Volume 19, Issue 2, June 2026

Vol. 19, n. 2, giugno 2026

doi: 10.14605/CS1922604 — ISSN: 2421-2202 — pp. 65-76

Corrispondenza: Letizia Palazzeschi — e-mail: letizia.palazzeschi@unifi.it

Studies and Research

Human capital sustainability leadership in workers: From personality traits to emotional intelligence

Letizia Palazzeschi¹ and Annamaria Di Fabio²

Abstract

This study examined the relationships between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Human Capital Sustainability Leadership, controlling for the effect of personality traits. Two hundred and fifty-nine Italian workers were administered the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF), and the Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale (HCSLS). The results showed that trait emotional intelligence explained additional variance in HCSL beyond personality traits. These findings suggest the relevance of trait emotional intelligence for promoting advanced leadership styles in organizations.

Keywords

Trait emotional intelligence, Human capital sustainability leadership, Personality traits, Workers.

STUDI E RICERCHE

Human capital sustainability leadership nei lavoratori: Dai tratti di personalità all’intelligenza emotiva

Letizia Palazzeschi³ e Annamaria Di Fabio⁴

Sommario

Questo studio ha esaminato le relazioni tra Trait Emotional Intelligence e Human Capital Sustainability Leadership, controllando per i tratti di personalità. Duecentocinquantanove lavoratori italiani hanno compilato il Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), il Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) e la Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale (HCSLS). I risultati hanno mostrato che la Trait Emotional Intelligence spiega una percentuale di varianza incrementale in relazione alla HCSL oltre ai tratti di personalità. Questi risultati suggeriscono la rilevanza della Trait Emotional Intelligence per promuovere stili avanzati di leadership nelle organizzazioni.

Parole chiave

Trait emotional intelligence, Human capital sustainability leadership, Tratti di personalità; Lavoratori.

Introduction

Over the past few years, growing attention has been given to the sustainable development of human resources as a key factor in fostering healthy organizations (Di Fabio, 2017a, 2024; Di Fabio et al., 2020; Peiró et al., 2019, 2021). This perspective has gained particular relevance within the 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). Positioned within the wider transdisciplinary Sustainability Science (Komiyama & Takeuchi, 2006; Sahle et al., 2025; Takeuchi et al., 2017), this research and intervention area emphasizes the importance of applied psychological perspectives for understanding the processes that support sustainable development over time (Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018; Peiró, 2025; Peiró et al., 2025).

Within the framework of the PSSD, Di Fabio and Peiró (2018) proposed the concept of Human Capital Sustainability Leadership (HCSL). This approach emphasizes the importance of supporting both employee well-being and organizational health by creating work environments in which people can grow, remain resilient, and contribute to the organization’s long-term success.

HCSL is conceived as a higher order construct that brings together four leadership styles: ethical, sustainable, mindful, and servant leadership. Ethical leadership considers principles such as fairness, transparency, and integrity, encouraging leaders to act consistently with shared organizational values and to treat others with respect. Sustainable leadership places greater emphasis on long-term organizational growth by fostering continuous learning, valuing diversity, and investing in the development and protection of workers, environments, and the planet. Mindful leadership relates to remaining aware and emotionally balanced in the present moment, particularly when facing demanding or stressful situations, allowing leaders to better understand the effects of their actions on others. Servant leadership focuses primarily on supporting followers’ growth and well-being, reflecting an authentic commitment to the flourishing of followers that extends beyond the achievement of organizational goals due to a moral responsibility.

HCSL represents an advanced leadership perspective that is relevant not only for individuals occupying formal managerial positions, but also for employees who take on influential roles informally within organizations (Peiró et al. 2023). Informal leaders are generally understood as individuals who, despite lacking formal authority, are recognized by colleagues for their ability to motivate, support, and guide others in work-related activities (Lawson et al., 2020). Thus, HCSL can be interpreted both as a vertical leadership approach associated with managerial responsibilities and as a horizontal form of leadership that may emerge across different organizational roles, contributing to stronger collaboration and improved organizational functioning (Peiró et al., 2023). In terms of horizontal leadership, the value of Human Capital Sustainability Leadership in relationships with coworkers must be underlined and with it the importance of providing early opportunities to develop it in a preventative perspective not only in the early stages of one’s work path but also at university (Peiró et al., 2023).

