Abstract
Introduction:
Constructing positive and supportive relationships is fundamental for healthy workers and healthy organizations and to cope with the current challenging work scenario. Organizations need to acknowledge the relevance of the relationships for workers and organizational well-being and adopt managing practices that enhance healthy relationships for sustainability and sustainable development.
Methods:
The current research sought to investigate the associations between positive relational management (PRM) and human capital sustainability leadership (HCSL), taking into account personality traits. The big five questionnaire (BFQ), the PRM Scale (PRMS), and the HCSL Scale (HCSLS) were administered to 191 Italian workers.
Results:
Findings displayed that PRM was able to add incremental variance over personality traits referring to HCSL.
Discussion:
In terms of strength-based prevention perspectives for healthy organizations, PRM may be a favorable construct linked to HCSL.
Introduction
The current era is marked by a challenging work landscape with incessant ongoing transitions (Peiró et al., 2014), endangering the workers’ well-being (Di Fabio and Kenny, 2016b; Blustein et al., 2019). Constructing positive and supportive relationships is fundamental for healthy workers, healthy business, and healthy organizations (Di Fabio et al., 2020) in the current challenging scenario. Organizational environments need to recognize the value of the relationships for workers and organizational well-being (Blustein, 2011), as well as for reducing dysfunctional work-related correlates, such as occupational fatigue (Di Fabio et al., 2021), perfectionism (Di Fabio et al., 2022) fostering relevant assets (Di Fabio and Palazzeschi, 2012; Di Fabio et al., 2017; Palazzeschi et al., 2018; Duradoni and Di Fabio, 2019; Gori et al., 2022; Svicher et al., 2022a,b). It asks for incorporating managing practices that enhance healthy relationships for sustainability and sustainable development (Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018). In this framework the value of innovative leadership styles for Sustainability Science is recognized (Di Fabio, 2017a). The human capital sustainability leadership (HCSL; Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018) is an actual concept developed in the field of the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development (Di Fabio, 2017b; Di Fabio and Rosen, 2018) that introduces the psychological perspective as a lens to better understand processes related to the sustainable developmental goals issues (Di Fabio and Rosen, 2018), contributing to the trans-disciplinarity of the sustainability science (Rosen, 2009; Dincer and Rosen, 2013). This style of leadership is based on a higher order model (including sustainable, ethical, mindful, servant leadership) that aims at promoting flourishing and resilient workers and at enhancing healthy organizations implementing a positive circuit of performance and long-term well-being (Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018).
In the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development framework it is recognized the importance of the strength-based prevention approach (Di Fabio and Saklofske, 2021), also considering primary prevention actions (Hage et al., 2007; Di Fabio and Kenny, 2015, 2016a), with a focus on enhancing positive resources increasable through trainings, unlike traits of personality usually considered more fixed (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Centering on positive resources for workers (Di Fabio et al., 2020) turned out to be essential for promoting healthy organizations. In this framework, managing positive relationships at work could be crucial for healthy and sustainable organizations (Di Fabio, 2017a, 2017b).
Relationships and relational experiences at work emerged as crucial aspects for successful performances (Kenny et al., 2003; Blustein, 2006). With reference to the relational theory of working (Blustein, 2011) and the Psychology of Working Framework and Theory (Blustein, 2013; Duffy et al., 2016), work is considered as an inherently relational act. The relational interactions among workers might therefore be regarded as essential aspects, emphasizing the relevance of generating positive circumstances to sustain optimal social connections in organizational settings in terms of flourishing relationships (Blustein et al., 1995; Blustein, 2013; Di Fabio, 2016). The goal should therefore be to facilitate individuals in building lives via work and relationships (Di Fabio and Blustein, 2016) with a positive-oriented approach which emphasizes the value of constructing positive relationships and support in the work environments (Di Fabio, 2017a). Positive relationships are a fundamental factor for the well-being of individuals (Blustein, 2011) and promoting positive relationships can increase well-being at work also fostering characteristics of decent work (Svicher et al., 2022a).
