.25*
-.15
.07
.04
.29**
10.
Satisfaction / SWB
3.80
0.57
.86
.19
.49**
.55***
.53***
.57**
.32**
.05
-.12
-.33**
Notes. SPR composite scores reflect the sum of the corresponding scales (see Measures section). LSI composite scores reflect percentiles based on
the norms of the reference population. Satisfaction/SWB was computed as the average of the 13 satisfaction items included in the LSI. a Categorical
variable: 0 = under 40 years old (18.6% of sample), 1 = 40-49 years old (19.6%), 2 = 50-59 years old (32.4%), 60-69 years old (17.6%), 70 or more
years old (10.8%).
Page 32 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Table 3
Regression models using the SPR “Self” composite
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Constructive leadership style
Passive/Defensive style
Aggressive/Defensive style
Satisfaction/SWB
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
Intercept
65.51*** (56.82, 74.20)
53.41*** (45.48, 61.35)
59.56*** (50.05, 69.07)
3.70*** (3.50, 3.91)
Age a
-0.68 (-4.19, 2.82)
-.04
-3.25* (-6.44, -0.05)
-.19
-3.80 (-7.64, 0.03)
-.20
0.06 (-0.02, 0.14)
0.13
Gender b
3.64 (-5.51, 12.79)
.08
4.09 (-4.26, 12.44)
.09
-1.64 (-11.65, 8.37)
-.03
-0.03 (-0.24, 0.18)
-0.02
Race/ethnicity c
1.24 (-11.10, 13.58)
.02
-3.50 (-14.76, 7.77)
-.06
-3.27 (-16.78, 10.23)
-.05
0.10 (-0.18, 0.39)
0.06
Stressful life events
4.96* (0.33, 9.57)
.23
-2.18 (-6.39, 2.03)
-.10
5.00 (-0.05, 10.04)
.21
-0.08 (-0.19, 0.03)
-0.14
SPR “Self”
composite
3.53 (-3.88, 10.94)
.15
-12.35 (-19.12, -5.59)
-.54
-1.87 (-9.98, 6.24)
-.07
0.16 (-0.02, 0.33)
0.25
Interaction: Stressful
life events by SPR
“Self”
1.36 (-0.20, 2.92)
.28
0.62 (-0.81, 2.04)
.13
-0.34 (-2.05, 1.36)
-.07
0.03 (-0.01, 0.06)
0.22
Adjusted R2
0.16
0.24
0.14
0.30
F (df = 6, 94)
2.89*
4.89***
2.52*
6.81***
Notes. LSI composite scores reflect percentiles based on the norms of the reference population. a Categorical variable: 0 = under 40 years old (18.6% of sample),
1 = 40-49 years old (19.6%), 2 = 50-59 years old (32.4%), 60-69 years old (17.6%), 70 or more years old (10.8%). b Categorical variable: 0 = Male (70.3% of the
sample), 1 = Female (29.7%). c Categorical variable: 0 = White (85.3% of the sample), 1 = Other (14.7%). The SPR scales and stressful life events reflect z-
scores.
Page 33 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Table 4
Regression models using the SPR “Others” composite
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Constructive leadership style
Passive/Defensive style
Aggressive/Defensive style
Satisfaction/SWB
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
Intercept
65.98*** (57.62, 74.35)
54.09*** (45.50, 62.68)
59.05*** (49.67, 68.44)
3.72*** (3.52, 3.91)
Age a
-0.35 (-3.71, 3.01)
-.02
-3.99* (-7.45, -0.54)
-.23
-3.86* (-7.64, -0.9)
-.20
0.07 (-0.01, 0.15)
.15
Gender b
0.07 (-9.12, 9.26)
.001
4.58 (-4.86, 14.02)
.10
0.41 (-9.90, 10.73)
.01
-0.14 (-0.35, 0.07)
-.12
Race/ethnicity c
1.70 (-10.14, 13.54)
.03
-5.20 (-17.37, 6.97)
-.09
-3.34 (-16.64, 9.96)
-.05
0.12 (-0.15, 0.39)
.07
Stressful life events
5.49* (1.14, 9.85)
.25
-1.78 (-6.26, 2.70)
-.08
4.32 (-0.57, 9.22)
.18
-0.06 (-0.16, 0.04)
-.11
SPR “Others”
composite
6.04 (-0.93, 13.02)
.26
-4.74 (-11.90, 2.42)
-.21
-3.81 (-11.63, 4.02)
-.15
0.22** (0.06, 0.38)
.38
Interaction: Stressful
life events X SPR
“Others”
1.29 (-0.17, 2.75)
.26
-0.11 (-1.61, 1.39)
-.02
-0.37 (-2.01, 1.27)
-.07
0.02 (-0.01, 0.06)
.19
R2
0.22
0.11
0.16
0.37
F (df = 6, 94)
4.38**
1.86
2.99**
9.18***
Notes. LSI composite scores reflect percentiles based on the norms of the reference population a Categorical variable: 0 = under 40 years old (18.6% of sample), 1 =
40-49 years old (19.6%), 2 = 50-59 years old (32.4%), 60-69 years old (17.6%), 70 or more years old (10.8%). b Categorical variable: 0 = Male (70.3% of the
sample), 1 = Female (29.7%). c Categorical variable: 0 = White (85.3% of the sample), 1 = Other (14.7%). The SPR scales and stressful life events reflect z-scores.
