Senior lecturers’ feelings about their college leaders’ treatment of their wellbeing: Implications for leadership readiness

Abstract

College lecturers’ wellbeing is critical to the effective management and functioning of colleges, and this criticality is amplified when lecturers assume senior lecturer (SL) positions in leadership. In Jamaica, some senior lecturers perceive their college leaders are insufficiently attentive to their wellbeing. This qualitative research utilized semi-structured interviews to investigate how six senior lecturers felt about this inattentiveness to their wellbeing. The findings indicated several feelings they experienced resulting from their response to the insufficiency of their college leaders’ treatment of their wellbeing, in two categories – emotional and occupational. Among them are exclusion from decision-making, primarily related to their consideration for promotion, perceptions of nepotistic leadership behaviours, guilt when they attempted to impose boundaries to stymy being overwhelmed and a sense that it was risky to articulate this to their college leaders. The study concluded that a strong sign of leadership readiness is when leaders enact wellbeing care in their stewardship of those they lead and being able to navigate the travails of their leadership journey. Further, it recommended a work culture that is psychologically safe in which senior lecturers feel heard and respected, some policies to address nepotism and areas needing further research.

Keywords

Leadership readiness occupational wellbeing emotional wellbeing senior lecturers Jamaica nepotism

Leadership wellbeing and its relationship to leadership readiness in higher education institutions (HEI) is under-researched in the Caribbean educational leadership discourse. This is especially true in the Jamaican scholarly landscape when viewed from the prism of senior lecturers’ professional wellbeing in teacher-training colleges despite the achievement of some Caribbean scholars. Caribbean scholars such as Miller, Hutton, Thompson, and Marshall have individually and collectively contributed a rich body of work to the global, regional and local discourse on educational leadership. However, the breadth and depth of coverage in their work, though not an exhaustive representation, contemplate equity, race dynamics in leadership, leadership behaviours, practices, policy directives, leadership styles, leadership career pathway care, leadership empowerment, trust, national and regional governance, among other themes. This means that an intentional focus on wellbeing is yet to be fully addressed, including senior lecturers’ professional wellbeing experiences and readiness to lead in Jamaican teacher-training colleges.

The general context that necessitates the call for a focus on senior lecturers’ wellbeing is grounded in Hamling et al. (2015) assertion that promoting positive wellbeing in organizations is desirable because employee wellbeing is valuable and there are benefits to promoting positive wellbeing. When their perspective is twinned with Larson et al.’s (2019) notion that the cornerstone of any academic institution is its faculty members, who are responsible for teaching, conducting research, and participating in service activities that support the institution’s mission, the case for specifically addressing senior lecturers’ wellbeing presents more urgency. In Jamaica, this urgency resonates because these researchers’ arguments highlight the magnitude of college senior lecturers’ professional undertaking since faculty members who are senior lecturers also form part of the middle leadership core within their institutions.

More than a decade ago, Bell et al. (2012) bemoaned the limited number of studies examining academics’ wellbeing, such as their experiences with work–life conflicts. Notwithstanding the gaps present, emphasis on wellbeing in higher educational institutions in Jamaica is slowly gaining traction. For example, Virtue (2024) investigated one college’s strategic approach to planning for and implementing wellbeing initiatives for faculty, including senior lecturers. Bourne (2024) examined employee wellbeing and work–life balance concerning burnout. Wilmot (2024) also conducted a study to ascertain what strategies, if any, college principals were using to address middle leaders’ wellbeing and what advice middle leaders had about how their college leaders/principals could improve how they were accommodating their wellbeing needs. The findings demonstrated that participants viewed some strategies favourably among the existing initiatives. On the other hand, they felt they were not expansive and impactful enough. Additionally, they felt college leaders could be more intentional in their approach to their wellbeing and that some strategies were unsuited for some of the wellbeing struggles they experienced. The findings also revealed that senior lecturers were dissatisfied with their principals’ overall approach to managing their wellbeing.

The qualitative interview-based research reported in this article builds on the work previously done by Wilmot (2024). It provided an understanding of the strategies college principals used to address senior lecturers’ wellbeing, the suggestions they tendered for improving principals’ wellbeing practices, and the problem of senior lecturers’ overall dissatisfaction with their principals’ approach to their wellbeing. The latter problem sparked an interest and desire to widen the discourse about college lecturers’ professional wellbeing in Jamaica. This paper achieves this mission by building on the previous findings through an exploration of senior lecturers’ experiences about how they felt in response to their perception that their college principals mismanaged their wellbeing. It also sought to extrapolate some possible related considerations about leadership readiness. Together with what the literature establishes about top leaders’ integral role in facilitating the development and implementation of wellbeing support systems and the relationship of their leadership behaviour and practices on faculty wellbeing, the probe yielded valuable lessons about leadership readiness and wellbeing. These insights were utilized to frame recommendations for further research, policies and practices to bolster strategies for making leaders better prepared to address senior lecturers’ wellbeing and, by extension, all college faculty.

Background

Defining senior lecturers and their roles

In the Jamaican context, a senior lecturer at the college level is an academic staff member who holds leadership responsibilities in addition to teaching. This distinguishes them from lecturers, the position from which they are promoted to roles in middle leadership. Lecturers are designated as senior lecturers through additional responsibility appointments as the position is not normally merited by length of service or teaching responsibility only. Though the senior lecturer’s role varies across colleges, popular positions include that of quality assurance officers, heads of practicum, functions and ceremonies coordinators, and staff welfare managers. Unquestionably, they form a significant element of the middle leadership core within colleges, which advances the argument for understanding their experiences with leadership readiness and wellbeing.

Perceptions about and treatment of senior lecturers’ positions

Several international scholars posit unifying perspectives that emanate from their work, which amplify our understanding of middle leadership, generally. Buller (2012) described their positions as arduous, which has implications for SL’s wellbeing and their leadership role. Other scholars add to this bleak image of their positions’ demands, by highlighting how underrated and under-resourced their roles are (Maddock, 2023). Maddock’s observation came a decade and a half after Wooldridge et al.’s (2008) contention that senior lecturers’ leadership positions cannot be overemphasized because they juggle both administrative and academic portfolios. More recently, from a systematic review of middle leaders’ roles in HEIs Lizier (2024) concluded that the dynamism of middle leaders’ work positions them as key functionaries in the ‘implementation of institutional strategy’ (p. 25), and consequently argued for an increased intentional focus on middle leaders, given that the literature privileges academic leads. Additionally, she reasoned further that our incomplete understanding of effective middle management significantly influences HEI operations, and the level of professional support provided to middle leaders, who are not typically distinguished as a group with unique needs when compared to other leaders within these organizations (Lizier, 2024).

The background so far established the level of difficulty with which senior lecturers must confront their role, in a context of low-value perceptions and scarce resources. This status remains consistent, even though doubts about the importance of their work cannot staunchly survive contestation.

Some considerations about wellbeing

A clear and useful definition and conceptualization of wellbeing remains elusive. This situation has manifested historically, contemporarily, to the public, and within and across disciplines (Jarden and Roache, 2023). Nonetheless, several definitions have been tabled, too many to address in this paper. For instance, World Health Organization (2020) offers a general definition: ‘Well-being is a positive state experienced by individuals and societies. Similar to health, it is a resource for daily life and is determined by social, economic and environmental conditions’ (p. 10). In other words, wellbeing considers individual and societal quality of life of citizens and their ability to contribute to the world purposefully and meaningfully (WHO, 2020). The commonalities in the definitions are the elements of a positive state of experience, environmental conditions of work, and the ability of employees to contribute to the world through their work with meaning and purpose. They provide leadership with the sense of care with which handling the wellbeing of workers is required.

