Leadership and well-being of employees in the Nordic countries: A literature review

1Introduction

Traditionally, the importance of leadership in organisations has been studied in relation to performance measurement indicators such as earnings, efficiency, productivity, and quality [1, 2]. In recent years the interest in studies of how managerial leadership influences employee well-being in the workplace has grown considerably [3]. Previous research has investigated how managers indirectly coordinate and encourage different kinds of activities that promote well-being (e.g., participation in wellness activities) [4], and how managers can create work environments that are conducive to employee well-being, for example, through how the work is organised [4, 5]. However, studies of how leaders can promote well-being among employees through their direct behaviour and leadership style constitute a relatively new research field and the clearer connection to well-being or the framing of a health perspective has not yet been fully explored in empirical studies [4, 6, 7].

Previous literature reviews and meta-analyses [8–14] of the existing empirical findings have concluded that there is an association between leadership styles and various measures of well-being. For example, these studies show that transformational leadership [8–11, 13], high rates of task- and relationship-oriented leadership [8–10, 12], and high-quality interactions between leaders and employees are associated with employees’ well-being [10–12], either directly or indirectly through other factors. In addition, the most recent literature review by Inceoglu et al. [14] explored positive leadership behaviour and leadership styles relative to employee well-being. However, in their review, they only included empirical studies investigating mediators. The review demonstrated that it is often positive forms of well-being (e.g. job satisfaction) that have been studied, with a particular focus on mental or emotional well-being, and less of a focus on physical well-being. The review further found that primarily neo-charismatic leadership, such as transformational leadership [15], had been studied in relation to employee well-being, such as job satisfaction. The relationship between leadership and well-being was mediated by social cognitive (e.g. perceived competence) or relational mediators (e.g. social support). Interestingly, none of the critiques of transformational leadership from prominent scholars in the field [16–18] was brought up in the review. We argue it is important to not only examine the potential associations between leadership and well-being, but also the theoretical foundation of the research in relation to the context in which it was conducted.

When taken together, the previous attempts at reviewing the state of art in the field points to several problems with the existing empirical research [8–14]. Much of the research is still cross-sectional making it impossible to distinguish the direction of the relationship, and more high-quality longitudinal studies, with data from several different sources, is called for. Moreover, there has been little attention given to understanding the process of how leadership affects well-being, and on the role of context in the relationship between leadership and well-being. The focus in previous research has often been on establishing a relationship between leadership and well-being, and there is a need for more knowledge regarding how context influence this relationship [3]. The need for more qualitative studies and the use of standardised instruments has also been emphasised [10]. A better understanding of why, for whom, and when leadership is important is needed, and not merely how strong this relationship is[3, 10].

Despite this common concern for more knowledge about the influence of context, it is striking that previous literature reviews have not included qualitative studies that may capture contextual aspects more easily, even though this has been suggested for several years [10]. Furthermore, previous reviews have not clarified how the empirical studies have related to the fact that the studies were conducted in certain environments and with certain participants. Previous reviews have hardly paid attention to the samples of the reviewed studies, i.e., who has participated in the research, from which organisations, professions, and countries.

In this paper, we address the above critique of previous literature reviews by conducting a review of empirical findings related to a specific context – a Nordic working life context. Our intent is to examine how this context have been accounted for in previous research, and draw attention to how the Nordic context may increase our understanding of the relationship between leadership and well-being. This specific context was chosen for several reasons. First, the context is fairly delineated because the Nordic countries share a common cultural-historical background, with similar social values and a labour market characterised by long-term, consensus-based relationships and inter-corporate networks between its various actors [19–21]. Moreover, the Nordic working life is characterized by the presence of relatively powerful labour unions, a high union density, and the resolution of conflicts in the form of collective agreements between unions and employers. Second, leadership in Nordic countries has been highlighted as being different, emphasising participation, collaboration and self-governance to a higher extent than other cultural contexts [22–24]. In the Swedish leadership model Developmental Leadership [25], which is heavily influenced by Bass’s notion of transformational leadership [26], the concept of charisma has been replaced by inspiration because it appears to induce negative ideas of the leader being superior in the Scandinavian leadership culture [27]. Third, in the Nordic countries, there are also similar, and rather strong, legislation regarding the work environment which requires managers in organisations to work with systematic occupational health and safety reviews [28–30]. Fourth, the previous reviews have shown an availability of empirical studies of leadership and well-being stemming from the Nordic countries. The Nordic countries thus seem to be a sufficiently delimited region and where research relevant to this review has been carried out.