Page 34 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Table 5
Regression models using the SPR “Process” composite
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Constructive leadership style
Passive/Defensive style
Aggressive/Defensive style
Satisfaction/SWB
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
Intercept
65.20*** (56.49, 73.92)
54.46*** (45.69, 63.23)
57.75*** (48.62, 66.87)
3.72*** (3.52, 3.92)
Age a
-0.15 (-3.68, 3.38)
-.01
-4.02* (-7.57, -0.46)
-.24
-3.20 (-6.90, 0.50)
-.17
0.06 (-0.02, 0.14)
.13
Gender b
2.80 (-6.36, 11.96)
.06
2.63 (-6.59, 11.85)
.06
0.13 (-9.46, 9.72)
.003
-0.07 (-0.27, 0.14)
-.05
Race/ethnicity c
0.57 (-0.47, 8.25)
.01
-4.51 (-17.12, 8.11)
-.07
0.25 (-12.87, 13.38)
.004
0.03 (-0.25, 0.31)
.02
Stressful life events
3.89 (-0.47, 8.25)
.18
-0.85 (-5.24, 3.54)
-.04
4.42 (-0.15, 8.98)
.19
-0.10 (-0.19, 0.002)
-.17
SPR “Process”
composite
1.35 (-4.94, 7.64)
.06
-2.06 (-8.39, 4.27)
-.10
-7.99* (-14.57, -1.40)
-.33
0.19 (0.04, 0.33)
.32
Interaction: Stressful
life events X SPR
“Process”
1.81* (0.38, 3.25)
.35
-0.25 (-1.69, 1.19)
-.05
0.06 (-1.44, 1.56)
.01
0.03 (-0.004, 0.06)
.21
R2
0.16
0.08
0.22
0.35
F (df = 6, 94)
3.00*
1.34
4.31**
8.53***
Notes. LSI composite scores reflect percentiles based on the norms of the reference population a Categorical variable: 0 = under 40 years old (18.6% of sample), 1 =
40-49 years old (19.6%), 2 = 50-59 years old (32.4%), 60-69 years old (17.6%), 70 or more years old (10.8%). b Categorical variable: 0 = Male (70.3% of the
sample), 1 = Female (29.7%). c Categorical variable: 0 = White (85.3% of the sample), 1 = Other (14.7%). The SPR scales and stressful life events reflect z-scores.
Page 35 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Table 6
Regression models using the SPR “Goals” composite
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Constructive leadership style
Passive/Defensive style
Aggressive/Defensive style
Satisfaction/SWB
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
B (95%-CI)
Intercept
65.56*** (56.76, 74.35)
53.39*** (44.90, 61.87)
59.61*** (50.04, 69.18)
3.74*** (3.56, 3.93)
Age a
-0.63 (-4.16, 2.90)
-.04
-3.64* (-7.05, -0.24)
-.21
-3.87* (-7.71, -0.03)
-.20
0.05 (-0.03, 0.12)
.11
Gender b
1.51 (-8.02, 11.04)
.03
5.27 -3.93, 14.46)
.11
-1.08 (-11.46, 9.29)
-.02
-0.16 (-0.36, 0.04)
-.13
Race/ethnicity c
1.25 (-11.15, 13.65)
.02
-4.89 (-16.85, 7.08)
-.08
-3.40 (-16.90, 10.10)
-.05
0.10 (-0.16, 0.36)
.06
Stressful life events
3.20 (-1.16, 7.56)
.15
-0.95 (-5.16, 3.25)
-.05
5.60 (0.85, 10.34)
.23
-0.12 (-0.21, -0.03)
-.21
SPR “Goals”
composite
3.51 (-3.50, 10.53)
.15
-6.37 (-13.14, .39)
-.28
-1.15 (-8.78, 6.49)
-.04
0.28*** (0.13, 0.43)
.45
Interaction: Stressful
life events X SPR
“Goals”
1.30 (-0.20, 2.79)
.25
-0.08 (-1.52, 1.36)
-.02
-0.39 (-2.01, 1.23)
-.07
0.02 (-0.01, 0.05)
.15
R2
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.42
F (df = 6, 94)
2.61*
2.46*
2.44*
11.52**
Notes. LSI composite scores reflect percentiles based on the norms of the reference population a Categorical variable: 0 = under 40 years old (18.6% of sample), 1 =
40-49 years old (19.6%), 2 = 50-59 years old (32.4%), 60-69 years old (17.6%), 70 or more years old (10.8%). b Categorical variable: 0 = Male (70.3% of the
sample), 1 = Female (29.7%). c Categorical variable: 0 = White (85.3% of the sample), 1 = Other (14.7%). The SPR scales and stressful life events reflect z-scores.
