Social work practice involves acknowledging the interconnection between the personal and professional. Organizations hiring Indigenous staff are responsible to recognize the lived experience that comes with being an Indigenous person. Critical reflections of who benefits in an employment relationship are important to address issues of tokenization and exploitation. The language of ‘lived experience’ is most commonly used in the social work field to imply that a professional has experienced trauma, hardship, and systemic violence similar to individuals receiving or accessing services. In the context of a helping role, ‘lived experience’ is better represented by ‘healing experience’ because it recognizes the responsibilities of leadership and staff in ensuring supports are healing-focused. Anti-oppressive, decolonizing, and Indigenist methods were used to speak with Indigenous staff who self-identified lived experience similar to the people who access services to learn how supervisors and organizational leadership can provide helpful support. The findings contributed to a supervision model based in the buffalo teachings of sharing, reciprocity, and valuing each aspect of a person as the starting place for relationship and good work. Building on this knowledge, changing the language from lived experience to healing experience offers a shift in the philosophical approach to recruitment and supervision. Each conversation naturally aligned with a quadrant of the Medicine Wheel where tangible insights into practice are shared into the spiritual, physical, emotional, and mental aspects of the self in an employment context. This study accounts for the non-Indigenous researcher’s personal journey to this topic, the importance of developing and contributing to the success of Indigenous social workers, and the ways organizations are responsible to their workforce beyond minimum legislated requirements. / Graduate

Organizations within the field of social work readily use systematic and technical tools in order to manage risk and safety when operating in a preventative work manner. The approach taken when managing both risk and safety is largely informed by an instrumental perspective. The relational factor to be considered here is co-worker support and its relevance in social workers' psychosocial work environments. However, this factor is not as clearly visible in risk prevention work ongoing in social work organizations. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine the significance of co-worker support and its impact on social workers' psychosocial work environments. The main research questions are: What does co-worker support consists of? What factors are needed to create co-worker support? Finally, what is the significance co-worker support has on social workers' psychosocial work environments?  The results show that co-worker support is significant in social workers' psychosocial work environments as it leads to better work outcomes and working efficiency. Furthermore, social workers within organizations with greater co-worker support experienced a higher degree of job satisfaction and positive health outcomes. What became clear is that organizational leadership and managers are responsible for creating a psychosocial work environment where the conditions necessary to create co-worker support are present.

Leadership is recognized as a crucial element for successfully introducing, implementing andinstitutionalizing change for sustainability. However, it is unclear which purposes, people and processes, regarded as core components of leadership, drive sustainability and how they do it. The objective of this thesis is to investigate how organizational leadership for sustainability can be conceptualized in terms of purposes, people and processes driving sustainability. Addressed research questions are: How is sustainability and leadership viewed and approached by organizational leaders? Which purposes, people and processes drive leadership for sustainability in organizations? How are these purposes, people and processes related in driving leadership for sustainability? To answer these questions, research data has been collected through a case study, primarily through 16 interviews with leaders in different companies who have explicit responsibility for sustainability. The findings suggest that: Purposes that drive leadership for sustainability are many. On an organizational level, a central driver is to meet stakeholder expectations, which in turn may create various business benefits. On an individual level, a core driver is the personal engagement of wanting to do something meaningful by contributing to sustainability and to the personal development of other people. People who drive leadership for sustainability have very mixed backgrounds and are associated with a wide range of abilities and qualities. However, the abilities to coordinate and to shift from silo thinking to systems thinking stand out. Combining generalist competences in systems thinking and coordination with specialist competences within environmental, social and economic dimensions suggests that key competences needed to drive sustainability could be described as M-shaped competences. Processes that drive leadership for sustainability can be described in terms of including elements from a wide range of leadership theories, such as transformational, ethical, shared and emergent leadership. Elements of many different leadership theories seem needed to understand what leadership for sustainability means and how it effectively can be approached. Based on these findings, the overall conclusion is that the 3Ps purposes, people, processes play important roles in driving sustainability. Linking these 3Ps of leadership with the 3Ps of sustainability planet, people, profit into the 6Ps of leadership for sustainability seem to provide a valuable lens or framework for analyzing and understanding organizational leadership for sustainability as it highlights central aspects that seem essential to balance and clarify in order to drive sustainability. / Ledarskap anses vara en avgörande faktor för att framgångsrikt införa, implementera och institutionalisera förändring för hållbarhet. Däremot är det oklart vilka syften, människor och processer, betraktade som centrala delar av ledarskap, som driver hållbarhet och hur de gör det. