Vol. 19, n. 1, febbraio 2026
STUDI E RICERCHE
Human capital sustainability leadership nei lavoratori: dai tratti di personalità all’empatia e alla compassione
Letizia Palazzeschi1
Sommario
Questo studio ha esaminato le relazioni tra empatia e Human Capital Sustainability Leadership (HCSL) e le relazioni tra compassione e Human Capital Sustainability Leadership, controllando per entrambe per i tratti di personalità. Centoquarantanove lavoratori italiani hanno compilato il Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), l’Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), la Compassion Scale (CS) e la Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale (HCSLS). I risultati hanno mostrato che sia l’empatia sia la compassione spiegano una percentuale di varianza incrementale in relazione alla HCSL oltre ai tratti di personalità. Questi risultati suggeriscono la rilevanza dell’empatia e della compassione in una leadership orientata alla promozione della sostenibilità del capitale umano.
Parole chiave
Empatia, Compassione, Human Capital Sustainability Leadership, Tratti di Personalità.
Studies and Research
Human Capital Sustainability Leadership in Workers: From Personality Traits to Empathy and Compassion
Letizia Palazzeschi2
Abstract
This study examined the relationships between empathy and human capital sustainability leadership, and the relationships between compassion and human capital sustainability leadership, both controlling for the effect of personality traits. One hundred and forty-nine Italian workers were administered the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), the Compassion Scale (CS), and the Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale (HCSLS). The results showed that both empathy and compassion explained additional variance in HCSL beyond personality traits. These findings suggest the relevance of empathy and compassion in leadership aimed at promoting human capital sustainability.
Keywords
Empathy, Compassion, Human capital sustainability leadership, Personality traits.
Introduction
In recent years, the strategic importance of sustainable development of human resources has increasingly been recognized as a crucial aspect in enhancing healthy organizations (Di Fabio, 2017a, 2024; Di Fabio et al., 2020; Peiró et al., 2019, 2021) also within the current framework of the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development (PSSD) (Di Fabio, 2017b, 2021; Di Fabio & Cooper, 2023; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018, 2023; Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018, 2020; Rosen & Di Fabio, 2023). This emerging field, embedded within the broader transdisciplinary domain of sustainability science (Komiyama & Takeuchi, 2006; Sahle et al., 2025; Takeuchi et al., 2017), introduces the value of psychological lenses in our understanding of how sustainable development can be effectively achieved and maintained (Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018; Peiró, 2025).
Leadership can play a crucial role in shaping organizational environments that foster human capital sustainability (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018). Leadership is increasingly viewed as a key aspect through which sustainability principles can be translated into organizational practices (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023). Within PSSD area, the construct of human capital sustainability leadership (HCSL) (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018) was developed. The HCSL is centered «on healthy people as flourishing and resilient workers, and on healthy organizations as thriving and successful environments characterized by the positive circle of long-term wellbeing and performance» (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018, p. 11). The HCSL is a higher order construct that includes: ethical, sustainable, mindful, and servant leadership.
Ethical leadership emphasizes fairness, justice, and integrity, guiding leaders to align their behavior with shared values, make just decisions, and demonstrate respect for others. Sustainable leadership is oriented toward long-term effectiveness, promoting ongoing learning, the development of human resources, and the appreciation of diversity. Mindful leadership highlights awareness of the present moment and emotional regulation, enabling leaders to remain grounded and attentive to their impact, particularly in high-pressure situations. Servant leadership prioritizes the development and wellbeing of followers, being grounded in genuine concern and an ethical commitment that goes beyond the mere pursuit of organizational objectives. HCSL is an advanced kind of leadership worthy as formal leadership for managerial roles but also as informal leadership for other roles in organizations (Peiró et al., 2023). An informal leader refers to a member of a group who gains recognition from others for their capacity to encourage, influence, and guide colleagues in work-related activities despite lacking a formal position of authority (Lawson et al., 2020). Within this perspective, the HCSL framework (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018) highlights the central role of interpersonal relationships with co-workers in supporting and maintaining informal leadership. HCSL is thus an advanced vertical leadership style for managers but also a horizontal leadership style for other roles in organizations, supporting productive relatedness and performances within organizational contexts (Peiró et al., 2023).