Page 36 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Table 7
Regression model predicting SWB using the LSI composite scores
B (95%-CI)
Intercept
3.67*** (3.46, 3.88)
Age a
0.08 (-0.01, 0.16)
.17
Gender b
-0.05 (-0.28, 0.17)
-.04
Race/ethnicity c
0.11 (-0.19, 0.41)
.07
Stressful life events
-0.17** (-0.28, -0.06)
-.30
Constructive leadership style
0.17** (0.06, 0.27)
.30
Passive / Defensive leadership style
0.04 (-0.07, 0.15)
.08
Aggressive / Defensive leadership style
-0.02 (-0.13, .10)
-.03
Interaction: Stressful life events by Constructive leadership style
0.11* (0.02, 0.20)
.21
Interaction: Stressful life events by Passive / defensive leadership style
-0.04 (0.07, -0.09)
-.07
Interaction: Stressful life events by Aggressive / Defensive leadership style
-0.04 (-0.16, 0.08)
-.07
R2
0.32
F (df = 6, 94)
4.16***
Notes. LSI composite scores reflect percentiles based on the norms of the reference population (z-scores) a
Categorical variable: 0 = under 40 years old (18.6% of sample), 1 = 40-49 years old (19.6%), 2 = 50-59 years old
(32.4%), 60-69 years old (17.6%), 70 or more years old (10.8%). b Categorical variable: 0 = Male (70.3% of the
sample), 1 = Female (29.7%). c Categorical variable: 0 = White (85.3% of the sample), 1 = Other (14.7%). The SPR
scales and stressful life events reflect z-scores
Page 37 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Figure 1
Diagram of the estimated multiple regression models
Page 38 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Figure 2
The interaction between stressful life events and the SPR “Process” domain in predicting constructive
leadership styles
Page 39 of 40 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Figure 3
The interaction between stressful life events and constructive leadership styles in predicting life
satisfaction
Page 40 of 40International Journal of Organizational Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
... Previous studies have proved that there is a relationship between spirituality and resilience. Shelton, Hein, and Phipps (2019) concluded that people who are involved in meditative practices as spirituality development had a significantly better resilience score than non-meditators. Esievo, Oshi, Hettey, and Tende (2019) found a strong positive correlation between organizational resilience and workplace spirituality. ...
... Beside rational things, business resilience can be leveraged by intensifying workplace spirituality as an irrational approach. It supports the previous studies (Shelton, Hein, & Phipps, 2019;Esievo, Oshi, Hettey, &Tende, 2019), Although it is perceived as indirect and illogical, this study proved that spiritual activities at workplace can affect directly, positively, and significantly on business resilience. For further elaboration, the research model is extended by adding more other relationships among variables. ...
Article
Full-text available
COVID-19 has created a killing field for SME as one of national economics pillars. Business resilience becomes crucial issue. It has stimulated the owner and/or managers of SME to do many things for saving the SME from its bankruptcy rationally and/or irrationally. This study aimed to elaborate business resilience and to test the impact of rational and irrational factors on business resilience. The rational factors consist of: (1) implementation of health protocol in doing business, (2) developing business flexibility, and (4) improving alliance capability. The rational factors consist of (4) enhancing pro-social leadership a (5) conducting workplace spirituality. This study is cross-sectional survey with causal approach for testing five hypothesizes. Convenience method was used as sampling method. This study involved 506 small medium enterprises in Jawa and Sumatera, the two biggest islands in Indonesia. Collected data were structured with PLS based Structural Equation Modelling. Proposed research model was described into second order construct and tested by validity and reliability analysis, measurement model analysis and structural model analysis. Keywords: Resilience, Flexibility, Spirituality, Pro-Social Leadeship
... Previous studies have proved that there is a relationship between spirituality and resilience. Shelton, Hein, and Phipps (2019) concluded that people who are involved in meditative practices as spirituality development had a significantly better resilience score than non-meditators. Esievo, Oshi, Hettey, and Tende (2019) found a strong positive correlation between organizational resilience and workplace spirituality. ...