Many wellbeing programs seem to recognize the elements referenced above, and Terry’s (2019) research work which analyzed several wellbeing programs, validates this claim. According to Terry (2019) the 2017 Workplace Health in America Survey’s findings offered the following description of the constituents of a robust workplace wellbeing program.

1. health education,

2. creating supportive surroundings,

3. becoming part of the company’s culture, and

4. connecting with related programs like employee assistance programs and conducting screening and education at the worksite.

In addition to an alignment with WHO’s definition, Terry’s (2019) work portrays a sense of how wellbeing is being addressed. Nevertheless, it falls short in not portraying a model that provides employees an opportunity to facilitate their responses to these elements, through a description of their experiences in, for instance, an embedded evaluation structure. The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (2024) reinforces the importance of consistently interrogating missed opportunities to improve how organizations currently address wellbeing. It claims that the potential of wellbeing initiatives is often not fully achieved because they exist independently, separate from the business’s day-to-day operations. To truly benefit employees, it argues, wellbeing priorities should be incorporated into every aspect of an organization, including its culture, leadership, and people management.

Other scholars have also reinforced the vitalness of leadership to optimal employee wellbeing (Eisele, 2020; Kaluza et al., 2020; Kelloway et al., 2013). Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect leaders to initiate and establish wellbeing priorities for employees. On the contrary, The World Economic Forum – WEF (2024) reported that the findings from their Work Monitor 2024 indicate an increasing gap, as employers may not fully grasp the requirements for their employees to feel a sense of belonging in the workplace. This encompasses various aspects such as advancement opportunities, training options, maintaining a healthy work–life balance, and establishing fairer work environments. This is certainly a worrying set of indicators. However, when college leaders understand how their senior leaders feel about their posture towards their wellbeing, it will create an avenue to assist improving their grasp of their wellbeing needs and how to prioritize them.

Research question

This study was guided by one central research question and two sub-questions: How do senior lecturers from two teachers’ colleges perceive and describe their feelings about their leaders’ attention to their professional wellbeing?

1. How do senior lecturers describe their feelings about the influence of their college leaders’ inattention to their occupational wellbeing?

2. In what ways do senior lecturers perceive their college leaders’ inattention to their occupational wellbeing shapes their feelings about their emotional wellbeing?

Statement of the problem

In some Jamaican teachers’ colleges, senior lecturers have concerns that their college leadership has not adequately addressed their professional wellbeing concerns, instigating a level of discomfort among them (Wilmot, 2024). This discomfort is justified as problematic because middle leaders play a crucial role in organizational productivity (Thornton et al., 2018); so, if their professional wellbeing is compromised, it is likely to impact their emotional and occupational wellbeing and send messages about their state of readiness for leadership. Several cases demonstrate that a strong focus on physical, mental, and emotional health and overall employee wellbeing can significantly improve organizational function and productivity (Adams, 2019; Chen et al., 2009; Sonja et al., 2015). A fair deduction on, the converse, is that organizations that neglect these aspects will likely experience underperformance and manifest as poor leadership readiness. This problem of Jamaican teachers’ college principals’ insufficient attention to senior lecturers’ wellbeing merits attention considering optimal wellbeing to organizational functioning, the import of middle leadership’s role and Falecki and Mann's (2021) advice to leaders not to disregard their employees’ wellbeing. Given these factors, understanding senior lecturers’ responses to this gap in their leaders’ attention to their wellbeing can yield useful insights for their principals to better support their occupational and emotional wellbeing.

The scope and significance of the study

This qualitative interview-based study included six participants from two of eight teacher-training colleges in Jamaica. It aimed to explore the problem senior lecturers experience with their principals’ undesirable management of their wellbeing. The purpose was to unearth possible insights about professional wellbeing and leadership readiness. Each participant held a different work position of senior responsibility, which allowed for a rich assortment of narrative cues about how they felt about the subject under investigation.

This research is significant for several reasons. There is no doubt that middle-level leaders have expressed discontent with being promoted to leadership positions without being satisfactorily trained (Baker and Manning, 2021; Wilmot, 2024). Naturally, this admission provokes questions about their leadership readiness and ultimately points to their workplace experiences in navigating them. Therefore, this probe into how Jamaican senior lecturers in colleges feel about their principals’ treatment of their wellbeing elucidates some leadership practices in colleges and insights about leadership readiness. This is useful to understand how we may utilize context-specific leadership practices to develop and nurture college environments that support senior lecturers’ wellbeing in light of Kaluza et al.’s (2020) study, which illustrates the substantial connection between leadership wellbeing and leadership.

Another reason to consider the significance of this study is its local response to the global claim made by Hunter et al. (2007), who analysed the typical assumptions underlying leadership studies. Their findings revealed that most studies on leadership rely on established measures that ask subordinates to assess the behaviour of their leaders. These measures, they emphasized, assume that the subordinate’s relationship with their supervisor is unique and independent of other stakeholders. This study runs counter to this evaluation by examining senior lecturers who are a distinctive category of leaders, in Jamaican teachers’ colleges, chronicling their feelings concerning their leaders’ inattention to their wellbeing. The research is an opportunity to address this often-missing leadership practice of leadership responsibility for employee wellbeing in colleges for ways to improve leadership capacity readiness to address wellbeing among the other needs attendant to their roles.

Additionally, this research contributes to the embryonic field of critical scholarly work addressing the wellbeing of college middle leaders, as it is informed by their experiences about their principals’ approach. These experiences provide a springboard from which leadership scholars and practitioners can further contemplate leadership preparation and sensitization strategies, courses and other professional opportunities for top and middle leadership in colleges to balance the administration of wellbeing care with the expectations of senior lecturers. The findings are also useful as a basis for further research work for deeper exploration of the subject and to motivate decisions on policy development, revision and implementation.

Literature review

Perspectives on wellbeing

According to Ruggeri et al. (2020), wellbeing is constituted by two fundamental elements: feeling good and functioning effectively. It encompasses a variety of positive emotions such as happiness and satisfaction, as well as the expansion of one’s abilities, having an amount of autonomy over one’s life, having a sense of purposefulness, and experiencing constructive associations. Grant et al. (2007) 13 years before, argued similarly. They added that wellbeing accounts for peoples’ personal experiences and how they function. This includes not only whether they think pleasure is present or absent, perceptions of pleasure or absence of discomfort, but also the experience of vivacity and healthiness.

Several models of wellbeing exist in the discipline. The model advanced by Hettler (1976), ‘The Six Dimensions of Wellness Model’ and The US Department of Health Service (2023) Model, are useful for understanding how college principals can conceive wellbeing care. The occupational and emotional dimensions of these models are foregrounded because of their relationship with work-related feelings, with which this project is concerned. The US Department of Health Service (2023) model includes six dimensions – occupational, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, spiritual, and environmental. According to them, the occupational aspect of wellbeing encompasses the mindset, principles, and convictions demonstrated in the professional environment such as admiration, confidence in one’s abilities, fulfilment, and dedication to equitable and reasonable job responsibilities. Hettler’s (1976) model comprises six similar pillars. However, related to occupational wellbeing, the model functions in a complimentary role to amplify the benefits manifested as a recognition of individual satisfaction and enhancement in an employee’s life derived from work.