The relevance of a condition of well-being of human resources at work includes improving workers’ opportunities to be able to adapt themselves to the shifting conditions and fluidity of the contemporary scenario (Di Fabio and Gori, 2016a, 2016b; Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018). In this current framework the value of positive relational management (PRM) emerged (Di Fabio, 2016). The construct of PRM (Di Fabio, 2016) is a strength for relational positive and productive adaptation to the context. It is constituted of three factors namely Respect, Caring, and Connectedness (Di Fabio, 2016). Each factor is evaluated considering the balance between the individual and others including reciprocity in relationships (Di Fabio, 2016). Thus, PRM goes beyond the traditional idea of social support, conceiving respect, caring, and connectedness as arising from the balance in and the reciprocity of three specific areas of self-perceptions: (1) The individual for other people; (2) the other people for the individual; (3) the individual for him/herself (Di Fabio, 2016; Di Fabio and Saklofske, 2019). In this way, PRM is configured as a promising resource in strength-based prevention perspectives (Di Fabio and Saklofske, 2021) as well as in a primary prevention approach (Di Fabio and Kenny, 2015).
HCSL (Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018) is a novel higher-order construct. It goes beyond the classic concept of sustainable leadership by placing itself in an integrated positive direction. HCSL incorporates other contemporary aspects of leadership relevant to the functioning and growth of human capital, in line with a psychological and sustainable point of view (Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018). This current construct emphasizes healthy workers and healthy organizations as characterized by success and sustained by the positive circuit of long-term well-being and performance. Its higher-order structure integrates the new concept of sustainability leadership with ethical leadership, mindful leadership, and servant leadership (Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018). Sustainability leadership aspires to create sustainable learning conditions. It develops rather than exhausts human resources, supports workers in their development, and identifies resources, excluding the superfluous in critical aspects of work. Ethical leadership aims to promote fair goals, align actions with ideals, and enforce ethical standards. It empowers organization members, encouraging kindness, compassion, and care for others. Mindful leadership regards comprehension of collaborators, anticipating their requests, and being aware of their limitations and strengths. It recognizes the importance of managing personal emotions, especially in stressful situations. Finally, servant leadership recognizes the moral responsibility of the leader toward collaborators. It supports and assists them in identifying their needs and interests. In this perspective, all the leadership styles enclosed in HCSL involve the awareness of oneself and others, balancing different intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational aspects. These aspects of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational awareness are based on an in-depth understanding of oneself and integrating the self in relationships. It is therefore promising to examine the potential of the relationships between PRM and such a current construct as HCSL. Furthermore, it has been established that personality traits, such as those contained in the Big Five personality model, have a significant relationship with a wide variety of human behaviors (Keefer et al., 2018), also showing a relationship with an array of leadership styles (e.g., Judge et al., 2002; Özbağ, 2016; Parr et al., 2016). Thus, it could be relevant to control for the effects of personality traits and verify whether PRM also explains additional variance beyond personality traits in relation to HCSL. It adds to the importance of PRM since it is conceived to be increased via specific training (Di Fabio, 2016; Di Fabio and Kenny, 2016a; Di Fabio and Kenny, 2016b), differently from personality traits considered essentially stable (Ferguson, 2010).
According to the delineated framework, the present study aimed at analyzing the associations between PRM and HCSL, taking into account personality traits. Specifically, the following hypotheses were formulated:
H1: A PRM and HCSL will be positively associated.
H2: In the relationship between PRM and HCSL, PRM will increase the percentage of explained variance in addition to the variance explained by personality traits.
Materials and methods
Participants
One hundred and ninety-one workers from Central Italy (49.21% males and 50.79% females; mean age = 44.97 years, SD = 12.71) participated in the study.
Measures
Big five questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara et al., 1993): a self-report questionnaire composed of 132 items ranging from 1 = “Absolutely false” to 5 = “Absolutely true”. It measures five personality traits: extraversion (example of item: “It’s easy for me to talk to people I do not know”); agreeableness (example of item: “I almost always know how to meet the needs of others”); conscientiousness (example of item: “Before submitting an assignment, I spend a lot of time reviewing it”); emotional stability (example of item: “Usually it does not happen to me to react exaggerated even to strong emotions”); and openness (example of item: “Every novelty fascinates me”) (Caprara et al., 1993). Cronbach’s alphas reliability coefficients were from 0.75 (Openness) to 0.90 (Emotional stability).