The purpose of this paper is to carry out a literature review of previous research that empirically examines the importance of leadership for well-being in a Nordic working life context.

The following research questions guided our review:

2Method

To answer the research questions, a rapid review was conducted according to Grant and Booth’s classification [31]. The structuring of the review of the papers was staged [32] and guided by the steps for a systematic review proposed in Prisma [33, 34].

First, the content, focus and limitations of the review were established in accordance with the study purpose and research questions. Next, criteria were formulated for which studies to include during the search and review processes. The inclusion criteria were: a) the studies should focus on working life and workplace contexts; b) they should be carried out in a Nordic context; c) they should explore leadership in terms of styles, behaviours, roles and similar concepts or synonyms; d) and they should focus on the relationship between leadership and employee well-being in the workplace (health factors). The studies were also required to be e) scientific articles in international, peer-reviewed (academic) journals; f) written in English; and g) containing empirical material. Studies that did not meet the criteria for inclusion were excluded.

The searches were conducted in Scopus and Web of Science and produced 4566 unique studies (Fig. 1). Searches were also conducted in Emerald and Business Source but this search yielded no additional studies. Search terms used to capture leadership and well-being were: leadership or leader* behavior* or leader* style* or leader* skills or supervisor* behavior* or LMX or manager* behavior* AND well being or wellbeing or work* health or employ health* or occupational health or subordinate health or healthy employee* or healthy work*. All searches were conducted in August 2020.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of the identification process based on PRISMA.

The studies were screened based on title and abstract, after which 716 were selected for a review of relevance based on the inclusion criteria for the literature review. Studies that included both positive and negative (salutogenic and pathogenic) indicators of well-being were included, but the focus of this literature review is only on the positive outcomes. For example, a study might investigate leadership in relation to job satisfaction and perceived stress, but the review only includes the results of the relationship between leadership and job satisfaction. The relationship between leadership and well-being was not the main focus of some of the qualitative studies, but studies with findings that at least partly address this relationship were considered relevant. As health and well-being are complex terms that may be defined differently, it was decided to include studies as long as they were not apparently pathogenic, and as long as the authors of the paper themselves considered the outcome to be well-being or health. After reviewing the downloaded full texts for relevance, 50 studies met the inclusion criteria.

These 50 studies underwent a quality assessment based on recognised protocols for quantitative [35, 36] and qualitative studies [37]. Each study was reviewed and graded on a set of quality criteria, resulting in a three-point quality assessment: low, medium-high, or high quality. The quantitative protocol consisted of ten questions (e.g. Was the statistical methodology appropriate for the research question and study design? Are the results interpreted correctly?). The qualitative protocol consisted of five headings with accompanying questions: purpose, selection, data collection, analysis and results. For example, under the heading purpose, one question was: Is the study based on a well-defined problem/question? Of a total of 43 quantitative studies reviewed for quality, 35 were assessed as high or medium-high quality. A common cause for exclusion due to low quality was insufficient statistical processing (e.g. potential confounders were not considered). Of a total of seven qualitative studies reviewed for quality, five were assessed as high or medium-high quality. Thus, a total of 40 studies were included in the review.

The quantitative studies assessed as high or medium-high quality underwent analysis. In the analysis process, all studies were read, and tables were compiled with key information relevant for this literature review. These descriptions can be found in the results section of the literature review, and conclusions are drawn based on these descriptions. This procedure is called narrative synthesis [37].

The qualitative articles were analysed in sequential order, one step at a time. After an initial reading, basic information about the paper, such as journal, country, purpose, etc., was collected. Thereafter, an inductive conventional content analysis [38] of the findings of the papers was carried out. The results, discussion and conclusions were carefully read and, based on this reading, preliminary categories were created from each article. In this step, each article was summarised with a focus on the content and validity of the findings. In the last step, the authors discussed the relationships between the preliminary categories, leading to the identification of overarching categories that were addressed to some degree in most of the included articles.