On the other hand, the emotional dimension of wellbeing places a premium on workers’ capacity to express their feelings and handle stress and challenges efficiently (The US Department of Health Service, 2023). Hettler’s (1976) emotional dimension is more expansive. It prioritizes being aware of and accepting one’s feelings and the ability to be enthusiastic and positive about self and life. According to him, it is ‘the capacity to manage one’s feelings and related behaviors including the realistic assessment of one’s limitations, development of autonomy, and ability to cope effectively with stress’ (p. 2). In terms of feelings, given the large volume of time the workforce spends working, it is not surprising that work is significantly related to overall wellbeing and life satisfaction (Chakraborty and Mahanta, 2019). Consequently, the symbiotic essence of work wellbeing and its results accentuates the significance of prioritizing wellbeing on both personal and organizational fronts (Milner et al., 2015; Putra et al., 2024).

Leadership readiness and wellbeing

One definition of readiness is termed as the amount of previous learning that can transfer to new learning (Pandya and Shroff, 2020). The model of Leader Developmental Readiness, on the other hand, is a theoretical framework that constitutes three anchors: the capacity to develop, the impetus to develop, and an environment supportive of development (Reichard and Beck, 2017). Knudsen (2018) cited the work done by Hannah and Avolio (2010) to expound on the elements of developmental readiness cited by Pandya and Shroff (2020). ‘Motivation to develop includes leader interests and goals, having a learning goal orientation (LGO), and leader developmental efficacy. Ability to develop as a leader includes self-awareness, self-complexity, and metacognitive ability’ (p. 07). Leadership readiness or the journey towards that state, then, does not only reside within leaders. Pandya and Shroff (2020) listed in their model what they describe as the most critical factors anyone who is trying to make a judgement on a person’s leadership developmental readiness should use: the life encounters of the individual, social stratum, and demographics. But why is it important for leaders to be ready to lead?

Regarding why leaders should be ready to assume their leadership role, Gallo (2023) points to several responsibilities including the following:

1. Nurturing the psychological safety and inclusion of supervisees.

2. Assuming the roles of coaches and mentors.

3. And charting their [supervisees] career trajectory, among others.

Best (2010) supports this rationale, arguing that educational leadership demand is all-encompassing and everywhere, thus requiring leaders to be proactively ready to handle an array of situational factors internal and external to the educational environment. This is an important prerequisite Rajbhandari et al. (2014) advance to apply their criteria to decide if educational leadership is impactful. Impactfulness for them manifests as the adoption of a comprehensive strategy that tackles the discrepancies and inconsistencies among the contextual requirements and other factors. College leaders’ management of senior lecturers’ wellbeing is well placed among those inconsistencies and discrepancies and cements the importance of leadership readiness to overall professional wellbeing.

When these models are applied to college leaders’ management of senior lecturers’ wellbeing, a plausible argument is that their leadership readiness would not only manifest in knowledge (theory) about what wellbeing involves, having a disposition of wanting to address wellbeing (personal quality of care) but also actively addressing wellbeing (behavioural attribute) be it solicited or unsolicited. They suggest the type of evangelical stewardship that top college leaders must administer to their middle leaders. Though the treatment of employees’ wellbeing is not the only indicator of leadership readiness, translated into practice, it can shape the wellbeing experiences of their employees in promoting autonomy and agency, making it a significant marker of leadership readiness.

Leadership behaviour and employee wellbeing

The justification for exploring how leadership behaviours influence senior lecturers’ wellbeing, is solidly grounded in the literature. Though some scholars such as Nielsen et al. (2008) may argue against leadership behaviour having an impact on employees’ wellbeing because their research showed little evidence of a clear relationship between them, other studies (Eisele, 2020; Inceoglu et al., 2018; Kelloway et al., 2013) have contradicted these findings. In support of this contradiction, De Simone and Franco (2023) contend that the impact that leadership behaviours have on employee wellbeing and performance is significant. This impact can be positive or negative, as subsequently explored.

Positive leadership behaviours

Jordan (2016) defines positive leadership behaviour as ‘a set of actions, taken by individuals in a position of power and influence, to motivate and cultivate others through mechanisms of empowerment, engagement, and collaborative assignment to meaningful work’ (para. 1), which are stimuli for healthy professional wellbeing. Generally, Azila-Gbettor et al. (2024) argued four positive employee outcomes resulting from a display of positive leadership behaviour. According to them, employees who take on tasks outside their roles are more engaged in work, are highly motivated, and their overall engagement with work is better. These employee qualities are strong predictors of healthy occupational and emotional wellbeing. Additionally, a review of 30 studies by Skakon et al. (2010) found that there is a correlation between stress levels [low or high] and the emotional wellbeing of leaders and their employees. The study revealed that specific leadership styles, as well as the relationship between leaders and their employees can influence the stress levels and emotional wellbeing of employees.

Leaders’ openness to learning from and listening to their employees are additional arguments other scholars have added to the scope of the debate about positive leadership behaviour and employee wellbeing. Over three decades ago, Hirschhorn (1990) sounded the call about the necessity of leaders becoming open to being assisted by their followers to understand the tasks and challenges that their followers encounter. More recently, Thompson (2015) rationalized the salience of leaders listening to their followers on two premises: (1) a display of regard for their opinions and perspectives and (2) utilizing the wisdom and insights they glean from listening to redound in rewards for the organization. Lutovoc et al. (2024) reinforced the centrality of listening as a leadership practice to learning from subordinates, claiming such practice can provide a more intimate understanding of their work.

There are other leadership behaviours that promote the occupational and emotional wellbeing of employees. O’Brien and Guiney (2018) suggest five strategies organizational leadership can utilize for optimizing wellbeing: through divestment of power, hence cultivating agency and autonomy, good talent management, engendering a sense of value for employees and promoting a socially welcoming organization. If college leaders embrace this advice and observations, they could be in a better position to understand their senior lecturers’ wellbeing concerns, especially those in the professional and emotional circuits. Respecting them and displaying a willingness to learn from them is a means of contributing to an overall experience of healthy professional wellbeing for senior lecturers.

Negative leadership behaviours

The preceding segment illustrated how positive leadership behaviours and practices can catalyse organizations’ productivity by engaging in healthy wellbeing practices for employees. However, the converse is also true. Negative leadership behaviours can have commensurate repercussions for employee wellbeing. Schyns and Schilling (2013) rationalize the reason for the uptick in interest in what they describe as destructive leadership. From their research work, they affirmed that these leadership behaviours can have severe effects on their followers. Itri and Lawson (2016) paint a clearer image, arguing that ineffective leadership can devastate organizations. Such devastation, they claim, manifests through impaired communication among employees, fracturing staff members’ resolve towards the organization’s flourishing and repressed development of staff and leaders at other tiers of leadership. Their stance aligns with Jacobs (2019) pulled/cited the work of Braxton (2009) and Shaw et al. (2011) and demonstrated that ineffective leadership impacts the organization, resulting in decreased productivity and finances. Experiences of stress related to their occupation and decreased employee morale, due to injurious feelings, approaches, and actions are all factors these scholars attribute to plummeting finances and productivity within an organization when employees work with ineffective leaders.