PRM Scale (PRMS; Di Fabio, 2016): 12-item self-report scale ranked between 1 “Strongly disagree” and 5 = “Strongly agree”; Cronbach’s alphas reliability coefficients ranged from 0.80 (Caring) to 0.81 (Connectedness). PRMS comprises three factors: respect, caring and connectedness. Example of item are for the respect (e.g., “I have respect for the value and uniqueness of others”), caring (e.g., “Others often take care of me”), and connectedness (e.g., “I keep a balance in my relationships between family, friends and significant others”; Di Fabio, 2016).
HCSL Scale (HCSLS; Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018): 16-item self-report questionnaire with response format ordered from 1 = “None” to 5 = “Very much”. Examples of items are: “I act by giving an example of doing tasks in an ethically correct manner” (ethical leadership); “I create sustainable learning conditions that I take care to preserve” (sustainable leadership); “I put myself in the shoes of my co-workers when they are doing tasks” (mindful leadership); and “I encourage my collaborators when I realize that they encounter difficulties” (servant leadership; Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018). Cronbach’s alpha 0.94.
Procedure
The administration of the self-rating scales was conducted collectively by specialized personnel, asking for written and informed consent according to privacy Italian laws (DL-196/2003; EU 2016/679). The sequence of the instruments’ administration was counterweighted to account the presentation order effects.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s r correlations, and the hierarchical regression were conducted through SPSS software.
Results
Table 1 shows Pearson’s r correlations among BFQ, PRMS and HCSLS.
Table 1
| M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Extraversion | 74.92 | 10.24 | - | ||||||||
| 2. Agreeableness | 78.15 | 10.28 | 0.12 | - | |||||||
| 3. Conscientiousness | 83.14 | 10.77 | 0.45** | 0.20** | - | ||||||
| 4. Emotional stability | 69.42 | 14.07 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.26** | - | |||||
| 5. Openness | 81.19 | 9.87 | 0.40** | 0.48** | 0.46** | 0.27** | - | ||||
| 6. Respect | 16.19 | 2.53 | 0.27** | 0.20** | 0.25** | 0.24** | 0.22** | - | |||
| 7. Caring | 14.53 | 2.58 | 0.20** | 0.10 | 0.15* | 0.16* | 0.07 | 0.51** | - | ||
| 8. Connectedness | 17.10 | 2.80 | 0.13 | 0.27** | 0.18* | 0.10 | 0.24** | 0.50** | 0.48** | - | |
| 9. HCSLS | 65.93 | 8.89 | 0.32** | 0.26** | 0.27** | 0.14* | 0.30** | 0.44** | 0.31** | 0.45** | - |
Correlations among big five questionnaire, positive relational management scale and human capital sustainability leadership scale.
N = 191. * < 0.05, ** < 0.01. HCSLS, human capital sustainability leadership scale.
In Table 2 the findings of hierarchical regression conducted using the HCSL as dependent variable are reported. At step 1, Personality traits explained the 17% of the variance; at step 2, the PRMS dimensions increased 16% of the variance. Overall, the model explained the 33% of the variance.
Table 2
| HCSLS β | |
|---|---|
| Step 1 | |
| Extraversion | 0.22** |
| Agreeableness | 0.18* |
| Conscientiousness | 0.10 |
| Emotional stability | 0.05 |
| Openness | 0.06 |
| Step 2 | |
| Extraversion | 0.17* |
| Agreeableness | 0.09 |
| Conscientiousness | 0.06 |
| Emotional stability | 0.01 |
| Extraversion | 0.04 |
| Respect | 0.21* |
| Care | 0.01 |
| Connectedness | 0.28** |
| R 2 step 1 | 0.17*** |
| ΔR2 step 2 | 0.16*** |
| R 2 total | 0.33*** |
Hierarchical regression: contribution of personality traits (big five questionnaire) and positive relational management scale in relation to human capital sustainability leadership scale.
N = 191; * < 0.05, ** < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. HCSLS, human capital sustainability leadership scale.