In the literature, there are studies of HCSL with variables such as workplace relational civility (Di Fabio & Gori, 2021), emotional intelligence (Di Fabio & Svicher, 2021), positive relational management (Di Fabio et al., 2023), and intrapreneurial self-capital (Palazzeschi & Di Fabio, 2025), controlling for the effect of personality traits. Personality traits do not exhaust the explanation of HCSL. Other resources that include relational and emotional aspects could emerge as having an incremental role. For this reason, empathy and compassion could be also introduced as promising resources in relation to HCSL.
Empathy is commonly defined as a multidimensional construct that involves both cognitive and affective processes, enabling individuals to understand and share others’ internal states (Davis, 1980). According to this perspective, empathy encompasses the ability to adopt another person’s point of view as well as emotional responses oriented toward others’ experiences. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980) operationalizes empathy through four dimensions: Fantasy, indicating the tendency to imaginatively immerse oneself in the emotions and behaviors of fictional characters portrayed in books, films, and theatrical works; Empathic concern, reflecting other-oriented feelings of compassion and concern; Perspective taking, referring to the cognitive tendency to adopt others’ viewpoints; and Personal comfort, capturing self-focused comfort in response to others’ suffering.
Research has suggested that empathy can play a beneficial role in leadership (Holt & Marques, 2012; Muss et al., 2025). Empathy enables leaders to understand and respond to the needs of team members, consider diverse viewpoints during problem-solving, and actively involve others in decision-making processes (Tzouramani, 2016). Defined as the capacity to adopt others’ perspectives and experience feelings of warmth and concern for them (Davis, 1980), empathy may be positively related to human capital sustainability, which emphasizes a supportive and people-centered orientation that acknowledges and addresses collaborators’ needs (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018).
Regarding compassion, Goetz et al. (2010) emphasized that this construct is multifaceted, and can be distinguished from related states based on differences in cognitive appraisals, emotional experiences, physiological reactions, and the behavioral tendencies activated when responding to others’ suffering. Building on this perspective, Strauss et al. (2016), through a comprehensive review of the compassion literature, further underlined the construct’s multidimensional nature. Their findings identified five core components of compassion: 1) Recognizing suffering; 2) Understanding the universality of suffering as part of the human experience; 3) Emotionally connecting with and understanding the feelings of those who suffer; 4) Tolerating uncomfortable emotions elicited by suffering in order to remain open to others’ pain; 5) Acting, or being motivated to act, to alleviate suffering. Strauss et al. (2016) also systematically reviewed existing compassion measures, assessing their psychometric properties. They concluded that none of the available scales adequately captured all five dimensions of compassion, and that many instruments demonstrated weak or insufficiently evaluated psychometric qualities. In response to these limitations, Gu et al. (2017) developed the Compassion Scale (CS), designed to assess the five fundamental dimensions of compassion identified in the literature and used in this study.
Compassion represents a valuable resource in healthy organizations (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2021) and also in relation to leadership resource for addressing the complex challenges of the twenty-first century (Ashta et al., 2024; Richard Marcel & Kamalanabhan, 2025; Ramachandran et al., 2024). Compassion (defined as the ability to recognize suffering, acknowledge its universality, emotionally connect with others, tolerate distressing emotions, and take action to reduce suffering, Gu et al., 2017) may be positively related to HCSL. In fact, HCSL refers to leadership behaviors that express care, kindness, and compassion, demonstrate awareness of one’s presence and its influence on others, and adopt a servant-oriented approach that identifies and addresses co-workers’ needs based on a sense of moral responsibility (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018).
To the best of our knowledge, in the literature, the HCSL has not yet been examined in relation to empathy and compassion. The aim of the present study is thus to examine the relationships between empathy and HCSL on the one hand, and relationships between compassion and HCSL on the other hand, both controlling for the effect of personality traits.
The hypotheses were formulated as follows:
- H1. A positive relationship will emerge between empathy and HCSL.
- H2. Empathy will account for an additional percentage of variance in HCSL beyond that explained by personality traits.
- H3. A positive relationship will emerge between compassion and HCSL.
- H4. Compassion will account for an additional percentage of variance in HCSL beyond that explained by personality traits.
Method
Participants
One hundred and forty-nine Italian workers with a mean age of 50.03 years (SD = 10.89). Among them, 47.00% males: 53.00% female.
Measures
Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara et al., 1993). It is composed of 132 items on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = Absolutely false to 5 = Absolutely true). The five dimensions are: Extraversion («I think I am an active and energetic person»), Cronbach’s alpha .81; Agreeableness («I understand when people need my help»), Cronbach’s alpha .71; Conscientiousness («I tend to be very thoughtful») Cronbach’s alpha .81; Emotional Stability («I do not often feel tense»), Cronbach’s alpha .90; and Openness («I am always informed about what is happening in the world»), Cronbach’s alpha .75.