Each step of the literature review was performed by at least two authors to increase reliability.

3Results

The papers were published between 2008 and 2020, and most were published in the last four years (25 papers). Papers with a quantitative approach will be presented first, followed by those with a qualitative approach. The section for the quantitative papers is structured based on the leadership perspective used in the studies. The section for the qualitative studies starts with a summary of each study and then presents overall patterns found.

4Discussion

This literature review has studied research investigating leadership behaviours that contribute to well-being in the workplace in a Nordic working life context.

To summarize, a direct significance of leadership for employees’ well-being was found in 28 of the quantitative studies. Most studies that investigated the indirect significance of leadership found that this relationship was mediated by other factors. The qualitative studies also emphasised indirect leadership with similar factors to those found in the quantitative studies. These factors concerned the work tasks and conditions for completing them, as well as the social climate and environment in the workplace or the organisation. These factors are consistent with the factors identified in previous literature reviews [14]. Thus, the results of this literature review together with previous literature reviews demonstrate that leadership has significance for well-being among employees, but primarily via other factors in the work environment or the individual. Some connections are made to the Nordic working life context in the reviewed studies, but these connections are not fully elaborated.

The 40 analysed studies used different leadership theories but the Full Range of Leadership Model clearly dominates the field, albeit with only one of the model’s three styles: transformational leadership. It could be the case that certain leadership behaviours are directly related, and others are indirectly related to well-being, but this has not been adequately explored, as it is rare for multiple leadership styles or behaviours to be studied at once. The studies in which different health outcomes were used in relation to mediators provide some insight. In some studies, such as that carried out by Munir et al. [47], transformational leadership was directly related to job satisfaction, while the relationship with well-being was mediated. The association may simply differ depending on what is being measured. Previous literature reviews have also called attention to this [11, 13, 14].

Concerning problems with the theoretical foundation of transformational leadership, and how it has been applied in the included studies, this review can point to several issues. First, it is problematic that the quantitative studies investigated transformational leadership as an overarching style without breaking it down into its four leadership behaviours. Second, it is also problematic that, apart from one paper, the studies did not investigate transformational leadership in relation to the entire theory, the Full Range of Leadership Model (FRLM), which also includes transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership. This is the case even though the author of the theory considers it a comprehensive theory [39] and other researchers [87] have shown that a combination of transformational and transactional behaviours may be preferable depending on the situation. This theoretical selection may therefore be questionable because the researchers are studying individual styles without a clear theoretical basis for how they are related (also see Arnold [13] for similar criticism). Third, it is important to note that most of the studies included no critique of FRLM. Earlier research has demonstrated methodological shortcomings and the fact that the theory overemphasises the role of the leader and fails to note the significance of employees’ roles as co-creators of leadership has also garnered criticism [16, 17, 88, 89].

Several of the studies used broad theories such as FRLM as their starting points, and consequently, it is very difficult to determine how leadership promotes well-being, and what a manager or leader should actually do, based on the studies’ findings. In other words, it is difficult to transform the results of the quantitative studies into practical action, because the investigated theories are too abstract. The results of the qualitative studies may therefore complement the quantitative studies and clarify the behaviours more precisely. However, the reviewed qualitative studies have other shortcomings, primarily regarding the scope of the results. While the descriptions of leadership are closer to reality in terms of how it is performed, the significance of a few respondents’ experiences of their respective organisations can be questioned. There is also reason to be cautious regarding the qualitative studies that make assertions about the kind of leadership that promotes employee well-being. More specifically, these studies have not investigated the actual outcome in terms of whether employee well-being has indeed been impacted by leadership.