Though organizational leadership is integral to creating a culture of wellbeing, Fisher (2021) also advanced a contrasting argument, claiming that there should be a balance of responsibilities between employees and employers. Employees have a responsibility to prioritize their own health and wellbeing and can only reap the benefits of wellbeing initiatives by actively participating in them after employers invest the effort to effectively communicate what support and benefits are available to them.

The perspectives in this literature review are all instructive about the kinds of meanings to be made about senior lecturers’ occupational and emotional wellbeing and its influence on the leadership readiness of those in charge and those being led. The review bridges the gap in the global and local discourse on senior lecturers’ wellbeing in Jamaican higher educational institutions, specifically in teacher-training colleges.

Methodology

This study sought to understand senior lecturers’ feelings regarding the deficient attention their leaders reportedly dedicate to their occupational and emotional wellbeing. When conducting qualitative research, the objective is to develop concepts that facilitate the understanding of social phenomena in real-life settings rather than in controlled environments, whenever possible. This way, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of how people perceive, experience, and/or behave in relation to the subjects being studied, and the significance associated with them (Agius, 2013). Bearing this frame in mind, this research employed a qualitative interview-based methodology, with six purposefully selected senior lecturers at two teacher-training colleges in Jamaica. This number of participants was enough to support the goal of gaining access to senior lecturers’ perceptions of their principals’ treatment of their wellbeing. For qualitative research, sometimes an individual or a few are sufficient (Litchman, 2013) and as Sandelowski (1995) assured, selecting sample size in qualitative research is largely influenced by the judgement and experience of the researcher to determine the quality of the data. It is the researcher’s view that the participants facilitated engagement in intensive analyses through open-ended analysis unearthing since I was not uninterested in verifying hypotheses (Levitt et al., 2018).

The appropriateness of purposeful selection is entrenched in the reality that qualitative researchers’ interests are stronger where opportunities exist to analyse cases that can unearth reasons a selected set of participants feel certain ways, the manners by which these mindsets are fashioned and the role they play in dynamic procedures within the organization or group (Palys, 2008). In this study, the researcher selected participants who were best positioned to share their insights about the research phenomenon – senior lecturers’ feelings about their wellbeing management and what light this may shed on their leadership readiness.

Data collection

To collect data, each participant was pre-assigned a pseudonym, used throughout the data collection, analysis and reporting processes to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. The study utilized a semi-structured interview protocol to collect anonymized participants’ perspectives. Semi-structured interviews can be a valuable tool for researchers who have some knowledge of a particular topic but wish to allow participants the chance to bring up new points. Moreover, these types of interviews are particularly helpful when dealing with intricate issues, as they allow for the use of probes and unplanned questions to delve deeper into the subject matter, further enhancing comprehension and providing clarification on any pertinent inquiries (Wilson, 2014) regarding senior lecturers’ wellbeing. This protocol required participants to describe their perspectives on their feelings, resulting from their college principals’ scant responsiveness to their wellbeing. The main research question guided the development of the protocol. As such, two open-ended reflective sub-questions were generated from the main research question to elicit responses around the themes in which the interviewer was interested. Interviews were done singly online. Online methods for research participants may be preferred over in-person interviews due to various benefits such as accessibility, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility (Archibald et al., 2019). Resultantly, this data was gathered through interviews conducted via Zoom video conferencing that lasted 45–60 minutes.

Data analysis

The data analysis approach utilized is one that Noble and Smith (2013) recommended. Their lens required viewing the process, as they outlined, as an iterative or recurring data analysis process. This was crucial for creative analysis, idea development, meaningful clarification, and concept refining as new insights were discovered in the data (Noble and Smith, 2013) about senior lecturers’ feelings about their principals’ treatment of their wellbeing. Accurate transcription and decision-making are crucial to conducting reliable qualitative research (Eftekhari, 2024). The first step involved playing the Zoom interview audio and performing a manual verbatim transcription of each. The goal was to transcribe data to the highest quality possible, allowing for comprehensive data analysis and enabling the development of ideas and themes supported by thorough, contextual qualitative data (Eftekhari, 2024). Guided by the standards of trustworthiness and reliability, the next step involved reading the transcripts alongside the audio, which were later proofread and shared with each participant for validation through member checking. This process, which required participants to affirm the fidelity of the data, has been known to improve research (Stake, 1995). Stake’s assertion is affirmed by Candela (2019), who argued that member checking should also consider participants’ experiences and other elements and, therefore, not a mere validity measure, thus cementing the importance of this process.

After making minor adjustments to the transcripts of four of the six participants who returned their member-checked responses, the data coding began. Coding provided the opportunity to elaborate and aggregate codes to formulate themes and the explanatory categories (Cuoco et al., 2022) of the study participants’ feelings about related wellbeing matters. The thematic analysis involved a process of generating codes using anticipated themes guided by a deductive approach. Noteworthy is the fact that thematic analyses do not bind the researcher to enumerate overt texts or expressions in the data only but also facilitate the identification and description of implicit concepts for thematic formation (Guest et al., 2012). This principle guided the inductive or open coding of the data from which the smaller units or categories of unanticipated sub-themes emerged. The next step was to further categorize the unanticipated sub-themes into two major anticipated themes bounded by the two research questions. The implicit signifiers from the initial findings were coded into predetermined themes based on the occupational and emotional pillars of wellbeing.

Research findings

The section presents the research findings. Each question generated several unanticipated themes under its respective general theme, namely occupational wellbeing and emotional wellbeing, which chronicle senior lecturers’ descriptions of their response to the perception that their college principals are inattentive to their wellbeing at their respective colleges.

Research Question 1

How do senior lecturers describe their feelings about the influence of their college leaders’ inattention to their occupational wellbeing?

Theme one: Occupational wellbeing

Social agency and nepotistic leadership behaviour

Though not a dominant theme among all participants, Clair explained that leaders’ operational practices often leave little or no time for social interactions with their colleagues.

All (aspects) must be catered for in an institution if you want to have keen, satisfied workers. We are not machines, so I must be treated like a person and not left alone to find solutions for most of my problems. It is not about the financial rewards but how satisfied I am as a worker. Can I be satisfied if I cannot even find time to lyme with my colleagues? Am I the person being catered for? Are you finding out what is happening in my work life so that you can help me? Not at all.

Her feelings of being neglected were also tied to her leader’s nepotistic behaviours when responding to colleagues’ concerns. The analogy she used demonstrated an imbalanced approach by her college leader.

Another thing: You are giving me a dry biscuit, while some people are getting cake, while others are getting sherry with theirs [the cake]. Some people looking on will feel they are less of a person. They [leaders] must try to be balanced.

Mercy, a colleague from the other institution, added her experiences of nepotism, implying that the leader does not value merit-based incentives, an attitude which has taken an occupational toll on her colleagues.

Sometimes, how persons are promoted is not as transparent as it should be or as we think it could be. Sometimes, when persons are promoted or given special privileges, I watch staff morale plummet because persons think that they are being sidelined for less competent individuals.

In contrast to Clair and Mercy, who attributed their leaders’ lack of attention to their wellbeing to nepotism and limited capacity to socialize with colleagues, Shannell connected her feeling of neglect to her leader’s reluctance to listen to her and the arbitrariness with which the leader makes decisions about assigning her teaching workload.