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis 1980; Italian version Albiero et al., 2006) was used. The IRI is composed of 28 items on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Never true to 4 = Always true).
The measure has four dimensions: Fantasy («I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel») Cronbach’s alpha .83; Empathic concern («I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me») Cronbach’s alpha .86; Perspective taking («I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both») Cronbach’s alpha .84; and Personal comfort («In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease» – reverse item), Cronbach’s alpha .81.
Compassion Scale (CS, Gu et al., 2017; Italian version Di Fabio, 2019). It is composed of 22 items on a 7-point Likert scale response format (1 = Not at all true of me to 7 = Completely true of me). The scale has five dimensions: Recognizing suffering («I find it easy to recognize when someone is suffering or in need») Cronbach’s alpha .80; Understanding the universality of suffering («I know that everyone feels down») Cronbach’s alpha .81; Emotional connection («I don’t worry about other people’s problems» – reverse item) Cronbach’s alpha .82; Tolerating uncomfortable feelings («When I see someone feeling upset I feel so overwhelmed by my emotions that I find it difficult to help them» reverse item ) Cronbach’s alpha .80; and Acting to help/alleviate suffering («One of the activities that provides me with the most meaning to my life is helping others») Cronbach’s alpha .83.
Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale (HCSLS; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018). It is composed of 16 items on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = Not at all to 5 = Very much). Higher-order construct including four specific leadership styles: ethical («Being correct is important when we perform a task or a job»), sustainable («I leave out the superfluous by focusing the resources on the crucial aspects of work»), mindful («I recognize the value of my self-control to my employees, even in stressful situations»), and servant leadership («I encourage my collaborators when I realize that they encounter difficulties»). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the HCSLS was .94.
Procedure
The questionnaires were completed in group sessions, with participants giving informed consent before taking part. All procedures adhered to current Italian data protection and privacy regulations. To minimize possible order effects, the order of administration of questionnaires was counterbalanced among participants.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation analyses, and hierarchical regression techniques, performed with IBM SPSS Statistics.
Results
Table 1 shows the correlations among BFQ, IRI dimensions, and HCSLS.
Table 1
Correlations among BFQ, IRI Dimensions, and HCSLS
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
1. BFQ Extraversion |
_ |
|||||||||
|
2. BFQ Agreeableness |
.36** |
_ |
||||||||
|
3. BFQ Conscientiousness |
.33** |
.30** |
_ |
|||||||
|
4. BFQ Emotional stability |
.17* |
.33** |
.05 |
_ |
||||||
|
5. BFQ Openness |
.47** |
.49** |
.48** |
.15 |
_ |
|||||
|
6. IRI Fantasy |
.08 |
.17* |
.15 |
.09 |
.06 |
_ |
||||
|
7. IRI Empathic concern |
.03 |
.41** |
.07 |
.12 |
.25** |
.25** |
_ |
|||
|
8. IRI Perspective taking |
.14 |
.45** |
.12 |
.32** |
.24** |
.10 |
.58** |
_ |
||
|
9. IRI Personal comfort |
.25** |
.18* |
.31** |
.36** |
.35** |
.33** |
.19 |
.35** |
_ |
|
|
10. HCSLS |
.30** |
.48** |
.26** |
.22** |
.36** |
.02 |
.41** |
.46** |
.26** |
_ |
Note. N = 149. * < .05, ** < .01; BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index; HCSLS = Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with human capital sustainability leadership (HCSL) as the dependent variable (Table 2). Personality traits (BFQ) entered at step 1 explained 27% of the variance in HCSL. When empathy dimensions were added at step 2, the model remained significant and accounted for an additional 9% of the variance (total R² = .36).
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression. The Contribution of Personality Traits (BFQ) and Empathy Dimensions to Human Capital Sustainability Leadership
|
β |
|
|
Step 1 |
|
|
BFQ Extraversion |
.12* |
|
BFQ Agreeableness |
.22** |
|
BFQ Conscientiousness |
.11* |
|
BFQ Emotional Stability |
.10 |
|
BFQ Openness |
.10 |
|
Step 2 |
|
|
IRI Fantasy |
.05 |
|
IRI Empathic concern |
.20** |
|
IRI Perspective taking |
.20** |
|
IRI Personal comfort |
.02 |
|
R² step 1 |
.27*** |
|
ΔR² step 2 |
.09*** |
|
R² total |
.36*** |
Note. N = 149. ** p < .01. ***p < .001; BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index
Table 3 shows the correlations among BFQ, Compassion dimensions, and HCSLS.