... Beside rational things, business resilience can be leveraged by intensifying workplace spirituality as an irrational approach. It supports the previous studies (Shelton, Hein, & Phipps, 2019;Esievo, Oshi, Hettey, &Tende, 2019), Although it is perceived as indirect and illogical, this study proved that spiritual activities at workplace can affect directly, positively, and significantly on business resilience. For further elaboration, the research model is extended by adding more other relationships among variables. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective - This study aims to elaborate business resilience of small medium enterprises and to test the impact of rational and irrational antecedents of business resilience during COVID-19 crisis. Methodology/Technique - It is cross-sectional and causal study for testing five hypothesizes. Convenience approach was used as non-probabilistic sampling method. It involved 506 small medium enterprises in Jawa and Sumatera, the biggest islands in Indonesia. Collected data were structured with PLS based Structural Equation Modelling. Findings – The result explained that business resilience is influenced positively, directly, and significantly by business flexibility and workplace spirituality. Business flexibility is influenced by workplace spirituality, pro-social leadership, and alliance capability. Pro-social leadership of owners and/or managers influences implementation of health protocol and alliance capability. Novelty - This study has proved that business resilience has both sides of antecedents - in rational and irrational perspectives. Type of Paper: Empirical. JEL Classification: L26, L29. Keywords: Business Resilience, Small Medium Enterprise Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Saputra, N; Herlina, M.G. (2021). Double-Sided Perspective of Business Resilience: Leading SME Rationally and Irrationally During COVID-19, Journal of Management and Marketing Review, 6(2) 125 – 136. https://doi.org/10.35609/jmmr.2021.6.2(4)
... Psychological resilience has been investigated in various leadership contexts, such as transformational leadership (Dimas et al., 2018), authentic leadership (Anwar et al., 2019), and some other contexts (Tau et al., 2018) and found that leaders' supportive behaviour can enhance employees' resilience and positive outcomes. For example, employee resilience mediates the relationships between organizational commitment and job burnout (Meng et al., 2019), or resilience can be a moderator in displaying a higher overall life satisfaction (Shelton et al., 2019). Thus, these above-studies investigate resilience and report divergent underpinning mechanisms pertaining to how resilience interacts with leadership and how to develop it. ...
Article
Purpose – Psychological resilience, defined here as the capacity to bounce back from adversity and failure, has been studied in various leadership contexts. However, the literature demonstrates less consensus concerning how psychological resilience manifests in, and interacts within, the leadership role and, equally, the focus on resilience development is underdeveloped. This paper addresses these issues by focusing on the interactions between psychological resilience and leadership and presents practical development strategies. Design/methodology/approach – A systematic review employing 46 empirical studies followed a thematic synthesis within an associated model encapsulated as building-up resilience and being effective. Findings – First, resilience is identified as essential and can benefit individuals and organizations’ work outcomes across leadership contexts, including work performance, job engagement, well-being, and enhanced leadership capability. Secondly, leaders may build up their resilience by obtaining coping skills and improved attitudes toward challenges. Resilient attitudes, which are presented as paradoxical perspectives towards challenges, may help leaders adapt to challenges and adversities leading to beneficial outcomes. Research limitations/implications – Even though this study provides a deeper understanding of the essential function of psychological resilience in leadership, the findings are limited to the workplace contexts investigated, e.g. exploring small sample sizes (13,019) or country contexts (22). Future research could expand the rhetoric around interactions between psychological resilience and leadership. Furthermore, the underlining mechanism between the paradoxical perspective and resilient attitudes is still largely unclear. Thus, more research is needed to disclose the interaction of paradoxical perceptions and leadership resilience. Further research can investigate how resilient attitudes demonstrate in actions in dealing with challenges and adversities. Practical implications – The authors further an argument that leaders may enhance their resilience through embracing a paradoxical perspective towards challenges (resilient attitude), e.g. being adaptive to adversities, and the attitude of learning from failures. These enhanced resilient attitudes could help leaders deeper understand and examine their reality and persist under high pressures and develop an innate ability to utilise resources more effectively to help them survive and thrive in challenging circumstances, instead of becoming overwhelmed by the burden of complexity or giving up. This will offer a practical contribution to resilience development. Social implications – Importantly, this study found that resilience is an essential leadership trait and can benefit individuals and organizations’ work outcomes across leadership contexts. These positive effects of resilience may encourage organizations or society to promote psychological resilience, including a resilient attitude, to deal with adversities and uncertainties.