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka hur ledarskap för hållbarhet i organisationer kankonceptualiseras i termer av syften, människor och processer som driver hållbarhet. Studiens forskningsfrågor är: Hur uppfattas hållbarhet och ledarskap av ledare i organisationer? Vilka syften, människor och processer driver ledarskap för hållbarhet i organisationer? Hur är dessa syften, människor och processer relaterade i att driva ledarskap för hållbarhet? För att besvara dessa frågor har forskningsdata samlats in genom en fallstudie, främst genom 16 intervjuer med ledare i olika företag som har ett uttalat ansvar för hållbarhet. Resultaten tyder på att: Syftena som driver ledarskap för hållbarhet är många. På organisationsnivå är en central drivkraft att möta intressentförväntningar, vilket i sin tur kan skapa olika typer av  affärsnytta. På individnivå är en central drivkraft det personliga engagemanget att vilja göra något meningsfullt genom att bidra till hållbar utveckling och till andra människors personliga utveckling. Människorna som driver ledarskap för hållbarhet har mycket blandade bakgrunder och är förknippade med ett brett spektrum av förmågor och egenskaper. Men förmågan att  amordna och att gå från sil tänkande till systemtänkande sticker ut. En kombination av generalistkompetenser inom systemtänkande och samordning med specialistkompetenser inom miljömässiga, sociala och ekonomiska dimensioner tyder på att en nyckelkompetens som behövs för att driva hållbarhet skulle kunna beskrivas som M-formade kompetenser. Processerna som driver ledarskap för hållbarhet kan beskrivas i termer av bland annat element från ett brett spektrum av ledarskapsteorier, såsom transformerande, etiskt, delat  ch framväxande ledarskap. Element från många olika ledarskapsteorier verkar behövas för att förstå vad ledarskap för hållbarhet innebär och hur det effektivt kan drivas. Baserat på dessa iakttagelser så är den övergripande slutsatsen att syften, människor, processer spelar en viktig roll i att driva en hållbar utveckling. Att länka dessa tre delar av ledarskap (eng. 3Ps purposes, people, processes) med de tre delarna av hållbarhet (eng. 3 Ps people, planet, profit) i ledarskap för hållbarhet (eng. 6Ps of leadership for sustainability) verkar vara en värdefull lins eller ram för att analysera och förstå ledarskap för hållbarhet i organisationer eftersom det belyser centrala aspekter som verkar vara viktiga för att balansera och driva hållbarhet.

Leaders of the U.S. government and U.S. organizations continue to seek information to mitigate risk and improve project deliverables in virtual environments. The problem addressed in this study was the rapid growth of technology in virtual workplaces that causes organizational leaders to concentrate on infrastructure and technology. The purpose of the exploratory case study was to understand the challenges virtual leaders encounter in the government environment that affect project delivery. The research questions were designed to examine the challenges virtual team leaders encounter while maintaining their roles and responsibilities to complete a project successfully in a timely manner. The theory of constraints was the framework used to address the problem of virtual leaders who struggle to complete project deliverables. Data were collected from 11 government virtual leaders via an online anonymous questionnaire and were triangulated via a reflective journal and notes from a checklist filled out by the participants who reviewed their own virtual team documents, logs, and recordings that served as firsthand knowledge. Data analysis led to several patterns and themes including communication, trust, and collaboration challenges for virtual leaders. Organizational leaders can use this study's findings to develop efficient and effective ways to engage with virtual leaders to achieve effective project deliverables and impact change in virtual environments in the 21st-century workplace.

This study explores the impact of organizational leadership and structure on sustainabledevelopment in financial organizations. It utilizes a deductive qualitative researchapproach with semi-structured interviews as the data collection method, collaboratingwith six large and prominent financial organizations in Sweden.The findings suggest that leadership and structure significantly impact sustainabledevelopment in financial organizations. The study found that leadership plays a crucialrole in promoting sustainability, while the organizational structure affects theimplementation and success of sustainable practices. The results also indicate that usingsustainable frameworks and integrating sustainability into the organizational culture isessential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.The study contributes new knowledge to organizational study on sustainable developmentin financial organizations. It also provides valuable insights for organizations,sustainability professionals, policymakers, scholars, and students interested insustainability, organizational structure, and leadership, as it could contribute to thetheoretical understanding of sustainable practices and provide a base for future researchin the field.