Table 3
Correlations among BFQ, Compassion Dimensions, and HCSLS
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
|
1. BFQ Extraversion |
_ |
||||||||||
|
2. BFQ Agreeableness |
.36** |
_ |
|||||||||
|
3. BFQ Conscientiousness |
.33** |
.30** |
_ |
||||||||
|
4. BFQ Emotional Stability |
.17* |
.33** |
.05 |
_ |
|||||||
|
5. BFQ Openness |
.47** |
.49** |
.48** |
.15 |
_ |
||||||
|
6. CS Recognizing suffering |
.08 |
.32** |
.15 |
.04 |
.16* |
_ |
|||||
|
7. CS Understanding the universality of suffering |
.03 |
.32** |
.20* |
.08 |
.12 |
.43** |
_ |
||||
|
8. CS Emotional connection |
.04 |
.43** |
.25** |
.01 |
.36* |
.43** |
.30** |
_ |
|||
|
9. CS Tolerating uncomfortable feelings |
.10 |
.11 |
.20* |
.20* |
.20* |
.07 |
.01 |
28** |
_ |
||
|
10. Acting to help/alleviate suffering |
.22** |
.47** |
.08 |
.20* |
.25** |
.36** |
.29** |
.25** |
.20* |
_ |
|
|
11. HCSLS |
.30** |
.48** |
.26** |
.22** |
.36** |
.30** |
.24** |
.41** |
.14 |
.42** |
_ |
Note. N = 149. * < .05, ** < .01; BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; CS = Compassion Scale; HCSLS = Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with human capital sustainability leadership (HCSL) as the dependent variable (Table 4). Personality traits (BFQ) entered at step 1 explained 27% of the variance in HCSL. When compassion dimensions were added at step 2, the model remained significant and accounted for an additional 10% of the variance (total R² = .37).
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression. The Contribution of Personality Traits (BFQ) and Compassion Dimensions to Human Capital Sustainability Leadership
|
β |
|
|
Step 1 |
|
|
BFQ Extraversion |
.12* |
|
BFQ Agreeableness |
.22** |
|
BFQ Conscientiousness |
.11* |
|
BFQ Emotional Stability |
.10 |
|
BFQ Openness |
.10 |
|
Step 2 |
|
|
CS Recognizing suffering |
.06 |
|
CS Understanding the universality of suffering |
.01 |
|
CS Emotional connection |
.21** |
|
CS Tolerating uncomfortable feelings |
.07 |
|
CS Acting to help/alleviate suffering |
.23** |
|
R² step 1 |
.27*** |
|
ΔR² step 2 |
.10*** |
|
R² total |
.37*** |
Note. N = 149. ** p < .01. ***p < .001; BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; CS = Compassion Scale
Discussion
The present study aimed to analyze the associations between empathy and HCSL on the one hand, and relationships between compassion and HCSL on the other hand, both controlling for the effect of personality traits.
Empathy was positively associated with HCSL (H1) and added incremental variance beyond personality (H2). The finding of the present study suggests that empathy contributes to HCSL beyond personality traits, highlighting empathy as a socio-emotional resource for workers who possess an advanced leadership style (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018). More specifically, in the present study, the dimensions of empathic concern and perspective taking emerged as the most relevant components of empathy in relation to HCSL. Empathic concern, reflecting other-oriented feelings of care and compassion, may foster behaviors aimed at supporting employees’ well-being and long-term development (Albiero et al., 2006; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023). Perspective taking, as a cognitive component of empathy, may enable workers to better understand others’ needs, expectations, and challenges, thereby helping to promote sustainable environments (Albiero et al., 2006; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023). Together, these findings underline that in this study both affective and cognitive empathic processes seem to promote leadership styles oriented toward the sustainability of human capital in organizations (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023).
Compassion was positively associated with HCSL (H1) and added incremental variance beyond personality (H2). These results showed that individuals with higher levels of compassion are more likely to demonstrate behaviors that promote the sustainable development of human capital resources, independently of their personality traits. Examining the specific dimensions in the present study, both emotional connection and acting to help/alleviate suffering proved to contribute to HCSL. The emotional connection dimension underscores the importance of establishing empathetic relationships with team members, while acting to help/alleviate suffering highlights the behavioral aspect of compassion, reflecting a proactive approach to addressing others’ needs and challenges (Di Fabio, 2019; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023; Gu et al., 2017).