The significance of context for the relationship between leadership and well-being is another problematic aspect. Studying intervening factors, such as mediators, is certainly a step towards contextualising the phenomenon, but collectively, the contextual framework is still underdeveloped in the included studies, especially in the quantitative studies. This problem has also been addressed in earlier literature reviews [9–14]. The lack of context in the studies is problematic because the unique aspects of the study material are neither analysed nor problematised, and knowledge of how organisational factors (such as work environment policies) or national factors (such as the Swedish model, the Co-Determination in the Workplace Act [MBL], or work environment provisions [19–21]) shape the relationship is rendered invisible. Of the quantitative studies in this review, only two [42, 49] related their findings to the Nordic context. There is therefore a risk that too much focus will be placed on individual leaders in the form of their leadership when, in actuality, the focus should be on the organisation. Furthermore, most leadership theories used in the studies were developed in a North American context but were applied relatively uncritically in a Nordic context. The risk of theoretical reproduction thus becomes imminent, i.e. North American theories are confirmed in a Nordic context because the unique aspects of the Nordic context are not factored in. An example of this is that few studies discussed the significance of the population from which the data had been collected. As demonstrated by the results of the review, the material in many of the studies was from the social services sector and the respondents were predominantly female. In other words, there is a potential risk of bias.

Contextual aspects may be more easily captured in the qualitative studies, especially when they are analysed inductively, as they do not have to start from or limit themselves to these typically North American-influenced theories. In the reviewed studies, however, the problem is rather reversed, as several behaviours were identified but without any developed theory or explicit connections to the Nordic context. The qualitative studies did, however, show several common patterns. The behaviours of leaders and managers identified in the qualitative studies as promoting employees’ well-being largely recur in the leadership theories and scales for leadership used in the quantitative studies, such as transformational leadership [26, 39]. However, the qualitative studies identified the need for leadership that is adapted to the prevalent situation, a theme that was rarely found in the quantitative studies. These findings suggest that leaders are expected to be available and to provide active help and support to employees, while also being sufficiently distanced to provide space and a mandate, and not to interfere. This could be a case where the Nordic context shines through, in terms of Scandinavian leadership as noted in one of the studies [86]. Here, once again, it is problematic that the quantitative studies do not go into sufficient depth, for instance, by considering situational moderators or applying a design with frequent measuring. It could be the case that some leadership behaviours are important in certain situations, while others are more important in different ones.

Although previous literature reviews [8–14] have pointed out similar shortcomings in research about the importance of leadership for employee well-being, this review makes several new contributions. First, a contribution is made by including both quantitative and qualitative studies, where the previous reviews only included quantitative, as has been requested previously [10]. In this way, more perspectives are incorporated and provide a broader picture of the phenomenon. Second, this review focuses on contextual considerations made in the studies in the research field, something that has not received thorough examination before. Previous literature reviews [8, 10–14] have highlighted the need for further studying moderators of the relationship between leadership and well-being, but our review shows that the lack of contextual considerations in previous studies also clarifies the theoretical problems that exist when applying theories to different cultural contexts. Third, a contribution with this review compared to previous reviews [8–14] is thus the critique that is directed not only at methods used in previous research in the field but also the choice of and practical application of leadership theory.

5Conclusions

The studies included in this literature review suggest that leadership is related to employee well-being, although this relationship seems to be indirect, mediated by other factors in the working environment. Transformational leadership and supportive leadership seem to have associations with employee well-being, especially in relation to work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction and work engagement. Further, relationship-oriented and democratic leadership, characterised by a leader who motivates and inspires employees, who is available and listens to employees, and who simultaneously shows trust in employees’ abilities by giving them responsibility, space and codetermination may also promote employee well-being.

The fact that the research was carried out in the Nordic countries was only considered to a limited extent, both in terms of included variables and in the discussion of the research results. This lack of consideration for the Nordic context is problematic as potentially unique aspects of the study material is rendered invisible. Leadership that is adapted to the prevalent situation in terms of leaders being available while simultaneously showing trust in employees and giving them space and a mandate is a theme found primarily in the qualitative studies. Thus, quantitative and qualitative methods together provide a clearer picture of the kinds of leadership behaviours that promote well-being, especially in the Nordic working life context.

The literature review also demonstrates a need for more research in the field. To obtain a better understanding of the relationship between leadership and well-being and how such leadership should be exercised in practice, the significance of context must be studied more, and different kinds of specific leadership behaviours must be compared. More longitudinal studies that use and combine material from different sources and apply different theoretical perspectives are needed.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.