... They note that positive reflections can reduce the undesirable emotional exhaustion and enhance people's wellbeing. The literature also highlights the important implications of virtuousness(Rego et al., 2010), benevolence(Luu, 2019;Viot & Benraiss-Noailles, 2019), integrity(Prottas, 2013), and humanism(Salas-Vallina et al., 2020) (as spiritual concepts) for well-being and happiness.The aforementioned discussion shows that workplace spirituality and self-spiritualty are key factors for people's well-being (e.g.,Aboobaker et al., 2021;Chowdhury & Fernando, 2013;Fernando & Chowdhury, 2010;Rego & e Cunha, 2008;Shelton et al., 2019;Zhang, 2020). Based on the reviewed literature in terms of how spirituality enhances well-being, the following propositions were developed:Proposition 1 Individual's spirituality and spirituality at work are important for enhancing workers' psychological well-being. ...
Article
Full-text available
Informed by religion and psychology literature, this study reviews the literature on religiosity, spirituality and psychology to support existing theory development in the current emergence of “Management, Spirituality and Religion” field of study, encourage new contextual thinking and develop a framework to guide businesses on the integration of spirituality and religiosity at work given their documented benefits in relation to personal well-being and productivity. Using the Web of Science (WoS) database, the paper reviews and synthesises recent research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducible manner. In addition, to verify and include the state-of-the-art of high quality scientific articles, we refer to the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS, 2021) list leading to the adoption of the following criteria: (a) journals listed in the ABS ranking as 3- and 4-star class, (b) indexed under the field of ethics (i.e., ETHICS-CSR-MAN), (c) articles published between 2000 and 2021, and (d) topical relevance. The review extends the existing literature by developing a framework for organizations that helps in identifying possible linkages between religiosity, spirituality and employee well-being. This was done by (1) extending the six indicators of Ryff’s (1989) well-being framework, (2) highlighting potential spiritual practices for individuals and organizations and their implications, and (3) presenting a framework that is contextualized to the extent possible and that can serve as a useful guide for organizations. Insights from our review yield in turn two key propositions: (1) workplace spirituality and individual spirituality are both important for employees’ well-being, and (2) individual religiosity is an important factor for personal well-being. This offers in turn reinvigorated awareness and new insights into the topic under study. The study highlights in closing an array of future possible research directions.
... Working in an organization with characteristics attributed to spiritual organizations is genuinely beneficial for employees (Polley et al., 2005). The participants engaged in meditative practices had a significantly higher resilience than non-meditators (Shelton et al., 2020). To understand the impact of spirituality in-depth, Fornaciari et al. (2005) created 65 new scales after thorough research within the spirituality, religion and work domain, demonstrating various parameters to see their interconnection with each other. ...
Article
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis (IJOA) is a leading journal that has published high-quality research focused on various facets of organizational analysis since 1993. This paper aims to conduct a retrospective analysis of the IJOA journey from 2005 to 2020. The data used in this study was extracted using the Scopus database. The bibliometric analysis, using several indicators, is adopted to reveal the major trends and themes of the journal. The mapping of bibliographic data is carried using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny. The study findings indicate that IJOA has grown for publications and citations since its inception. Five significant research directions emerged, i.e. organizational diagnostics, organization citizenship behaviour, organizational commitment to employee retention, psychological capital and firm performance, based on cluster analysis of IJOA’s publications.
... Although spirituality was not an explicit component of the program, caregivers highlighted it as a key tool for strengthening resilience. This is consistent with the existing literature on the importance of spirituality in other contexts (e.g., among a sample of executives in the United States) when used as a mechanism to confront difficult situations, solve problems, and recover the meaning and purpose of life (Shelton, Hein, and Phipps 2019;Smith et al. 2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
Colombia has endured one of the world's longest internal displacement crises in recent history. Programs that address the practices and psychosocial wellbeing of the community of caregivers of young children in protracted crises are urgently needed. We developed and implemented a program aimed at strengthening the resilience and wellbeing of caregivers (parents, grandparents, and educators) of children enrolled in home-based and institutional centers for early childhood development in Colombia. The program, Conmigo, Contigo, Con Todos, or 3Cs, used purposive sampling across 14 municipalities disproportionately impacted by the armed conflict in Colombia. It consisted of two modules, a skills-building program (SBP) module and a psychotherapy intervention (PTI). The program content drew from cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness, and from inputs from local stakeholders. By applying a pragmatic evaluation strategy, we explored the pre-post intervention changes in parental resilience (the primary outcome of interest) through self-reports on the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). The analysis of the pre-post intervention outcomes showed statistically significant improvements in CD-RISC in both intervention arms (SBP and PTI). Caregivers in the PTI group started with lower CD-RISC scores than caregivers who did not receive the PTI, and they showed the most improvement over time. Caregivers who had lower than average participation in the SBP (M=1-3 sessions out of a total of 6) did not show significant changes in CD-RISC. Additionally, caregivers who had higher than average participation in the SBP showed significantly more improvement in CD-RISC scores than caregivers who did not attend any sessions. We discuss the implications of these findings for future applications of the program and substantiate the measurable impact of interventions for caregivers in conflict settings.