Although this study showed promising results, limitations should be noted. One limitation concerns the participants, who were drawn from central and southern Italy and therefore do not represent the wider Italian workforce. Future research could explore the relationship between empathy, compassion, and HCSL among employees from other regions of Italy. Another limitation regards the cross-sectional nature of this study that does not permit causal relationships between the examined variables to be assumed. Future studies should employ longitudinal designs for analyzing also causal relationships among these variables. Furthermore, conducting studies in other countries would provide valuable opportunities for cross-cultural comparisons.
If future research confirms these findings, they could open new opportunities within the context of prevention-oriented approaches, particularly primary prevention (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016; Kenny & Hage, 2009; Hage et al., 2017) and strengths-based prevention perspectives (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2021). Unlike personality traits, which are generally considered stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1992), empathy and compassion can be actively nurtured and enhanced through specific interventions. On the one hand, fostering empathy and compassion may play a crucial role in promoting human capital sustainability leadership. On the other hand, enhancing HCSL could be a strategic lever for promoting healthy organizations (Di Fabio, 2017a, 2024; Di Fabio et al., 2020; Peiró et al., 2019, 2021), aimed at enhancing employee well-being, resilience, and engagement both in leaders and workers, contributing to a more sustainable workplace (Di Fabio & Cooper, 2023; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023).
References
Albiero, P., Ingoglia, S., & Lo Coco, A. (2006). Contributo all’adattamento italiano dell’Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Testing, Psicometria, Metodologia, 13(2), 107-125.
Ashta, A., Stokes, P., Hughes, P., Tarba, S., Dekel-Dachs, O., & Rodgers, P. (2025). The expression of compassion in leadership in intercultural organizational situations: The case of Japanese leaders in India. European Management Review, 22(2), 435-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12650
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire (2nd ed.). Giunti O.S.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Di Fabio, A. (2017a). Positive healthy organizations: Promoting well-being, meaningfulness, and sustainability in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01938
Di Fabio, A. (2017b). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534
Di Fabio, A. (2019). Compassion Scale: Proprietà psicometriche della versione italiana. Counseling. Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1211908
Di Fabio, A. (2021). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development: Transdisciplinary perspectives. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 31(5), 441-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2021.1978670
Di Fabio, A. (2024). Individual differences in occupational health psychology. In C. Cooper & P. Brough (Eds.), Elgar encyclopedia of occupational health psychology (pp. 87–90). Edward Elgar.
Di Fabio, A., Bonfiglio, A., Palazzeschi, L., Gori, A., & Svicher, A. (2023). Human capital sustainability leadership: From personality traits to positive relational management. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1110974. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1110974
Di Fabio, A., Cheung, F., & Peiró, J.-M. (2020). Editorial: Special issue personality and individual differences and healthy organizations. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, Article 110196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110196
Di Fabio, A., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2023). Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003212157
Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2021). Workplace relational civility and human capital sustainability leadership for sustainable development in organizations: Empirical evidence. Counseling. Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1422103
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2016). From decent work to decent lives: Positive self and relational management (PS&RM) in the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 361. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00361
Di Fabio, A., & Peiró, J.-M. (2018). Human capital sustainability leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability, 10(7), Article 2413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072413
Di Fabio, A., & Peiró, J.-M. (2023). Human capital sustainability leadership and healthy organizations: Its contribution to sustainable development. In A. Di Fabio & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations (pp. 93-103). Routledge.