I have asked them not to spring courses outside my specialist training on me to teach. However, whenever something happens, and they decide the department is short-staffed, I am automatically given that course to teach. This happens without consideration that it is going to require that I do additional research because it is outside my area of specialization. That is often very overwhelming, to say the least because when I could be attending to my other responsibilities, I have to be researching to teach.

She continued explaining the indifference with which her leader responded to her suggestions about how they may alleviate some of the workload. All participants described this challenge as a threat to their wellbeing, and each had a suggestion about how their leaders could remediate it.

I have also been suggesting that we look to see how we can get our students to be research assistants where they can assist the lecturers, especially those of us in senior roles. Having a research assistant would reduce the workload. You are required to produce research, but you would be more inclined to research knowing that the full burden of the research is not entirely on you. But they don’t listen, so I just leave it alone.

Exclusion from decision-making about job promotion

Closely associated with the experiences of nepotism and feelings of not being heard are suggestions by participants, Clair and Mercy, that they are excluded from decision-making processes, especially about their promotion to their current or from other roles they occupied. They felt this could help top leaders make better decisions so that middle leaders feel less demotivated in their role. Joan’s contribution to this narrative, though from a different college, confirmed Clair and Mercy’s assertions and explicated how top leaders could proceed with the inclusion they desire.

Instead of just putting persons in positions, give persons a chance to help decide. They should discuss with you to see if it is the right fit for you, not only because you have been at the institution long enough or have shown an interest in the activities of the post. At least say to us [potential appointee] I am going to put you in that position; you may not have all the skills that you need […]. This is how I am going to help you. Here is the support that I am going to provide. How may I help you? I will support you for the next year, and after six months, we will evaluate (Joan). Something like that.

This reported exclusionary leadership practice from decision-making processes related to the post in which they function is compounded by the fact that they also felt once they assumed the role, they felt they did not have the autonomy their leaders should have afforded them. Caren vented: ‘We need a space where we can make decisions without having to consult up [the leadership chain], and they need to create an avenue to make that happen. It’s too frustrating’. Sharnell also shared similar sentiments about how this kind of disregard made them feel: ‘Our hands are tied. I really feel there are certain activities we should be able to undertake and things we make certain decisions about without consulting higher management’.

Catherine’s response reinforced the feeling of nonautonomy expressed by the other participants:

We need to be given a roof and space to operate as middle managers. You want to build the confidence of the middle managers to become persons they can use at the upper tier in the organisation, so they must be given the chance to show what they can do. Therefore, they need to create a space where we can do that without all the bureaucracy, and we need more autonomy.

This response also foregrounded the larger issue she felt the leaders would also miss when they restrict their autonomy, implying that that practice could be to the detriment of the organizations.

Research Question 2

In what ways do senior lecturers perceive their college leaders’ inattention to their occupational wellbeing shapes their feelings about their emotional wellbeing?

Theme 2: Emotional wellbeing

Work performance – Insufficient onboarding and excessive workloads

One participant, Catharine, reported that their work performance was impeded when college leaders did not provide sufficient orientation to their role, which elicited a certain level of emotional distress and feelings of ineptitude.

There should be better orientation. Sometimes, individuals may even feel anxious because they don’t know how to perform all the duties in their role. I mean, the tendency is for you not to know all that you should know. That really is a deterrent to efficiency.

Caren’s view on how insufficient orientation to her role by her leader affected her work performance and self-efficacy and the emotional response it triggers is similar to Catharine’s.

I often feel unprepared for my position. Feeling prepared contributes to an individual feeling confident that he or she can function in the role. An individual may be generally confident but not for working in the assigned position. Proper orientation makes it more probable that the person would feel a greater sense of ease moving into the post, lessening the anxiety that persons feel about being not properly prepared. Individuals always end up second guessing themselves.

The idea of feeling levels of distress about work performance resulting from college leaders’ weak orientation to assume roles was also evident in other participants’ experiences: Here, Sharnell reflected:

Sometimes, it can get quite overwhelming. Sometimes, there is a culture of quantity over quality. Sometimes, the quantity causes the sacrificing of quality because you don’t know how to manage everything else with the core responsibilities. This puts me under a lot of pressure.

Interestingly, her response not only revealed the impact of work performance but also her reference to ‘quantity over quality’, which alludes to how such leadership behaviours may impact the brand of their organization’s product and services. This idea of double impact was further reinforced when she continued to lament:

Most persons will complain that they are overwhelmed; that they are overworked, and that the workload is just too much…they are required to take on a number of things. Some of the things that they are not even trained for. There has not been much succession planning. Persons are transitioned into roles they are not clear about, and they have to learn it while they are doing it. So, in terms of emotional support, not much is being done.

Feelings of guilt – Inability to feel safe setting boundaries

Some participants’ wrestling with their wellbeing neglect seemed to be trifold resulting in feelings of guilt. Their college leaders relegate the responsibility for handling areas of personal inadequacies in their positions independently, under excessive work demands and in a context where they feel they are not free to speak about their challenges. Hence, they become riddled with guilt if they attempt to set boundaries. For instance, Joan, in relating her conundrum of teaching 19 hours, alongside field supervision of five student-teachers, a portfolio responsibility for functions at her institution, which has several with other associated activities, expressed:

Sometimes, I would love to talk to somebody. Sometimes, you want to get your stress level down, but you are afraid to say anything. I am saying, how do you cater to a person who has so much on their plate? You are not given the time. You are going to say your hands are tied if I ask for help and if I say no, it is almost as if I am committing a great sin.

Mercy had almost identical sentiments but added explicitly that her feelings of guilt are triggered by fear of payback.

My leader is a ‘my way or the highway’ kind of individual, most of the time. Sometimes, it would be good to feel free to talk about some of the challenges I experience on a daily basis, but you get the feeling that you can’t. Even if you do, you end up feeling that you are less than because others appear not to be managing. I try my best to cope but, I wish I could go in to my leader and talk to him about stuff, without all this fear of retribution.

Other producers of guilt also arose from the reality that middle leaders perceived that they had to go into overdrive because the evaluation processes at the college level did not sufficiently account for their demanding portfolio. This knowledge forces them to go far beyond the limits of their duties and subject themselves to additional pressure in response to the fear that others whose work portfolio is not equally heavy, might become the unrealistic standard bearer: As Shanice explained:

Students are heavily dependent on their lecturers because they [students] are not scholars and I have seen myself and colleagues working overtime, going above and beyond to help students because of this dependency. That does not give lecturers enough time. However, with a system where lecturers are evaluated based on students’ performance and feedback, you will feel that if your colleague is meeting on a Sunday with their students to give them additional help and you do not, it may have implications for your evaluation. You feel guilty. Psychologically you are affected. You are pressured.

Caren agreed with Shanice that they do carry an amount of guilt when they are unable to honour all that is required of them as senior lecturers because of their heavy workload and their fear of speaking up. She recounted:

Once, I confronted a lecturer who was meeting with her students during the weekends and told her, ‘Oonuh just come to this place to show up people when you do things like this. You should stay home wid yuh family. What are you trying to prove’?

