Search results

This study aims to analyze 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.

To test three research hypotheses, online survey data were collected from 101 E.M.B.A. alumni of a US-based university using a cross-sectional, correlational research design. The results were analyzed using multiple linear regression. The authors assessed resilience, leadership style, stress and satisfaction/well-being using standardized inventories.

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/well-being.

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.

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/well-being. 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.

This research contributes to the literature by analyzing resilience more comprehensively than previous studies. It extends the theoretical understanding of resilience beyond traits using an 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.

The purpose of this mixed methods research study was to explore the relationships between spirituality, leader resiliency and life satisfaction/well-being.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Drawing on the case of the recent Belgian law on the “sharing economy,” this chapter develops a critique of the dominant discourse of platform-mediated work as fostering the inclusion of individuals belonging to historically underrepresented groups (e.g., women with caring roles, people living in remote areas, individuals with disabilities, etc.) into the labor market. Exempting platform-mediated employment from social contributions and substantially lowering taxation, the law facilitates platform-based crowdsourcing firms’ predatory business model of capital valorization. The author argues that this business model rests precisely on the externalization of the costs of the social reproduction of this “diverse” labor through its precarization. These costs are not only externalized to individual workers, as often held. They are also externalized to the Belgian welfare state, and thus ultimately both to taxpayers and firms operating through classical business models, which fund the welfare state through taxation and social security contributions. For this reason, the debate surrounding platform-based employment might paradoxically provide a historical opportunity for recovering the Belgian tradition of social dialog between employers’ associations and trade unions. The author concludes by identifying key foci for action to ensure a better protection of workers of crowdsourcing firms including classifying them as employees, revising the conditions of access to social security protection, inclusive union strategies, the leveraging of technology to enforce firm compliance, and fostering counter-narratives of firms’ accountability toward society.