The COVID-19 pandemic placed greater demands on school leaders and caused ongoing disruption to teaching and learning. Faced with unprecedented challenges, school leaders have made critical changes in how they lead their school communities (Brinkmann et al., 2021). The study aimed to investigate the perceptions of elementary teachers within the United States concerning the identified leadership practices needed to cultivate teacher well-being before and during the global pandemic. A literature review revealed the commonalities in what highly effective principals do and their impact on student achievement (Grissom et al., 2021a). Researchers synthesized five practices of effective principals: instructional-focused interactions, building and fostering a productive school climate, facilitating collaboration, strategic management, and leading for equity (Grissom et al., 2021b). The study involved interviewing twelve elementary teachers' working in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The interview questions investigated the perceived leadership practices implemented by principals to foster teacher well-being before and during the pandemic. The research questions were as follows: (1) What leadership practices of elementary school principals do teachers perceive have positively impacted teacher well-being prior to the COVID-19 pandemic? (2) What leadership practices of elementary school principals do teachers perceive fostered teacher well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic? The outcomes of the study offered awareness of elementary teachers' perceptions of school leadership practices that cultivated teacher well-being before and during the global pandemic. / Doctor of Education / The COVID-19 pandemic caused many school districts to make rapid changes with little communication with teachers regarding instructional expectations. Educators faced unprecedented challenges, including shifting from in-person teaching to virtual learning and the uncertainty about their health and safety. The focus of research for this study included elementary teachers who taught for three or more years within the United States and during the pandemic. The qualitative study determined what twelve elementary school teachers perceived as the most effective leadership practices in cultivating teacher well-being during a global pandemic. This insight may be invaluable to a school leader's approach to leading teachers through a crisis. The study involved interviewing twelve elementary teachers from working in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The interview questions probed teacher perceptions and identified leadership practices that cultivate teacher well-being before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researcher identified five findings and four implications. The small sample size limited this study. Ensuring that teachers work is valued, their voices heard, and facilitating meaningful professional development are necessary to cultivate teacher well-being before and build a sustainable education system. Suggestions for future research include investigating the impact to teacher well-being over the course of a school year through interviews with building leaders and the teachers they serve and investigating teacher well-being and its impact on teacher retention and burnout.

The Council for Geoscience (CGS) is one of the National Science Councils of South Africa and is the legal successor to the Geological Survey of South Africa. The total staff complements numbered 291 as of March 2006, consisting of four executive managers, 18 unit managers, 124 professionals, 84 technicians, 41 administrative personnel, 17 unskilled labourers 3 skilled workers. The strength of the CGS is manifested in its core of competent geoscience and technical staff. The primary business of the CGS is science; therefore scientists, apart from human resources, finance and procurement, are appointed to senior positions in the organisation. The criteria for scientists to qualify for managerial positions are either a masters or doctorate degree in science. Although a sound knowledge of science is needed for these positions, the necessary managerial and leadership characteristics have never played a significant role in the appointment of unit leaders. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to determine the leadership style of the scientists that were appointed as unit leaders. Theories on leadership provide for a variety of potential explanations regarding effective leadership, including personal attributes, contingencies, and the role of subordinates. By analysing managerial leadership, it becomes important to consider and recognise the complex interplay among the structure of organisational life, patterns of behaviour, varied beliefs, values, interests, and initiatives of the individuals who create and work within this structure. Research on organisational leadership has grown systematically with the advance of industrialisation. Large work organisations are associated with bureaucratic and technological complexity that affects the demand for managers and the need for coordination and leadership roles. Leadership theories have evolved over time, becoming more sophisticated and even more applicable for their “innovation”. Different perspectives have featured throughout history. Theories of leadership are primarily analytical, directed at better understanding of the leadership process and the variations among them. The most up- to- date concept within leadership is the theory of transformational and transactional leadership. Transformational leadership comprises five factors — (1) idealised influence: attributed; (2) idealised influence: behaviour; (3) inspirational motivation; (4) intellectual simulation; and (5) individualised consideration — of which the first two factors refer to the concern, power, personal morality, and sacrifice of the leader, as well as his or her ability to instil collective pride in the group’s mission. The third factor relates to motivating the group to accomplish missions through challenging goals and by indicating certainty in areas of uncertainty, which, in turn, arouse individual and team spirit. The fourth factor refers to the leaders’ ability to relate at an individual level to the follower and the fifth factor to intellectual stimulation. Transactional leadership display behaviours associated with constructive and corrective transactions, and comprises three factors— (1) contingent reward leadership; (2) management-by-exception: active; and (3) management-by-exception: passive — of which relates to leaders who involve themselves only when things go wrong, i.e. the constructive style. Their interventions are associated with failure and punishment. The corrective style is labelled management-by-expectation: active, which refers to the closer involvement in monitoring the subordinates’ actions. Contingent reward leadership relates to rewards for work performance. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) has become a standard instrument for assessing a variety of transformational, transactional and non-leadership scales and was used to assess the leadership style of scientists of the Council for Geoscience. The instrument measures a broad range of leadership types: passive leaders, leaders who give contingent rewards to subordinates and leaders who transform their subordinates into leaders themselves. The objectives of the study were to (1) determine the leadership style of scientists in positions of unit leaders; (2) how their supervisors, peers and subordinates perceive their leadership style; and (3) whether scientists as unit leaders, perceive their own leadership style differently than do their supervisors, peers and subordinates. The MLQ instrument contains 45 items that identify and measure key leadership and effectiveness behaviours. A five point rating scale (0: 1: 2: 3: 4) is used for rating the frequency of observed leader behaviour where 0=not at all, and 4=frequently, if not always. The average scores of the MLQ questionnaire for the Council for Geoscience ranged from 2 to 3 on the transformational leadership factors. Participants in general perceive scientists in unit leader positions more as transformational leaders as apposed to transactional leaders. The 2.5 rating on transformational leadership indicates that the unit leaders are often influential in the awareness of what is important. The ratings of scientists as unit leaders were similar to the ratings of their peers and 'others'. Supervisors and subordinates, however, rated them lower. Transactional leadership ratings for the majority of leaders were between 2.0–3.0 on CR, and MBEA and 1.0–2.0 on MBEP. The ratings obtained, indicate that unit leaders would be seen as people wwho prefer to monitor and take action before failures occur. Supervisors, peers and others rated the scientists as unit leaders higher on transactional leadership, except for subordinates who rated them lower. Leaders are rated 0–1 on laissez-faire leadership style. Supervisors, peers and subordinates rated scientists as unit leaders higher on laissez-faire leadership style than the rating they gave themselves (self-rating). The low rating on the laissez-faire leadership style confirms that leaders do get involved in important issues and have a need to be involved in the decision-making process. Scientists as unit leaders, however, perceive themselves to be more involved than do supervisors and subordinates. Attribution ratings (extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) varied from 2.0–3.0. For attribution dimensions, supervisors and subordinates rated the scientists as unit leaders lower on extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction, whereas peers rated them higher. The satisfaction dimension indicates that unit leaders often work with others in a satisfactory way. For attribution dimensions, supervisors and subordinates rated the scientists as unit leaders lower on extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction, whereas peers rated them higher. Supervisors are less satisfied with the leaders than subordinates are. The results obtained from the MLQ questionnaire for the leadership style of scientists in the Council for Geoscience are slightly different from those of United States companies. The Council for Geoscience, compared with United States (US) companies, rated lower on both transformational leadership and attribution dimensions (extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) and higher on both transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. This seems to indicate that the Council for Geoscience tends to follow a less inspirational and influential leadership style with more objective setting and less satisfying methods of leadership, compared with US companies. Transformational leadership development is recommended for the scientists as unit leaders of the Council for Geoscience. It is important to note that false transformational leaders (seemingly transformational leaders with a self-absorbed tendency) should be distinguished from the genuine ones. Optimism and employee frustration can be used in future surveys by the Council for Geoscience to determine the progress of transformational leadership development in the organisation. The leadership of an organisation influences the organisational culture. Upper management is responsible for the implementation of the necessary changes to promote transformational leadership. The culture of an organisation is a reflection of upper management. If upper management does not realise the importance of transformational leadership, the chances for the rest of the organisation to promote a transformational leadership culture in the organisation are not good. One recommendation to consider is for the Council for Geoscience to employ people with adequate managerial skills in unit leader positions. These skills would include leadership traits, operational skills, financial skills, etc. A decision needs to be taken by the Council for Geoscience that when scientists are employed as unit leaders or as members of the upper management cadre, they must have adequate managerial and leadership skills, and all parties have to agree with the competency and be satisfied with the management styles. / Graduate School of Business Leadership / M.B.L.

