Search results

The word “sustainability” is discussed in several ways since MDGs and SDGs have gained business attention. Sustainability is not just about something’s durability; it also looks at how to advance development projects without endangering the development of others nearby, both now and in the future (Fink, 2000). It is a drive that weaves together the different facets, including the social, economic, and environmental. World Economic Forum’s has emphasised the need for responsive and responsible leadership. It is in this context, the paper focuses on studying the transformational shift in the role and responsibility of leaders in demonstrating responsible leadership and discusses the ‘Locust and Honeybee Leadership styles’.

Literature portrays that responsible leaders are recognized by their qualities, competency and skills. One such model is “Locust and Honeybee Leadership,” where the two leadership styles are contrasted. The paper attempts to discuss the varied contexts of these leadership styles and attempts to draw a matrix on the commonalities of both set in an Indian context. A leader should always have openness of thought and integrity.

Value systems are important for a leader. The major challenge is developing globally responsible leaders and managers who can perform effectively under these conditions of enormous challenge, as they are chronically pushed beyond their capabilities into unexpected roles and unfamiliar domains. Situations compel leaders to make decisions, yet the styles determine the way the decisions are taken. The paper is unique as it discusses the commonalities and contrasting perspectives of the “Locust and Honeybee Leadership.”

The paper is limited to a small number of respondents and is set in Indian context.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the paper is an original piece of work and expresses thoughts of the authors on establishing a sustainable leadership model.

Employee engagement (EE) continues to be one of the most difficult challenges for organizations today. Numerous factors have been linked to EE, according to studies. However, the necessary human resource management (HRM) strategies and systems for enhancing EE have not yet been developed. It is questionable if all employees inside the company require the same HRM strategies, to boost engagement as one size does not fit all. Therefore, it is necessary to create employee profiles based on factors associated with EE. This study aims to develop employee profiles based on engagement dimensions and outcomes. It seeks to comprehend the relationship between engagement level and factors such as age, years of service and employment grade.

Using latent profile analysis (LPA), we identified five EE profiles (highly engaged, engaged, moderately engaged, disengaged and highly disengaged). These five profiles were characterized by five EE dimensions (Culture Dimensions, Leadership Dimensions, People Process, Business alignment Dimension and Job Dimension) and EE outcomes (Say, Stay and Strive).

The study revealed that Engaged profiles exhibited low stay outcomes. The highest percentage of disengaged employees fall under 25 years of age with less than 5 years of experience and are at the entry level.

The study highlights the significance of the people processes dimensions in enhancing engagement. Profiles with low people process dimensions showed high disengagement. Person-centered LPA adds and complements variable-centered approach to develop a better understanding of EE and help organizations devise more personalized strategies. The study would be of interest to both academics and practitioners.

The novelty of this study lies in its attempt to model the employee profiles to comprehend the relationship between engagement levels using LPA.