Discussion of findings and implications

Care is at the centre of any discourse about wellbeing and among the ways college leaders can demonstrate their care for senior lecturers’ emotional and occupational wellbeing is being open to listening to them to learn from them how they can be helped. However, one of the dominant feelings senior lecturers experienced about their principals’ response to their wellbeing is neglect, manifested as feeling unheard and leaders being inaccessible. Their concerns about their feeling of not being listened to contradict what the literature establishes as a leadership wellbeing care best practice. For example, Hirschhorn (1990), Thompson (2015) and Lutovac et al. (2024) have all lauded the utility of leaders listening to their employees as beneficial to leaders, employees, and the organization because of the wealth of potentially useful knowledge exchange. The impression that college leaders do not value this leadership practice suggests a disregard for their employees’ input (Hirschhorn, 1990) and injudicious stewardship of care for their wellbeing. This distance might communicate disrespect to senior lecturers, considering Thompson’s (2015) argument that to listen is to respect, and The US Department of Health Service’s (2023) validation of this idea by naming respect as a distinct pillar of occupational wellbeing.

To the extent that senior lecturers feel unheard, feel that their leaders are inaccessible, and where respect is absent, the workplace is not a safe space for emotional and occupational thriving. Employees will become frustrated from feeling undervalued, leading to withdrawal of valuable input and heightened motivation to leave the job. A contrastive perspective invites rumination on other possible explanations for this negative leadership behaviour. One is that college principals are also vulnerable as leaders may be unaware of how their behaviours might impact senior lecturers’ wellbeing. Thus, the related disregard that SLs perceived might be unintentional. Another is whether they know enough about wellbeing care to translate it into practice in appreciable ways.

Regardless of what is responsible for college leaders’ inattentiveness to senior lecturers’ voices, this negative behaviour raises two possible implications, among others. The first is that it denies them the chance to understand wellbeing issues, generally, within their colleges. The second and more specific, is that they miss the chance to understand how this negative response impacts senior lecturers. This style of not listening inevitably marries organizational dysfunction. It stymies success by stifling individual agency and creative thinking, both pertinent to negating organizational failure and employees feeling uncared for. Over time, college leaders will observe the evidence of compromised emotional and occupational wellbeing among their senior lecturer core, displayed as decreased commitment, motivation and participation and weakened morale.

Contrastingly, by placing value on this behaviour, college leaders signal their care about and respect for their senior lecturers and their willingness to nurture a more inclusive culture that supports individual flourishing for organizational growth. Additionally, college principals’ administration of desirable traits in their treatment of senior lecturers simultaneously affirms their readiness to lead and undoubtedly, in turn, serves as a model treatment for those they are supervising to emulate.

Another reason senior lecturers felt neglected is that they thought their leaders were inaccessible. If senior leaders feel their leaders are inaccessible, there will be lost opportunities to develop strong relationships, a necessary element of emotional and occupational wellbeing care. Bass and Bass (2008) have advocated that leaders and followers hold significance in strong relationships and argue that the quality of these relationships has a notable impact because it increases the likelihood of leadership influence to get desired changes in attitudes and behaviour. Therefore, it would be a mistake for college leaders to exercise a lack of care by continuing to underestimate the power of positive relationships on occupational and emotional wellbeing within their organizations. What they stand to gain with such a stance are senior lecturers who are demotivated, underproductive, disengaged, and overall disinterested in their work (Azila-Gbettor et al., 2024) and who have elevated levels of feeling that care for them is lacking. All these behaviours are related to poor occupational and emotional wellbeing (US Department of Health, 2023), synonymous with poor care. Additionally, they also oppose the research that outlined that a sense of purposefulness and constructive associations are among the elements that constitute wellbeing (Ruggeri et al., 2020).

Whether these elements are absent from the top, middle or lower tier of the leadership construct, such absence can impact wellbeing and indicate weak leadership nurture. Furthermore, Gallo (2023) advised that nurture is supported by workplace collegiality and included it among the behaviour leaders who are ready to lead are prepared to cultivate. Therefore, this poverty of nurture amplifies the question of whether leaders are ready to lead if nurture is limited or non-existent.

Three of the six senior lecturers cited instances when they felt nepotism was at play. It is insightful that the participants did not indicate whether the colleagues their leaders placed in roles seemingly intended for others were incompetent and subsequently operated outside the expectations of the tasks of their leadership positions. This being the case, a strong argument could support Jones et al. (2008) claim that nepotism, cronyism and social connectedness might not result in organizational loss but hold value-added promise. While this would be good for colleges at the institutional level because no leadership would be lost, such gains should not be at the expense of the emotional and social wellbeing of senior lecturers or any other employee.

A point to consider which departs from Jones et al.’s optimism of nepotism is that the findings also indicated a perceived plummeting of overall staff morale. As a result of this perception, some employees felt less deserving than others. Jones et al. (2008) affirm that ‘It [nepotism] is also the perception of “privilege” that observers may hold’ (p. 19) and in this light, perceptions should not be discounted to alleviate any possible emotional and occupational distress. Grant et al. (2007) argued that wellbeing is responsible for people’s personal experiences and how they function. Feelings of nepotism among senior lecturers will also fuel a negative occupational impact. The casualties of this could be the wounding of interpersonal relationships and trust. Where this happens, again, morale will be low, work production and overall culture will decline, and wellbeing issues will escalate. Unlike the theory that the perception of organizational fairness might not be modified by perceived nepotistic behaviour (Spranger et al., 2012), this study’s findings support the view that it has.

Senior lecturers felt excluded from decision-making processes, especially those related to their promotion, which was another way they felt their wellbeing was disregarded. While top leaders within teachers’ colleges have the autonomy not to confer with relevant others to make appointments to different posts, though not recommended, there is value in having conversations with potential appointees of leadership positions. When such inclusive practices are implemented, college leaders increase opportunities to enhance their understanding of the level of efficacy a leader will take to the position. As one participant pointed out, having a general interest in an area is not an indication of willingness or readiness to serve in the area. Also, Benson et al. (2019) cautioned that ‘When management requires skills that are different from those required for lower-level work, the best workers may not make the best managers’ (p. 2085). Therefore, for teachers’ college leaders to lay claim to care about the wellbeing of their senior lecturers, they must engage them in uplifting dialogues that provide opportunities to clarify concerns and uncertainties. Resultantly, this practice can reduce the emotional and occupational hazards endemic to ineptitude.

With access to the gains from better inclusive decision-making practices for promotion, college leaders can better design and manage a framework of readiness support for senior lecturers moving to a different post or for lecturers being considered for senior posts. In addition, leadership readiness is further enhanced because this individual-specific process ruptures a space for improved accessibility for interaction with college leaders, which can yield insightful guidance to appointees. This interaction can clarify, among other things, mutual agreement on whether they are the right fit for the job, the terms of engagement and the level of support they can anticipate in the role. Appointees’ overall emotional and occupational wellbeing will, in turn, benefit from boosted confidence, which can impact a more positive emotional and occupational state because they come to the posts with less related anxieties. This is in sync with the US Department of Health’s (2023) emotional pillar of wellbeing, which reinforces freedom of expression of feelings and efficiently coping with stress and other obstacles.