Discussion
The current research sought to analyze the relationships between PRM and HCSL, taking into account personality traits. A statistically significant and positive association was observed between PRM and HCSL (H1), also after controlling for personality traits (H2), confirming the hypotheses of this research. The dimensions of PRM that particularly emerged related to HCSL are Connectedness followed by Respect. The findings highlighted that the aspects of PRM of workers relative to connectedness and reciprocity with others and respect (for others, of others for me, for myself; Di Fabio, 2016) were related to a leadership style centered on healthy people as resilient and flourishing workers (Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018). These results emphasize positive relationships characterized by connectedness and the positive constellation of respect towards others, of others towards me and my respect towards myself at the workplace are associated with a higher HCSL style. Overall, these results underlined the value of PRM in relation to HCSL in organizations (Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018). Furthermore, since Connectedness and Respect emerged as PRM dimensions mainly associated with HCSL, these two dimensions could be assessed with attention in research and intervention aimed at studying and fostering PRM to promote HCSL. It could also be relevant for the accountability framework, which encourages researchers to use evidence-based methodologies to ensure a balance in cost-effectiveness (Whiston, 1996, 2001). Tailored strategy focused on specific dimensions could be a promising strategy for decreasing the time and costs of research and intervention (Whiston, 1996, 2001).
Limits and conclusion
This study has some limits. Participants were workers of Central Italy not representative of all Italian workers. In future research, workers of different Italian regions should be involved to examine the relationships between the constructs included in this study. Furthermore, it could be worthy to replicate this research in international contexts also cross-culturally. A further limit is relative to the cross-sectional design of the research that calls for future longitudinal research. Future studies could expand the knowledge concerning the associations between PRM and HCSL, for example, investigating the moderating or the mediating role of PRM on the relationship between personality traits and HCSL, with a particular focus on the Respect and Connectedness dimensions.
Even though these limits and the necessity of additional research, these results expand the literature highlighting the role of PRM in contributing to HCSL. If the findings of this study are confirmed, new opportunities for interventions will emerge regarding HCSL. Preventive perspectives underline the relevance of managing positive relationships (Di Fabio, 2016) to enhance both relationality (Blustein, 2011) and respectivity (Maree, 2012) for flourishing of people in work and life contexts (Di Fabio, 2014). Furthermore, in strengths-based prevention (Di Fabio and Saklofske, 2021) as well as in primary prevention perspectives (Hage et al., 2007), PRM could have a preventive value in relation to a leadership style that promote human resources sustainability and sustainable development (Di Fabio and Peiró, 2018).
Both PRM and HCSL constitute precious resources for building well-being at the workplace (Cartwright and Cooper, 2014; Johnson et al., 2018), and crucial assets to enable flourishing of healthy workers, healthy business, and healthy organizations (Di Fabio et al., 2020).
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Integrated Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Institute (IPPI). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
ADF conceptualized the paper, supervised and tutored AB. AB realized the investigation and run statistical analyses. LP and AS wrote the first draft of the paper. ADF, AG, and AS reviewed, edited, and wrote the final draft of the paper. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
Blustein D. L. (2006). The Psychology of Working: A New Perspective for Counseling, Career Development, and Public Policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2
Blustein D. L. (2011). A relational theory of working. J. Vocat. Behav.79, 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.004
3
Blustein D. L . (2013). “The psychology of working: A new perspective for a new era,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Working. ed. BlusteinD. L. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 3–18.
4
Blustein D. L. Kenny M. E. Di Fabio A. Guichard J. (2019). Expanding the impact of the psychology of working: engaging psychology in the struggle for decent work and human rights. J. Career Assess.27, 3–28. doi: 10.1177/1069072718774002
5
Blustein D. L. Prezioso M. S. Schultheiss D. P. (1995). Attachment theory and career development: current status and future directions. Couns. Psychol.23, 416–432. doi: 10.1177/0011000095233002
6
Caprara G. V. Barbaranelli C. Borgogni L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire. 2nd Edn. Florence, Italy: Giunti O.S.
7
Cartwright S. Cooper C. L. (2014). “Towards organizational health: stress, positive organizational behavior, and employee well-being” in Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach. eds. BauerG. F.HämmigO. (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media), 29–42.
