Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

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/well-being.

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/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.

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 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.

中文翻译：

---

积极主动的领导：理清压力、复原力、领导风格和领导满意度/幸福感之间的关系

目的

本研究旨在分析领导韧性、领导风格、压力和生活满意度之间的关系。它反映了一个新兴的理论框架，该框架将复原力定位为一种可以发展的能力，而不是一种由先天特征驱动的反应机制。

设计/方法/方法

为了检验三个研究假设，我们使用横断面相关研究设计从美国大学的 101 名 EMBA 校友那里收集了在线调查数据。使用多元线性回归分析结果。作者使用标准化清单评估了复原力、领导风格、压力和满意度/幸福感。

发现

结果支持了先前的研究，该研究确定了复原力和积极领导力之间的重要关系。然而，这项研究的独特之处在于发现工作过程行为（例如时间管理、合作、接受能力）而不是特质（例如乐观、自尊、控制点）是与积极领导风格最相关的弹性因素。工作过程技能与压力水平显着相互作用，以适度的领导风格。此外，积极的领导风格缓和了压力生活事件对领导者满意度/幸福感的影响。

研究限制/影响

主要限制是样本量和共同方法偏差的风险。尽管采取了许多程序步骤来控制这些问题，但未来的研究需要更大、更多样化的样本。

实际影响

组织压力无处不在，韧性越来越被认为是一项基本的领导技能。本研究提供的实证数据记录了复原力、建设性领导力和领导者满意度/幸福感之间的积极关系。该研究还将工作过程行为（例如时间管理、合作和接受能力）确定为与在压力时期保持积极领导行为相关的主要弹性因素。这些结果支持了先前的研究结果，这些研究结果将弹性定位为一种可以开发的能力，为投资于领导者的弹性培训提供了进一步的支持。

原创性/价值

这项研究通过比以前的研究更全面地分析复原力，为文献做出了贡献。它使用 160 项清单评估了四个离散的复原力领域，将复原力的理论理解扩展到了特质之外。研究结果支持了培养领导者过程技能以提高弹性的重要性；因此，增加概率，他们将在重大压力时模拟建设性的领导行为。