Previous research on HCSL has examined its associations as a dependent variable with both hedonic well-being (Palazzeschi & Di Fabio, 2026) and eudaimonic well-being (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018; Peiró et al., 2023). As an independent variable, HCSL has been studied with several constructs, including intrapreneurial self-capital (Palazzeschi & Di Fabio, 2025), positive relational management (Di Fabio et al., 2023), empathy and compassion (Palazzeschi, 2026), and workplace relational civility (Di Fabio & Gori, 2021), while controlling for the effect of personality traits. Findings from these studies suggest that personality characteristics alone are not sufficient to fully account for HCSL. This indicates that additional personal resources, particularly those involving emotional and relational dimensions, may provide further explanatory value. In this regard, emotional intelligence could represent a promising construct in relation to HCSL.

Furthermore, within the perspective of the Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development, increasing attention has been devoted to strength-based approaches to prevention (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2021) as well as to primary prevention strategies (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016; Hage et al., 2007). These perspectives emphasize the importance of recognizing and enhancing personal resources and individual strengths before difficulties emerge. Applied to organizational contexts, this approach suggests that promoting workers’ strengths through preventive interventions may contribute to improving increasable psychological resources (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2021) and, consequently, to fostering healthier (Di Fabio et al., 2000) and more sustainable organizations (Di Fabio & Cooper, 2023).

From this perspective, emotional intelligence appears to be a particularly relevant resource because, unlike traditionally stable personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992), it can be strengthened and developed through specific training programs and interventions (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011).

Research on emotional intelligence traditionally distinguishes between two main theoretical perspectives (Stough et al., 2009): ability-based models and trait-based models. Ability-based models, such as that proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), conceptualize emotional intelligence as a set of cognitive-emotional abilities related to understanding and managing emotions. Trait-based models, on the other hand, focus more on individuals’ perceptions of their own emotional competencies and include approaches such as Bar-On’s (1997) self-reported emotional intelligence and Petrides and Furnham’s (2001) trait emotional intelligence. The present study adopts the model developed by Petrides and Furnham (2001), as it offers a broader conceptualization of emotional intelligence by incorporating dimensions such as emotional expression, emotion regulation, and self-motivation, extending beyond the aspects considered in Bar-On’s model. According to Petrides and Furnham (2021), trait emotional intelligence is organized into four dimensions: well-being, self-control, emotionality, and sociability. The well-being dimension reflects a generally positive and confident outlook on life. Individuals with high levels in this dimension tend to experience greater fulfillment and emotional positivity in everyday life. The self-control dimension refers to the perception of being capable of regulating emotions, managing impulses, and coping effectively with stress and external demands. High self-control is associated with emotional balance and the perception of being capable of responding to challenging situations in a calm and adaptive manner, without becoming either emotionally overwhelmed or excessively restrained. The Emotionality dimension concerns perceiving, understanding, and expressing emotions, both one’s own and those of others. This dimension also includes emotional sensitivity, which supports the development and maintenance of close, meaningful interpersonal relationships. The sociability dimension reflects confidence and effectiveness in social interactions. High sociability regards the perception of possessing strong communication abilities, active listening skills, and confidence in engaging with others across a variety of social contexts.

Several studies have explored the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and different leadership styles, consistently highlighting the contribution of emotional intelligence to effective leadership processes (Barling et al., 2000; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003; Siegling et al., 2014), and also considering the possible effect of personality traits (Andrei et al., 2016; Cooper et al., 2023). Interest in studying trait emotional intelligence in relation to HCSL has emerged (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023), but this relationship deserves to be studied more thoroughly, also controlling for personality traits, to better understand the potential of emotions in promoting leadership for the sustainable development of human resources.

Thus, the aim of the present study is to analyze the relationships between trait emotional intelligence and HCSL, controlling for the effect of personality traits.

The hypotheses were as follows:

H1. A positive relationship will emerge between trait emotional intelligence and HCSL.
H2. Trait emotional intelligence will account for an additional percentage of variance in HCSL beyond that explained by personality traits.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and fifty-nine Italian workers with a mean age 45.89 years (SD = 11.09). Among them, 39.97% are males and 60.03% female.