8
Costa P. T. McCrae R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
9
Di Fabio A. (2014). “The new purposeful identitarian awareness for the twenty-first century: valorize themselves in the life construction from youth to adulthood and late adulthood,” in The Construction of the Identity in 21st Century: A Festschrift for Jean Guichard. eds. FabioA. D.BernaudJ.-L. (Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publisher). 157.
10
Di Fabio A. (2016). Positive relational management for healthy organizations: psychometric properties of a new scale for prevention for workers. Front. Psychol.8:1938. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01938
11
Di Fabio A. (2017a). Positive healthy organizations: promoting well-being, meaningfulness, and sustainability in organizations. Front. Psychol.8:1938. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01938
12
Di Fabio A. (2017b). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front. Psychol.8:1534. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534
13
Di Fabio A. Blustein D. L. (2016). Editorial: from meaning of working to meaningful lives: the challenges of expanding decent work. Front. Psychol.7:1119. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01119
14
Di Fabio A. Cheung F. Peiró J.-M. (2020). Editorial special issue personality and individual differences and healthy organizations. Pers. Individ. Differ.166:110196. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110196
15
Di Fabio A. Gori A. (2016a). Assessing workplace relational civility (WRC) with a new multidimensional “mirror” measure. Front. Psychol.7:890. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00890
16
Di Fabio A. Gori A. (2016b). Developing a new instrument for assessing acceptance of change. Front. Psychol.7:802. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00802
17
Di Fabio A. Kenny M. E. (2015). The contributions of emotional intelligence and social support for adaptive career progress among Italian youth. J. Career Dev.42, 48–59. doi: 10.1177/0894845314533420
18
Di Fabio A. Kenny M. E. (2016a). From decent work to decent lives: positive self and relational management (PS&RM) in the twenty-first century. Front. Psychol.7:361. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00361
19
Di Fabio A. Kenny M. E. (2016b). Promoting well-being: the contribution of emotional intelligence. Front. Psychol.7:1182. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01182
20
Di Fabio A. Palazzeschi L. (2012). Organizational justice: personality traits or emotional intelligence? An empirical study in an Italian hospital context. J. Employ. Couns.49, 31–42. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1920.2012.00004.x
21
Di Fabio A. Palazzeschi L. Bucci O. (2017). Gratitude in organizations: a contribution for healthy organizational contexts. Front. Psychol.8:2025. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02025
22
Di Fabio A. Peiró J. M. (2018). Human capital sustainability leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: a new scale. Sustainability10:2413. doi: 10.3390/su10072413
23
Di Fabio A. Rosen M. A. (2018). Opening the black box of psychological processes in the science of sustainable development: a new frontier. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev.2:47. doi: 10.20897/ejosdr/3933
24
Di Fabio A. Saklofske D. (2019). Positive relational Management for Sustainable Development: beyond personality traits—the contribution of emotional intelligence. Sustainability11:330. doi: 10.3390/su11020330
25
Di Fabio A. Saklofske D. H. (2021). The relationship of compassion and self-compassion with personality and emotional intelligence. Pers. Individ. Differ.169:110109. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110109
26
Di Fabio A. Saklofske D. H. Gori A. Svicher A. (2022). Perfectionism: a network analysis of relationships between the big three perfectionism dimensions and the big five personality traits. Pers. Individ. Differ.199:111839. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111839
27
Di Fabio A. Svicher A. Gori A. (2021). Occupational fatigue: relationship with personality traits and decent work. Front. Psychol.12:742809. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.742809
28
Dincer I. Rosen M. A. (2013). Exergy Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development. 2nd Edn.Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers.
