Sustainable leadership as a source of professional well-being

In the current working life discussion, there is an ongoing debate about who is ultimately responsible for the employee well-being at work (hereafter referred to as professional well-being) – the employer organization or the employees themselves. The question arises as to how employees can influence their professional well-being if the workload is too heavy or if the working conditions are way too demanding – either physically, psychologically or socially. And conversely, how can employers support the well-being of their employees if they become passive victims of demanding circumstances?

Answers and perspectives to the above questions can be found, for example, in research evidence showing that leadership (Inceoglu et al. 2018; Kuoppala et al. 2008) and especially sustainable leadership (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej 2022) can help employers create favourable conditions for professional well-being.  Sustainable leadership emphasizes balancing economic performance with social responsibility and environmental stewardship (Liao 2022).

A key feature that defines sustainable leadership is long-term orientation (Avery & Bergsteiner 2011). The pursuit of short-term quick wins rarely delivers sustainable solutions for anyone – individual, organization or planet. Sustainable leadership can therefore be thought of as a balancing act between the conflicting interests of different internal and external stakeholders (Liao 2022), of which employees can be defined as one of the most important stakeholder groups. Without capable and well-being employees, an organization will eventually cease to exist. In the following, sustainable leadership is considered from the perspective of professional well-being. 

Avery and Bergsteiner (2011) structure sustainable leadership in the form of a pyramid (see picture below). From the perspective of professional well-being, valuing people is at the heart of sustainable leadership. Valuing people is reflected in sustainable human resource practices such as long-term retention of staff, internal succession planning and continuous personnel development. These foundation practices communicate to personnel that their contribution is valued, and that the organization wants to keep them on board. In Liaos’ (2022) literature review, the consequences of sustainable leadership at the individual level were job satisfaction, commitment and trust in organization, and responsible and pro-environmental behavior.

‍

^{Image Source:
‍Institute for Sustainable Leadership. SL Pyramid. Retrieved September 19, 2024, from https://instituteforsustainableleadership.com/research/tools/sl-pyramid/.}

‍

The basic idea behind Avery and Bergsteiner’s pyramid is that the foundation practices support and enable higher-level practices found on the second layer of the pyramid. These higher-level practices focus on decentralized decision-making, empowering self-managed employees, leveraging team dynamics, fostering trust, cultivating an organizational culture conducive to sustainable leadership, and effectively managing knowledge within the organization. While the foundation level describes rather concrete sustainable leadership practices, the higher level focuses on creating a sustainable culture of well-being, which is built through leadership interaction in everyday work. The emphasis here is on creating an environment where employees have autonomy and support to manage their own tasks and responsibilities, which has a key impact on employee well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Empowering employees is also about trusting them and setting clear objectives for their work.

So, what does sustainable leadership mean in practice? Sustainable leadership develops gradually through experience, as leaders broaden their focus beyond organizational goals to include social well-being and environmental protection (Liao 2022). Sustainable leadership is often associated with transformational leadership, where positive effects on professional well-being are achieved by increasing personal resources, reducing work demands, providing resources, and motivating effective use of resources (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2022). The balance between work demands and resources is essential for professional well-being (Bakker & Demerouti 2007). Job resources and demands are not always in balance, as there are situations in everyday work where there is a rush, and the workload is heavy. However, in the long run, balance should be found so that the employee does not become overwhelmed by the workload. Leadership can directly impact job demands and job resources, which are critical factors in professional well-being and performance (Tummers & Bakker, 2021). 

Increasing job resources can mean, for example, a better opportunity to influence one's own work, more varied tasks, support from the supervisor and colleagues, feedback and recognition, or simply more appropriate and effective tools. Reducing demands, on the other hand, can mean reducing the workload or the time pressure involved, resolving role conflicts, or sharing responsibility for results of work. A sustainable leader can influence these things, but the most important thing is to be present, approachable and genuinely interested, and especially to listen and hear what the employees have to say. This underlines the importance of interpersonal skills for sustainable leadership. 

Employees can also tune their work on their own initiative, e.g. through job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton 2001), to support their professional well-being. Job crafting can mean, for example, calming down your working time for concentration by silencing the notifications of various systems and applications or listening to pleasant music while working. It has also been shown (Tims et al. 2023) that allowing employees to craft their work has a positive impact on their well-being. Leaders should therefore support opportunities for job crafting. Sustainable leaders can also contribute to the wider implementation of sustainable behaviours.

Going back to the question posed at the beginning of this article; who is responsible for professional wellbeing? Responsibility can be seen as shared; both the employer organization and the employees are responsible for creating an organizational culture that supports professional well-being. There are many opportunities for organizations to support and enable professional well-being through sustainable leadership. However, achieving professional well-being also requires the active agency of employees.

‍

Authors:
‍Maarit Laiho, Mervi Varhelahti, Irina Katajisto-Korhonen, Marion Karppi (Turku UAS)

‍

References:

Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business resilience and performance. Strategy & Leadership, 39(3), 5-15.

Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.

Inceoglu, I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D., & Gerbasi, A. (2018). Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 179-202.

Iqbal, Q., & Piwowar-Sulej, K. (2022). Sustainable leadership, environmental turbulence, resilience, and employees' wellbeing in SMEs. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 939389.

Kuoppala, J., Lamminpää, A., Liira, J., & Vainio, H. (2008). Leadership, job well-being, and health effects—a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 50(8), 904-915.

Liao, Y. (2022). Sustainable leadership: A literature review and prospects for future research. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 1045570.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of occupational health psychology, 18(2), 230.

Tummers, L. & Bakker, A. (2021). Leadership and Job Demands-Resources Theory: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:722080.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of management review, 26(2), 179-201.

‍

Publication Date: 23.09.2024