Di Fabio, A., & Rosen, M. A. (2018). Opening the black box of psychological processes in the science of sustainable development: A new frontier. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.20897/ejosdr/3933
Di Fabio, A., & Rosen, M. A. (2020). An exploratory study of a new psychological instrument for evaluating sustainability: The Sustainable Development Goals Psychological Inventory. Sustainability, 12, Article 7617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187617
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2021). The relationship of compassion and self-compassion with personality and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, Article 110109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110109
Di Fabio, A., & Svicher, A. (2021). Emotional intelligence: A key for human capital sustainability leadership beyond personality traits. Counseling. Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1432105
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351-374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807
Gu, J., Cavanagh, K., Baer, R., & Strauss, C. (2017). An empirical examination of the factor structure of compassion. PLOS One, 12(2), e0172471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172471
Hage, S. M., Romano, J. L., Conyne, R. K., Kenny, M., Matthews, C., Schwartz, J. P., & Waldo, M. (2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 493-566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006291411
Holt, S., & Marques, J. (2012). Empathy in leadership: Appropriate or misplaced? An empirical study on a topic that is asking for attention. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0951-5
Kenny, M. E., & Hage, S. M. (2009). The next frontier: Prevention as an instrument of social justice. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-008-0163-7
Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-006-0007-4
Lawson, D., Peters, L., O’Connor, E., Krueger, D., Downey, M., Parslow, S., & Bozalek, V. (2020). Informal leadership in health care. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, 33(4), 225-227. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1709439
Muss, C., Tüxen, D., & Fürstenau, B. (2025). Empathy in leadership: A systematic literature review on the effects of empathetic leaders in organizations. Management Review Quarterly, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00472-7
Palazzeschi, L., & Di Fabio, A. (2025). Intrapreneurial self-capital: A promising resource for human capital sustainability leadership beyond personality traits in workers. Counseling. Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 18(3), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1832501
Peiró, J.-M. (2025). Applied psychology and careers in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Australian Journal of Career Development, 34(2), 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841622513506
Peiró, J.-M., Kozusznik, M., Molina, I. R., & Tordera, N. (2019). The happy-productive worker model and beyond: Patterns of wellbeing and performance at work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), Article 479. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030479
Peiró, J.-M., Montesa, D., Soriano, A., Kozusznik, M. W., Villajos, E., Magdaleno, J., Djourova, N. P., & Ayala, Y. (2021). Revisiting the happy-productive worker thesis from a eudaimonic perspective: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(6), Article 3174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063174
Peiró, J.-M., Svicher, A., & Di Fabio, A. (2023). Innovative behaviors and eudaimonic well-being: The contribution of human capital sustainability leadership to sustainable career, decent work, decent lives, and healthy lives. Australian Journal of Career Development, 32(3), 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162231202224
Ramachandran, S., Balasubramanian, S., James, W. F., & Masaeid, T. A. (2024). Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 74, 1473-1557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00340-w
Richard Marcel, I., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2025). Leading with compassion: An inquiry into compassionate leadership of school principals that impact teacher attitudes and job performance. Management and Labour Studies, 50(2), 257-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X241233887
Rosen, M. A., & Di Fabio, A. (2023). Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations: Empirical evidence from environment to safety to innovation and future research. In A. Di Fabio & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development in Organizations (pp. 20-41). Routledge Taylor & Francis.
Sahle, M., Lahoti, S. A., Lee, S-Y., Brundiers, K., van Riper, C. J.,Pohl, C., Chien, H., Bohnet, I. C., Aguilar-Rivera, N., Edwards, P., Pradhan,P., Plieninger, T., Boonstra, W. J., Flor, A. G., Di Fabio, A., Scheidel, A.,Gordon, C., Abson, D. J., Andersson, E., Demaria, F., Kenter, J. O., Brooks,J., Kauffman, J., Hamann, M., Graziano, M., Nagabhatla, N., Mimura, N.,Fagerholm, N., O’Farrell, P., Saito, O., & Takeuchi , K. (2025). Revisiting the sustainability science research agenda. Sustainability Science, 20, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01586-3
Strauss, C., Taylor, B. L., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F., & Cavanagh, K. (2016). What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures. Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004
Takeuchi, K., Osamu, S., Lahoti, S., & Gondor, D. (2017). Growing up: 10 years of publishing sustainability science research. Sustainability Science, 12, 849-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0484-7
Tzouramani, E. (2016). Leadership and empathy. In J. Marques & S. Dhiman (Eds.), Leadership today: Practices for personal and professional performance (pp. 197-216). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31036-7_11
-
1 Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia del Lavoro e delle Organizzazioni per l’orientamento professionale, il career counseling, il career development, i talenti e le organizzazioni in salute» e Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia Positiva Cross-Culturale, Prevenzione e Sostenibilità», Dipartimento di Formazione, Lingue, Intercultura, Letterature e Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italia, https://www.forlilpsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori.html
-
2 International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Work and Organizational Psychology for Vocational Guidance, Career Counseling, Career Development, Talents, and Healthy Organizations», and the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Cross-Cultural Positive Psychology, Prevention, and Sustainability», Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures, and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Florence, Italy, https://www.forlilpsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori.html
Vol. 19, Issue 1, February 2026