The Council for Geoscience (CGS) is one of the National Science Councils of South Africa and is the legal successor to the Geological Survey of South Africa. The total staff complements numbered 291 as of March 2006, consisting of four executive managers, 18 unit managers, 124 professionals, 84 technicians, 41 administrative personnel, 17 unskilled labourers 3 skilled workers. The strength of the CGS is manifested in its core of competent geoscience and technical staff. The primary business of the CGS is science; therefore scientists, apart from human resources, finance and procurement, are appointed to senior positions in the organisation. The criteria for scientists to qualify for managerial positions are either a masters or doctorate degree in science. Although a sound knowledge of science is needed for these positions, the necessary managerial and leadership characteristics have never played a significant role in the appointment of unit leaders. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to determine the leadership style of the scientists that were appointed as unit leaders. Theories on leadership provide for a variety of potential explanations regarding effective leadership, including personal attributes, contingencies, and the role of subordinates. By analysing managerial leadership, it becomes important to consider and recognise the complex interplay among the structure of organisational life, patterns of behaviour, varied beliefs, values, interests, and initiatives of the individuals who create and work within this structure. Research on organisational leadership has grown systematically with the advance of industrialisation. Large work organisations are associated with bureaucratic and technological complexity that affects the demand for managers and the need for coordination and leadership roles. Leadership theories have evolved over time, becoming more sophisticated and even more applicable for their “innovation”. Different perspectives have featured throughout history. Theories of leadership are primarily analytical, directed at better understanding of the leadership process and the variations among them. The most up- to- date concept within leadership is the theory of transformational and transactional leadership. Transformational leadership comprises five factors — (1) idealised influence: attributed; (2) idealised influence: behaviour; (3) inspirational motivation; (4) intellectual simulation; and (5) individualised consideration — of which the first two factors refer to the concern, power, personal morality, and sacrifice of the leader, as well as his or her ability to instil collective pride in the group’s mission. The third factor relates to motivating the group to accomplish missions through challenging goals and by indicating certainty in areas of uncertainty, which, in turn, arouse individual and team spirit. The fourth factor refers to the leaders’ ability to relate at an individual level to the follower and the fifth factor to intellectual stimulation. Transactional leadership display behaviours associated with constructive and corrective transactions, and comprises three factors— (1) contingent reward leadership; (2) management-by-exception: active; and (3) management-by-exception: passive — of which relates to leaders who involve themselves only when things go wrong, i.e. the constructive style. Their interventions are associated with failure and punishment. The corrective style is labelled management-by-expectation: active, which refers to the closer involvement in monitoring the subordinates’ actions. Contingent reward leadership relates to rewards for work performance. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) has become a standard instrument for assessing a variety of transformational, transactional and non-leadership scales and was used to assess the leadership style of scientists of the Council for Geoscience. The instrument measures a broad range of leadership types: passive leaders, leaders who give contingent rewards to subordinates and leaders who transform their subordinates into leaders themselves. The objectives of the study were to (1) determine the leadership style of scientists in positions of unit leaders; (2) how their supervisors, peers and subordinates perceive their leadership style; and (3) whether scientists as unit leaders, perceive their own leadership style differently than do their supervisors, peers and subordinates. The MLQ instrument contains 45 items that identify and measure key leadership and effectiveness behaviours. A five point rating scale (0: 1: 2: 3: 4) is used for rating the frequency of observed leader behaviour where 0=not at all, and 4=frequently, if not always. The average scores of the MLQ questionnaire for the Council for Geoscience ranged from 2 to 3 on the transformational leadership factors. Participants in general perceive scientists in unit leader positions more as transformational leaders as apposed to transactional leaders. The 2.5 rating on transformational leadership indicates that the unit leaders are often influential in the awareness of what is important. The ratings of scientists as unit leaders were similar to the ratings of their peers and 'others'. Supervisors and subordinates, however, rated them lower. Transactional leadership ratings for the majority of leaders were between 2.0–3.0 on CR, and MBEA and 1.0–2.0 on MBEP. The ratings obtained, indicate that unit leaders would be seen as people wwho prefer to monitor and take action before failures occur. Supervisors, peers and others rated the scientists as unit leaders higher on transactional leadership, except for subordinates who rated them lower. Leaders are rated 0–1 on laissez-faire leadership style. Supervisors, peers and subordinates rated scientists as unit leaders higher on laissez-faire leadership style than the rating they gave themselves (self-rating). The low rating on the laissez-faire leadership style confirms that leaders do get involved in important issues and have a need to be involved in the decision-making process. Scientists as unit leaders, however, perceive