Another issue under the microscope is senior lecturers’ concerns about feeling unsafe speaking freely about being consistently overwhelmed and their consequent guilt upon contemplating imposing boundaries. If the college environment is unwelcoming of expressions about work-related affairs, the leadership care implications for wellbeing and leadership readiness would be undesirable. Milner et al. (2015) emphasize organizational effectiveness and wellbeing care. Many organizations have strong influences that lead employees to keep quiet about possible problems or issues (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Schwappach and Gehring research in (2014) points to the existence of implicit beliefs among employees concerning how leaders will react to their input. These beliefs, whether accurate or not, can restrict employees’ willingness to speak up. In the case of this study, overall discomfort, fear of reprisal, and guilt are among the reasons participants shared. All these factors are risks to occupational and emotional wellbeing. This might shed light on why some senior leaders, such as Shannell, display such a lack of agency in, for example, tabling a clear proposal of how research assistants could assist with workload challenges, given the likely increased demands for the institution’s financial resources.

This research also spotlighted some other important considerations about leadership readiness and wellbeing management, which balances this discourse. Leaders are generally tasked with a heavy responsibility, but there was some uncertainty about whether the study participants were fully cognisant of these demands. This created what appears to be a disparity between their job roles, their expectations and experiences in them. If this is not the case, it could be that the job demands are, indeed, greater than these senior lecturers understand and can manage. This could exacerbate their perceived deficit in how their college leaders have managed their wellbeing in relation to their levels of preparedness for their jobs. Either of these scenarios requires some supervisory management training or, as one participant called for, an intensification of such.

Recommendations

Best (2010) argued that the strength of leadership readiness is marked not only by knowledge of leadership content but also by personality and behavioural traits that support a wholesome, nurturing work environment.

Practice

College leaders are encouraged to create a work environment where senior lecturers feel psychologically safe to voice their suggestions, experiences, and concerns fearlessly and respectfully about wellbeing. To achieve this, college principals could privilege all employee voices, including those that might differ and respond to their concerns and suggestions promptly, regularly and respectfully. Other suggestions could include structured communication channels and highlighting the unique strengths of each team member. In so doing, college leaders will activate access to benefits resulting from senior lecturers feeling listened to, valued and respected. Undoubtedly, college leaders have demanding schedules. Notwithstanding, further exploration of ways, such as open-door policies, a designated office day, scheduled appointments and systematic incorporation of vice principals, to provide greater access to those they lead will be useful to:

1. Address the identified accessibility and feelings of being unheard gaps

2. Cultivate trust and positive relationships between them and their senior lecturers and,

3. Experience a reciprocal strengthening of their leadership readiness.

Policy

Jamaica has several bodies, laws, policies and initiatives at the national level that address nepotism and related behaviours. Yet the perception of nepotism and favouritism remains high nationally, including in the education sector. So, there is room for bolstering regulatory frameworks. One recommendation is to conduct policy reviews on the policies that address nepotism at both the macro and micro levels to improve them for impact, ease of enforceability, ensure they are updated and for evolutionary responses to the challenges of the work environment. At the college level, policy imperatives could include leaders consulting with staff to develop and implement transparent and fair employment and promotion frameworks and ensure employees are policy literate. Such frameworks would also advance relevant practical transitional support and various media for flagging and reporting without fear of imagined or actual adverse repercussions.

They can also develop an institutional culture that is speak-up friendly that also values potential appointees’ input on their readiness to assume positions of responsibility by:

1. Soliciting and utilizing feedback and implementing the suggestions where applicable and reasonable to build and maintain trust.

2. Becoming intentional about modelling respect to employees.

3. Providing funded mandatory professional learning outlets for capacity building.

Research

Choosing two colleges as study sites and six senior lecturers as participants is in scholarly alignment with qualitative work. Though this decision imposes a limit, it also creates an opportunity to expand on the work to gain deeper insights from a broader cross-section of colleges. As the country reflects on improving policy directives for wellbeing in higher education institutions, knowledge about how leadership preparation programs approach future leaders’ readiness to address faculty wellbeing will be necessary.

It would create a balance in the literature to investigate college leaders’ stances on wellbeing and leadership readiness, their description of the wellbeing approaches they utilize with faculty, their perceptions of the impactfulness of these approaches and the impediments they encounter in implementing them.

Given the perception among senior lecturers that nepotistic behaviour is prevalent, interesting, related research areas for exploration are the impact of this perception on work motivation and morale for the wider college faculty, occupational wellbeing, and trust in the organization.

Conclusion

The variation of feelings about college leaders’ treatment of senior lecturers’ wellbeing makes the compelling argument that leadership readiness is on a continuum, so determining leaders’ readiness to lead might be difficult. Nonetheless, this brings into focus two questions that the educational leadership fraternity must further contemplate and to which this paper responds:

Firstly, can educational leaders in top positions be essentialized as ready to lead if their concern about their employees’ wellbeing is not evident in their leadership practice? This would be a difficult case to make in the affirmative. The evidence is clear that in organizations where middle leaders are in occupational and emotional upheaval, top leadership is not providing a nurturing environment which develops and provides a suitable context for enhancing leadership readiness, thus displaying their own unpreparedness. Additionally, the overarching theme of neglect contradicts longstanding best practices about how positive leadership impacts employees’ wellbeing.

Secondly and on the converse, can middle leaders, who answer to these top leaders be described as ready to lead if they have limited mechanisms to navigate the challenges that will emerge while they execute their roles or if they feel their leaders’ exercise of their wellbeing care is insufficient? When top leaders embed wellbeing in organizational cultures, it is an act of leadership readiness. However, where such an element is absent, leadership readiness is called into question for leaders on both tiers of leadership addressed in this paper. If top leadership within colleges do not assist middle leadership in assuming assigned positions and responding to the challenges that they are likely to encounter as they execute their roles, such top leaders are not fully ready. Consequently, those in the middle, whom they lead, would present with gaps in their leadership practices as they execute their varied roles. Thus, also casting doubt on their readiness to optimize their functions.

Notwithstanding, the challenges, there is abundant promise for educational leadership readiness when viewed through Pandya and Shroff’s (2020) definition that readiness is entrenched in how much leaders are willing and able to transfer what they know. The recommendations are a strong foundation for elevating leaders’ content knowledge acquisition and their desire and commitment to nurture those they lead by building their readiness capacities timeously for improved organizational function and educational outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ann-Marie Wilmot

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Adams

(2019) The value of worker wellbeing. Public Health Reports 134(6): 583–586. DOI: 10.1177/0033354919878434.

Agius

(2013) Qualitative research: its value and applicability. The Psychiatrist 37(6): 204–206. DOI: 10.1192/pb.bp.113.042770.

Archibald

Ambagtsheer

Casey

, et al. (2019) Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18: 160940691987459. DOI: 10.1177/1609406919874596.

Azila-Gbettor

Honyenuga

Atatsi

, et al. (2024) Reviewing the influence of positive leadership on worker well-being: a comprehensive analysis. Heliyon 10(2): e24134. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24134.

Baker

Manning

CEN

(2021b) Preparing the next generation of institutionalleaders: Strategic supports for midcareer faculty. To Improve theAcademy:. A Journal of Educational Development 40(1): 1–26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.963

Bass

(2008) The Bass Handbook of Leadership Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press.

Bell

Rajendran

Theiler

(2012) Job stress, wellbeing, work-life balance and work-life conflict among Australian academics. E-Journal of Applied Psychology 8(1): 25. DOI: 10.7790/ejap.v8i1.320.