Measures

Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara et al., 1993). It includes 132 items on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = Absolutely false to 5 = Absolutely true). The five dimensions are: Extraversion («I find it easy to talk to people I don’t know»), Cronbach’s alpha .81; Agreeableness («If necessary, I don’t shy away from helping strangers»), 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; Openness («I am always informed about what is happening in the world»), Cronbach’s alpha .75.

The Trait Emotion Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF; Petrides, 2009; Italian version Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2011). It includes 30 items on a Likert scale from 1 Completely disagree to 7 = Completely agree; Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients: .82 for Well-being dimension («I feel that I have a number of good qualities»), .80 for Self-control dimension («I’m usually able to find ways to control my emotions when I want to»), .81 for Emotionality dimension («Expressing my emotions with words is not a problem for me»), .82 for Sociability dimension («I can deal effectively with people»), .81 for the total score.

Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale (HCSLS; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018). It includes 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 («I act by giving an example of doing tasks in an ethically correct manner»), sustainable («I leave out the superfluous by focusing the resources on the crucial aspects of work»), mindful («I put myself in the shoes of my collaborators when they are doing tasks»), servant leadership («I commit myself so my collaborators have all the information to work to the best»). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the HCSLS was .94.

Procedure

Participants completed the questionnaires during group sessions after providing informed consent to participate. All study procedures complied with Italian regulations concerning data protection and privacy. To reduce potential order effects, the sequence in which the questionnaires were administered was varied across participants.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation analyses, and hierarchical regression methods using IBM SPSS Statistics software.

Results

Table 1 shows the correlations among BFQ, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and HCSLS.

Table 1

Correlations among BFQ, TEIQue-SF dimensions, and HCSLS

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. BFQ Extraversion	_
2. BFQ Agreeableness	.15*	_
3. BFQ Conscientiousness	.23**	.10	_
4. BFQ Emotional stability	.16*	.15*	.09	_
5. BFQ Openness	.41**	.38**	.29**	.22**	_
6. TEIQue-SF Well-being	.28**	.10	.32**	.38**	.27**	_
7. TEIQue-SF Self-control	.16*	.04	.28**	.49**	.11	.49**	_
8. TEIQue-SF Emotionality	.12	.49**	.20**	.21**	.32**	.41**	.30**	_
9. TEIQue-SF Sociability	.47**	.10	.34**	.20**	.35**	.46**	.41**	.41**	_
10. HCSLS	.14*	.40**	.31**	.11	.41**	.42**	.26**	.49**	.24**	_

Note. N = 259. * < .05, ** < .01.

BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire

TEIQue-SF = Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form

HCSLS = Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with HCSL as the dependent variable. Personality traits (BFQ) entered at Step 1 explained 28% of the variance in HCSL. When Trait emotional intelligence dimensions were added at Step 2, the model remained significant and accounted for an additional 13% of the variance (total R² = .41) (Table 2).

Discussion

The present study aimed to examine the relationship between Trait emotional intelligence and HCSL, controlling for the effects of personality traits. The results showed that Trait emotional intelligence was positively associated with HCSL (H1) and explained additional variance beyond personality traits (H2). These findings suggest that Trait emotional intelligence contributes to HCSL over the personality traits, highlighting the importance of perceived experience of emotional fulfillment, emotional self-regulation, emotional awareness, and interpersonal emotional effectiveness in fostering HCSL.

Table 2

Hierarchical Regression. The Contribution of Personality Traits (BFQ) and Trait emotional intelligence dimensions to Human Capital Sustainability Leadership

	β
Step 1
BFQ Extraversion	.15*
BFQ Agreeableness	.30**
BFQ Conscientiousness	.22**
BFQ Emotional Stability	.18*
BFQ Openness	.24**
Step 2
TEIQue-SF Well-being	.25**
TEIQue-SF Self-control	.15*
TEIQue-SF Emotionality	.26**
TEIQue-SF Sociability	.13*
R² step 1	.28***
ΔR² step 2	.13***
R² total	.41***

Note. N = 259. * < .05, ** < .01.

BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire

TEIQue-SF = Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form

HCSLS = Human Capital Sustainability Leadership Scale

More specifically, in the present study, the dimensions of TEIQue-SF Emotionality and TEIQue-SF Well-being emerged as the most relevant components of trait emotional intelligence in relation to HCSL. Overall, these results suggest that the perception of understanding and responding effectively to emotions, together with a positive sense of perceived personal emotional fulfillment, could encourage leadership approaches that foster the sustainable development of human capital within organizations (Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023). Although the present study yielded encouraging findings, some limitations need to be acknowledged. First, the participants cannot be considered fully representative of the broader Italian workforce.

Future research could extend this line of investigation by examining the associations between trait emotional intelligence and HCSL in employees from a wider range of occupational contexts in Italy. A further limitation concerns the cross-sectional design of the study, which does not allow conclusions about causal relationships among the variables examined. Longitudinal research would therefore be important in clarifying the direction of these associations over time. Furthermore, path analysis models could be employed to further explore the relationships among these variables. In addition, studies conducted in different cultural contexts could provide useful insights into possible cross-cultural similarities and/or differences.

If future studies replicate these findings, important implications could emerge for preventive approaches, particularly within primary prevention (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016; Kenny & Hage, 2009; Hage et al., 2007) and strengths-based prevention perspectives (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2021). Differently from personality traits, which are typically regarded as relatively stable across time (Costa & McCrae, 1992), trait emotional intelligence includes characteristics that can be cultivated and strengthened through specific trainings.

Furthermore, strengthening trait emotional intelligence may represent an important pathway for fostering leadership styles oriented toward the sustainability of human capital. Moreover, promoting HCSL could serve as a valuable organizational resource for supporting healthy organizations (Di Fabio, 2017a, 2024; Di Fabio et al., 2020; Peiró et al., 2019, 2021), with positive implications for employee well-being, resilience, and engagement among both leaders and employees, thereby contributing to the development of more sustainable work environments (Di Fabio & Cooper, 2023; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2023).

References

Andrei, F., Siegling, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Baldaro, B., & Petrides, K. V. (2016). The incremental validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1084630

Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730010325040

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire (2nd ed.). Giunti O.S.

Cooper, J., Davis, L., & Norton Jr, F. R. (2023). A literature review of the influence of emotional intelligence (EI) and the big five personality traits on leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v20i5.6658

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Di Fabio, A. (2017a). Positive healthy organizations: Promoting well-being, meaningfulness, and sustainability in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 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, 1534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

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). 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. 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. 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 Taylor & Francis Group. 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. (2011). Promoting emotional intelligence and career decision making among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072710382530

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, 361. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00361.

Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2011). Proprietà psicometriche del Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) nel contesto italiano [Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF) in the Italian context]. Counseling. International Journal of Research and Intervention, 4, 327-336.

Di Fabio, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2018). Human Capital Sustainability Leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability, 10(7), 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 (93-103). Routledge Taylor & Francis.

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 MDPI, 12, 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. PAID 40^th Anniversary Special Issue. Personality and Individual Differences, 169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110109

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

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. doi: 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

Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3), 387-404. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022816409059

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31). Basic Books.

Palazzeschi, L. (2026). Human capital sustainability leadership in workers: From personality traits to empathy and compassion. Counseling. Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 17(1), 52-65. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1912604

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

Palazzeschi, L., & Di Fabio, A. (2026). Human capital sustainability leadership and hedonic well-being beyond personality traits in workers. Counseling. Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 19(1), 39-51. https://10.14605/CS1912603

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), 479. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030479

Peiró, J. M., Montesa, D., Soriano, A., Kozusznik, M. W., Villaooljos, 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), 3174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063174

Peiró, J. M., Steinebach, C., Foster, L., Di Nuovo, S., Carrus, G., Gutiérrez, G., & Di Fabio, A. (2025). Decent work, decent lives, and healthy lives for sustainable development. Australian Journal of Career Development, 34(3), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162251374443

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

Petrides, K. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 85-101). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_5

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.416

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

Siegling, A. B., Nielsen, C., & Petrides, K. V. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence and leadership in a European multinational company. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 65-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.049

Stough, C., Saklofske, D., & Parker, J. (2009). Assessing EI: Theory, research, and applications. Springer. 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.

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

¹ 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
² Director of the 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
³ 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
⁴ Director of the 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 2, June 2026

Back