29
Duffy R. D. Blustein D. L. Diemer M. A. Autin K. L. (2016). The psychology of working theory. J. Couns. Psychol.63, 127–148. doi: 10.1037/cou0000140
30
Duradoni M. Di Fabio A. (2019). Intrapreneurial self-capital and sustainable innovative behavior within organizations. Sustainability11:322. doi: 10.3390/su11020322
31
Ferguson C. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of normal and disordered personality across the life span. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.98, 659–667. doi: 10.1037/a0018770
32
Gori A. Topino E. Svicher A. Schuldberg D. Di Fabio A. (2022). Insight orientation scale: a promising tool for organizational outcomes–a psychometric analysis using item response theory. Front. Psychol.13:987931. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987931
33
Hage S. M. Romano J. L. Conyne R. K. Kenny M. Matthews C. Schwartz J. P. et al (2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. Couns. Psychol.35, 493–566. doi: 10.1177/0011000006291411
34
Johnson S. Robertson I. Cooper C. L. (2018). Wellbeing: Productivity and Happiness at Work. 2nd Edn.Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
35
Judge T. A. Bono J. E. Ilies R. Gerhardt M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. J. Appl. Psychol.87, 765–780. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
36
Keefer K. V. Parker J. D. A. Saklofske D. H. (2018). “Emotional intelligence, stress, and health: when the going gets tough, the tough turn to emotions” in An Introduction to Emotional Intelligence. eds. PooleL. D.QualterP. (Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, The British Psychological Society), 161–183.
37
Kenny M. E. Blustein D. L. Chaves A. Grossman J. M. Gallagher L. A. (2003). The role of perceived barriers and relational support in the educational and vocational lives of urban high school students. J. Couns. Psychol.50, 142–155. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.142
38
Maree J. G. (2012). Editorial. Promoting children’s rights: rekindling respectively. S. Afr. J. Psychol.42, 295–300. doi: 10.1177/008124631204200301
39
Özbağ G. K. (2016). The role of personality in leadership: five factor personality traits and ethical leadership. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci.235, 235–242. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.019
40
Palazzeschi L. Bucci O. Di Fabio A. (2018). Re-thinking innovation in organizations in the industry 4.0 scenario: new challenges in a primary prevention perspective. Front. Psychol.9:30. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00030
41
Parr A. D. Lanza S. T. Bernthal P. (2016). Personality profiles of effective leadership performance in assessment centers. Hum. Perform.29, 143–157. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2016.1157596
42
Peiró J. M. Ayala Y. Tordera N. Lorente L. Rodríguez I. (2014). Bienestar sostenible en el trabajo: revisión y reformulación. Pap. Psicól.35, 5–14.
43
Rosen M. A. (2009). Energy sustainability: a pragmatic approach and illustrations. Sustainability1, 55–80. doi: 10.3390/su1010055
44
Svicher A. Di Fabio A. Gori A. (2022a). Decent work in Italy: a network analysis. Aust. J. Career Dev.31, 42–56. doi: 10.1177/10384162221089462
45
Svicher A. Gori A. Di Fabio A. (2022b). Work as meaning inventory: a network analysis in Italian workers and students. Aust. J. Career Dev.31, 130–148. doi: 10.1177/10384162221110361
46
Whiston S. C. (1996). Accountability through action research: research methods for practitioners. J. Couns. Dev.74, 616–623. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb02301.x
47
Whiston S. C. (2001). Selecting career outcome assessments: an organizational scheme. J. Career Assess.9, 215–228. doi: 10.1177/106907270100900301
Summary
Keywords
human capital sustainability leadership, positive relational management, personality traits, healthy organizations, healthy workers, healthy business, sustainable development, strength-based prevention perspectives
Citation
Di Fabio A, Bonfiglio A, Palazzeschi L, Gori A and Svicher A (2023) Human capital sustainability leadership: From personality traits to positive relational management. Front. Psychol. 14:1110974. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1110974
Received
29 November 2022
Accepted
06 January 2023
Published
19 January 2023
Volume
14 - 2023
Edited by
Paola Magnano, Kore University of Enna, Italy
Reviewed by
Diego Boerchi, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Italy; Barbara Barbieri, University of Cagliari, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Di Fabio, Bonfiglio, Palazzeschi, Gori and Svicher.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Annamaria Di Fabio, ✉ annamaria.difabio@unifi.it
†ORCID: Annamaria Di Fabio, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5150-1273Letizia Palazzeschi, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7970-2376Alessio Gori, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6867-2319Andrea Svicher, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5183-6113
This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.