Article
This article reports a study on the impact of two continuing education programs for pastors working in prisons and correctional settings. Pastors who did the spirituality refresher training sessions reported greater resilience and social entrepreneurship inclinations posttest compared to those who did the expressive writing sessions. Male pastors, with a postgraduate degree and chaplaincy-focused training, prison pastors, ever-singles, pastors living in religious institutions/seminaries, and with higher intervention compliance, reported higher benefits from spirituality refresher training.
Article
This review aimed to identify the theories that best explain organizational resilience through the analysis of the literature. For this, a final sample of 40 empirical-causal articles from Web of Science platform was compiled. In these articles, resilience is a relevant variable and was analyzed using its theories and variables. The results show a concentration of studies at the individual and organizational levels in which issues such as resources and capabilities, organizational structures, and cognitive elements prevail. It was determined that the most used precept is the resource-based vision, whose association with resilience is described. The results obtained have practical implications for the management of organizations by highlighting the relevance of tangible and intangible strategic resources.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Memasuki era revolusi industri 4.0 yang telah dijalani dengan berbagai disrupsinya, membawa gagasan lebih lanjut sebagaimana diajukan oleh Jepang untuk menjadikan masyarakat sebagai pusat dari teknologi yang berkembang pesat. Diskursus yang dibahas kemudian mencakup bagaimana berbagai teknologi tersebut membawa kebermanfaatan dan sesuai dengan kebutuhan masyarakat. Gagasan yang diajukan oleh Jepang tersebut disebut sebagai gambaran perkembangan Society 5.0 yang merupakan kelanjutan dari hunting society (Society 1.0), agricultural society (Society 2.0), industrial society (Society 3.0), dan information society (Society 4.0). Society 5.0 digambarkan sebagai masyarakat yang menjadikan manusia sebagai pusat perkembangan teknologinya. Dengan demikian, perkembangan teknologi informasi tidak hanya semata ditujukan untuk akselerasi pembangunan ekonomi semata, melainkan juga untuk dapat mengatasi berbagai permasalahan sosial yang ada. Gagasan ini kemudian mengemuka dan membawa diskusi lebih lanjut bagaimana proyeksi Society 5.0 di Indonesia. Secara khusus, sebagai mahasiswa Psikologi, muncul pertanyaan bagaimana menempatkan Psikologi sebagai kontributor penting dalam menyambut society 5.0 di Indonesia. Peran Psikologi yang luas diharapkan dapat menyentuh berbagai lapisan sistem di masyarakat mulai dari keluarga, organisasi hingga komunitas. Hal tersebut mendorong Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Diponegoro untuk menyelenggarakan sebuah konferensi ilmiah untuk mahasiswa Psikologi yaitu Konferensi Mahasiswa Psikologi Indonesia (KMPI) yang telah diselenggarakan secara daring pada 29 Agustus 2020 lalu. Tema Revitalisasi Peran Psikologi dalam Keluarga, Organisasi, dan Komunitas: Tantangan dalam Menyambut Society 5.0 ini mendapat respons yang sangat baik dari mahasiswa Psikologi di berbagai penjuru Tanah Air dengan diterimanya puluhan artikel yang membahas mengenai peran psikologi dalam menyambut Society 5.0 dan isu-isu lain yang turut mengiringinya. Artikel tersebut disatukan dalam sebuah prosiding yang sedang pembaca nikmati sekarang. Akhirnya, tim editor mengucapkan terima kasih kepada peserta sekaligus kontributor artikel dalam prosiding ini. Semoga sumbangsih ilmu tersebut mengalir tiada henti, dan tergandakan tiada batas. Psikologi Prioritas!
Article
Full-text available
Past research purporting to study employee resilience suffers from a lack of conceptual clarity about both the resilience construct and the methodological designs that examine resilience without ensuring the occurrence of significant adversity. The overall goal of this article is to address our contemporary understanding of employee resilience and identify pathways for the future advancement of resilience research in the workplace. We first address conceptual definitions of resilience both inside and outside of industrial and organizational psychology and make the case that researchers have generally failed to document the experience of significant adversity when studying resilience in working populations. Next, we discuss methods used to examine resilience, with an emphasis on distinguishing the capacity for resilience and the demonstration of resilience. Representative research is then reviewed by examining self-reports of resilience or resilience-related traits along with research on resilient and nonresilient trajectories following significant adversity. We then briefly address the issues involved in selecting resilient employees and building resilience in employees. The article concludes with recommendations for future research studying resilience in the workplace, including documenting significant adversity among employees, assessing multiple outcomes, using longitudinal designs with theoretically supported time lags, broadening the study of resilience to people in occupations outside the military who may face significant adversity, and addressing the potential dark side of an emphasis on resilience.