themselves to be more involved than do supervisors and subordinates. Attribution ratings (extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) varied from 2.0–3.0. For attribution dimensions, supervisors and subordinates rated the scientists as unit leaders lower on extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction, whereas peers rated them higher. The satisfaction dimension indicates that unit leaders often work with others in a satisfactory way. For attribution dimensions, supervisors and subordinates rated the scientists as unit leaders lower on extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction, whereas peers rated them higher. Supervisors are less satisfied with the leaders than subordinates are. The results obtained from the MLQ questionnaire for the leadership style of scientists in the Council for Geoscience are slightly different from those of United States companies. The Council for Geoscience, compared with United States (US) companies, rated lower on both transformational leadership and attribution dimensions (extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) and higher on both transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. This seems to indicate that the Council for Geoscience tends to follow a less inspirational and influential leadership style with more objective setting and less satisfying methods of leadership, compared with US companies. Transformational leadership development is recommended for the scientists as unit leaders of the Council for Geoscience. It is important to note that false transformational leaders (seemingly transformational leaders with a self-absorbed tendency) should be distinguished from the genuine ones. Optimism and employee frustration can be used in future surveys by the Council for Geoscience to determine the progress of transformational leadership development in the organisation. The leadership of an organisation influences the organisational culture. Upper management is responsible for the implementation of the necessary changes to promote transformational leadership. The culture of an organisation is a reflection of upper management. If upper management does not realise the importance of transformational leadership, the chances for the rest of the organisation to promote a transformational leadership culture in the organisation are not good. One recommendation to consider is for the Council for Geoscience to employ people with adequate managerial skills in unit leader positions. These skills would include leadership traits, operational skills, financial skills, etc. A decision needs to be taken by the Council for Geoscience that when scientists are employed as unit leaders or as members of the upper management cadre, they must have adequate managerial and leadership skills, and all parties have to agree with the competency and be satisfied with the management styles. / Graduate School of Business Leadership / M.B.L.

Den kvalitativa studiens syfte var att undersöka ledarskapets betydelse för arbetsmotivationen. Tio semistrukturerade intervjuer genomfördes. Dessa analyserades genom en induktiv tematisk analys som resulterade i fyra huvudteman. Arbetets motivationsfaktorer, med de tillhörande underteman syftet med arbetet, frihet, utveckling och utmaning, samt lönens betydelse. Organisationsledarskap, handlade om att ha insyn och riktning, samt styrning. Chefsegenskaper beskrevs utifrån två underteman närvaro och stöd, samt tillit. Motiverande arbetsbeteende om medarbetares identifikation med organisationen. Resultaten går i linje med tidigare forskning och visar sammantaget att olika ledarskapsbeteenden upplevs influera medarbetarnas arbetsmotivation. Inre- och yttre motivationsfaktorer, samt olika ledarskapsegenskaper upplevdes också vara en väsentlig del av arbetsmotivationen. / The purpose of the qualitative study was to examine the importance of leadership for work-motivation. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted. These were analyzed through an inductive thematic analysis which resulted in four main themes. The factors of work motivation, resulted in four sub-themes, the purpose of the work, freedom, development and challenges, as well as the meaning of the salary. Organizational leadership was about having insight, direction and steering. The manager characteristics was described on the basis of two sub-themes which were presence and support, as well as trust. Motivating work behavior and identification with the organization. The results are in line with the previous research and together showed that different leadership behaviors can influence work-motivation. Internal- and external motivation, and various leadership qualities, were also perceived to be an essential part of work-motivation.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This study compares what we know through academic research about organizational leadership communication and what non-academic sources say about leadership communication. Moreover, this study seeks to understand if academic leadership communication research is effectively being translated to non-academic leadership communication advice and to what degree the advice given in the self-help books or blogs many leaders count on to enhance their leadership communication skills align with the findings from academic studies on leadership. Based on grounded theory, a qualitative thematic content analysis was conducted. Six academic articles, two blog sites, and two self-help books about leadership communication were analyzed individually in an attempt to explore what themes emerged about leadership communication and the qualities of a leader. The five nonacademic themes found in the blogs and self-help books were take care of yourself, embrace uncertainty, know who you are, practice interdependence, and be approachable. The four academic themes were two-way communication, organizational culture, confident leadership, and transformational leadership. The final themes from nonacademic and academic sources were compared to see how they were similar and how they differed among sources.