Article
Full-text available
The role of spirituality and religion in the workplace (SRW) is a relatively new area of inquiry that has emerged from scholarly fields not typically associated with the study of the psychology of religion and spirituality. This article explores the underlying assumptions and history as well as the state of current theory and empirical research regarding SRW. We first describe the history of the efforts to integrate spirituality and religion into the workplace, with their foundational roots in the Protestant Work Ethic and their emergence through the Faith at Work movement. Next we review the major theoretical developments in this area that have established a domain of relevant definitions, constructs, frameworks, and models. Then we review the empirical research on spirituality in the workplace and conclude that 2 major streams have emerged that have, to date, discovered similar findings in regard to their significant impact on relevant individual and organizational outcomes. Finally, we explore particular challenges associated with integrative work and future theory building and research.
Article
Purpose – This paper aims to provide a framework with the antecedents of women managers’ resilience in SMEs. Design/methodology/approach – This developmental study uses a comprehensive literature review and a set of propositions to identify the antecedent of women managers’ resilience and develops a conceptual framework for resilience. Findings – The results indicate that in addition to personal resilience traits, interactive engagement with the work environment, career adaptability and positive human resource management (HRM) interventions are the main antecedents of women managers’ resilience. Research limitations/implications – This paper contributes to theory by providing a new perspective on the study of resilience as a process at the organisational level and as a trait at personal level. It contributes to the women employee-centric resilience discussion in HRM literature and explores the relationship between resilience and women managers’ career progression. This is a developmental study, and despite the strengths of the undertaken approach, there are a number of limitations due to the lack of empirical evidence. Therefore, future research activities should focus on validating the framework and determining any potential boundaries of this resilience framework. Practical implications – The study reveals a number of practical implications leading to a recommended resilience toolkit for HR managers of organisations to develop and promote resilience in their women managers and aspiring managers. Social implications – The social implications of this study include the social relationships within the work-setting, better employee engagement and interaction with the work environment and flexible career progression pathways. Originality/value – The paper is based on rich conceptual and theoretical discussion that identifies the key antecedents of women managers’ resilience. The study also conceptually establishes the moderating relationship between women managers’ resilience and work stress and burnout.
Article
Purpose The owner-manager of small firms is recognised as having a potentially significant role in the small firm’s competitiveness, growth and failure. However, the owner-manager’s own resilience has been largely overlooked in the small firm resilience literature. The purpose of this paper is to redress this and expand the debate and empirical basis of small firm owner-managers’ personal resources for resilience. Design/methodology/approach This longitudinal qualitative study deployed semi-structured interviews with nine owner-managers, each being interviewed three or four times. Analytical procedures were used with an established framework, which conceptualised four key personal resources for resilience, as follows: adaptability, confidence, social support and purposefulness. Findings There were four key findings, as follows: owner-manager adaptability can appear in extremes including a sense of helplessness or optimism where disruptive circumstances are not sensed as problematic; owner-manager confidence levels often echo their own mindset of adaptability, that is, from helplessness to positive ambition; owner-managers can use discursive tactics with strong/weak ties for a range of affective and technical resources for resilience; and purposefulness tended to be framed in terms of a necessity for a longer term future state related to own or family lifestyle rather than profit. It is also noted that the owner-manager and the firm are closely interrelated, and therefore, enhancement of personal resilience resources is likely to positively influence their resilience, and therefore, the resilience of the organisation and strategic capability of the firm. Originality/value The small firm resilience literature typically focusses on the organisational level, which de-emphasises the salient role of the owner-manager and their resilience. This study attempts to redress this.
Article
Purpose This paper aims to understand water and wastewater industry leaders’ perceptions of the current and future role of workplace spirituality, including the challenges and benefits of incorporating workplace spirituality in government utilities. Design/methodology/approach The Delphi technique was used to gather input and gain consensus from an expert panel of executive level managers. Findings The panel achieved consensus that workplace spirituality is evident in a higher sense of purpose for those working in the water and wastewater industry which is likely to be the greatest future benefit of workplace spirituality in the industry. Other central themes included making a positive environmental impact, going beyond compliance, collaborating with the community, creating a connection to peers and encouraging organizational belonging. Consensus was also achieved regarding obstacles to workplace spirituality’s future role in the industry, including concerns about terminology and the need for supportive leadership. Practical implications The water and wastewater industry face challenges including climate change, rising costs, aging infrastructure, increased regulatory requirements and a rapidly changing workforce. Workplace spirituality seems likely to support the industry in facing these challenges and can be promoted through encouraging a sense of purpose and meaning, collaborating with the community and recruiting individuals with resonant values and sense of calling. Originality/value Workplace spirituality has received growing attention in the private sector. However, workplace spirituality research in the public sector is minimal. This expert panel of top leaders from US water and wastewater agencies provide insight into the role of workplace spirituality in the public sector.
Article
It is known that religiosity is a positive correlate of well-being among adolescents and emerging adults. The current study extends this focus by assessing the roles of self-efficacy and perceived social support, which are presumed to explain the association of religiosity with psychological well-being (PWB). Participants were 331 adolescents and emerging adults (mean age = 21.67 years, SD = 3.92, range = 19–24, 68% male). In addition to correlation analyses, multimediation regression models were analyzed using self-efficacy and perceived social support as two mediators to explain the relationships of religious coping and religious practices with six PWB outcomes. The results from correlation and regression analyses showed that religious coping and religious practices were significant predictors of all PWB outcomes. The findings from multimediation analyses showed that self-efficacy in the presence of perceived social support mediated the relations of both religiosity factors with six PWB outcomes. However, perceived social support in the presence of self-efficacy mediated these relations with only autonomy and self-acceptance. Furthermore, the findings revealed that religious coping compared to religious practices was a stronger predictor of all PWB outcomes, despite similar patterns of mediation effects explaining the independent effects of both.
Article
Recent theorists have argued that theistic cognitions are so deeply embedded in human cultures that nearly all people experience implicit religious thoughts, even those who consider themselves as atheists or agnostics. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of a Catholic Faith Single Category Implicit Association Test (CF_SC-IAT), the degree of implicit-explicit dissociation across different religious groups (practicing and non-practicing Catholics, agnostics and atheists) as well as the relationships between automatic faith associations and well-being indices. The study was conducted using a Roman sample composed of 142 subjects (106 females) aged 24.74 years (SD=10.66). Results showed: (1) an adequate level of reliability, convergent and criterion validity; (2) a certain degree of implicit-explicit dissociation in terms of: a different localization of mean scores with respect to the neutral scale point, a different pattern of means across the religious groups, a small correlation between them, and independent contributions in the prediction of religion-related behaviors; (3) significant correlations between implicit catholic faith and three different indices of psychological well-being. Theoretical interpretations and limitations of the study were discussed.
Article
CEOs and senior executives can have a positive impact on their firms, creating value and thus contributing to the wealth of their nations Therefore, safeguarding executives" health is of concern to all stakeholders in the organization. We present an executive health model and define executive health as physical, psychological, spiritual, and ethical well-being. There is a collective interest in enhancing and maintaining the health of executives as key organizational leaders This special issue on Executive Health includes articles, book reviews, research briefs, a Country Close-Up, and an Executive Voice interview addressing strength factors that enhance executive health and health risk factors that concern executives" vulnerabilities. The four health risk factors for executives examined in this article are the Achilles Heel, loneliness of command, work demands and overload, and crises and failures by building on strengths and managing health risks, executives may enhance their own health and the health of their organizations.
Article
Espousing a positive psychology orientation, this study aimed to explore the links between religiousness and subjective well-being, and test whether social support and self-control mediate the expected associations between these two variables. Participants were 264 Israeli-Palestinian college students, who were asked to provide demographic information and complete measures of religiousness, social support, self-control, subjective happiness, positive emotions and negative emotions. We found that religiousness was positively correlated with both subjective happiness and positive emotions, but no significant correlation was found between religiousness and negative emotions. Both social support and self-control partially mediated the links between religiousness and both subjective happiness and positive emotions. The findings of the study, as well as its implications and limitations, are discussed.
Article
The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the variety of definitions, concepts, and theories of psychological resilience. To this end, the narrative is divided into three main sections. The first considers how resilience has been defined in the psychology research literature. Despite the construct being operationalized in a variety of ways, most definitions are based around two core concepts: adversity and positive adaptation. A substantial body of evidence suggests that resilience is required in response to different adversities, ranging from ongoing daily hassles to major life events, and that positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adversity examined in terms of the domains assessed and the stringency of criteria used. The second section examines the conceptualization of resilience as either a trait or a process, and explores how it is distinct from a number of related terms. Resilience is conceptualized as the interactive influence of psychological characteristics within the context of the stress process. The final section reviews the theories of resilience and critically examines one theory in particular that is commonly cited in the resilience literature. Future theories in this area should take into account the multiple demands individuals encounter, the meta cognitive and -emotive processes that affect the resilience-stress relationship, and the conceptual distinction between resilience and coping. The review concludes with implications for policy, practice, and research including the need to carefully manage individuals’ immediate environment, and to develop the protective and promotive factors that individuals can proactively use to build resilience.