Benson

Shue

(2019) Promotions and the peter principle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 134(4): 2085–2134. DOI: 10.1093/qje/qjz022.

Best

(2010) Assessing leadership readiness using developmental personality style: a tool for leadership coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring 8(1): 22–33. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-18729-003

10.

Bourne

(2024) An examination of employee wellbeing and work-life balance in a higher educational institution in Jamaica. International Journal of HR & Organizational Management Insights & Transformations 9(1). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381255351_An_Examination_of_Employee_Wellbeing_and_Work-_Life_Balance_in_a_Higher_Educational_Institution_in_Jamaica.

11.

Buller

(2012) The Essential Department Chair. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

12.

Candela

(2019) Exploring the function of member checking. Qualitative Report 24(3): 619–628. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol24/iss3/14

13.

Chakraborty

Mahanta

(2019) Employee wellbeing–Are organizations addressing it the correct way? IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences 14(2): 17–27.

14.

Chen

Eisenberger

Johnson

, et al. (2009) Perceived organizational support and extra-role performance: which leads to which? The Journal of Social Psychology 149(1): 119–124. DOI: 10.3200/SOCP.149.1.119-124.

15.

Cuoco

Arcadi

Figura

, et al. (2022) Designing and conducting qualitative research across countries and cultures: challenges for inclusiveness and rigour. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 21(8): 873–879. DOI: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvac067.

16.

De Simone

Franco

(2023) Leader behaviour affecting well-being at work. International Journal of Business and Social Science 14(5). doi: 10.30845/ijbss.v14n5p1

17.

Eftekhari

(2024) Transcribing in the digital age: qualitative research practice utilizing intelligent speech recognition technology. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 23(5): 553–560. DOI: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvae013.

18.

Eisele

(2020) Transformational and devious leadership and how it predicts stress and workplace wellbeing. International Journal of Organizational Leadership 9(3): 163–169. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344537258_Transformational_and_Devious_Leadership_and_How_it_Predicts_Stress_and_Workplace_Wellbeing

19.

Falecki

Mann

(2021) Practical applications for building teacher wellbeing in education. In: Mansfield

(ed). Cultivating teacher resilience. Springer, 175–191. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5963-1_11

20.

Fisher

(2021) How to increase professional wellbeing: what leaders and employees can do [white paper]. InVista. https://invistainsights.com/Invista_Wellbeing_IncreaseWellbeing_WhitePaper.pdf.

21.

Gallo

(2023, March 16) The Leadership Readiness Gap: Core Causes and Possible Solutions. Training Industry. https://trainingindustry.com/articles/leadership/the-leadership-readiness-gap-core-causes-and-possible-solutions/

22.

Grant

Christianson

Price

(2007) Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. Academy of Management Perspectives 21(3): 51–63. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2007.26421238.

23.

Guest

MacQueen

Namey

(2012) Introduction to applied thematic analysis. Applied thematic analysis 3(20): 1–21.

24.

Hamling

Jarden

Schofield

(2015) Recipes for occupational wellbeing: an investigation of the associations with wellbeing in New Zealand workers. New Zealand Journal of Human Resource Management 12(2): 151–173.

25.

Hettler

(1976) The Six Dimensions of Wellness. National Wellness Institute. https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/healthieru/docs/six-dimensions-fact-sheet.pdf

26.

Hirschhorn

(1990) Leaders and followers in a postindustrial age: a psychodynamic view. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 26(4): 529–542. DOI: 10.1177/0021886390264008.

27.

Hunter

Bedell-Avers

Mumford

(2007) The typical leadership study: assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly 18: 435–446. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.001.

28.

Inceoglu

Thomas

Chu

, et al. (2018) Leadership behavior and employee well-being: an integrated review and a future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 29(1): 179–202. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984317301418

29.

Itri

Lawson

(2016) Ineffective leadership. Journal of the American College of Radiology 13(7): 849–855. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.02.008.

30.

Jacobs

(2019) Ineffective-leader-induced occupational stress. Sage Open 9(2): 215824401985585. DOI: 10.1177/2158244019855858.

31.

Jarden

Roache

(2023) What is wellbeing? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20(6): 5006. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20065006.

32.

Jones

Stout

Harder

, et al. (2008) Personnel psychology and nepotism: should we support anti-nepotism policies. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 45(3): 17–20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240610818_Personnel_Psychology_and_Nepotism_Should_We_Support_Anti-Nepotism_Policies

33.

Jordan

(2016) Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. In: Farazmand

(ed) Positive Leadership Behavior. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1341-1.

34.

Kaluza

Boer

Buengeler

, et al. (2020) Leadership behaviour and leader self-reported well-being: a review, integration and meta-analytic examination. Work & Stress 34(1): 34–56. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2019.1617369.

35.

Kelloway

Weigand

McKee

, et al. (2013) Positive leadership and employee well-being. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 20(1): 107–117. DOI: 10.1177/1548051812465892.

36.

Knudsen

(2018) Leadership developmental readiness : furthering our understanding of this multi-dimensional construct. Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects 135: 160940691987459. https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/135

37.

Larson

Seipel

Shelley

, et al. (2019) The academic environment and faculty well-being: the role of psychological needs. Journal of Career Assessment 27(1): 167–182. DOI: 10.1177/1069072717748667.

38.

Levitt

Bamberg

Creswell

, et al. (2018) Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: the APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist 73(1): 26–46. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000151.

39.

Litchman

(2013) Introduction and Overview of the Field. 3rd edition. Sage publishers. Available at: https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/45659_1.pdf.

40.

Lizier

(2024) Middle leaders in higher education: the role of social-political arrangements in prefiguring practices of middle leading. Journal of Educational Administration & History 56(2): 241–257. DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2023.2255534.

41.

Lutovac

Uitto

Keränen

, et al. (2024) Teachers’ work today: exploring Finnish teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education 137(3): 104378. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104378.

42.

Maddock

(2023) Academic middle leaders, middle leading and middle leadership of university learning and teaching: a systematic review of the higher education literature. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 45: 357–392. DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2022.2160888.

43.

Milner

Greyling

Goetzel

, et al. (2015) The relationship between leadership support, workplace health promotion and employee wellbeing in South Africa. Health Promotion International 30(3): 514–522. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/dat064.

44.

Morrison

Milliken

(2000) Organizational silence: a barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25: 706–725. DOI: 10.2307/259200.

45.

Nielsen

Randall

Yarker

, et al. (2008) The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study. Work & Stress 22(1): 16–32. DOI: 10.1080/02678370801979430.

46.

Noble

Smith

(2013) Qualitative data analysis: a practical example. Evidence-Based Nursing Online 17(1): 2–3. DOI: 10.1136/eb-2013-101603.

47.

O’Brien

Guiney

(2018) Staff wellbeing in higher education: A research study for education support partnership. Education Support Partnership. Available at: https://www.educationsupport.org.uk/media/fs0pzdo2/staff_wellbeing_he_research.pdf.

48.

Palys

(2008) Purposive sampling. In: Given

(ed) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles, Calif: Sage, Vol. 2, 697–698.

49.

Pandya

Shroff

(2020) An analysis of factors affecting leadership readiness. International Journal of Business and General Management 10(2): 25–32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356067867_AN_ANALYSIS_OF_FACTORS_AFFECTING_LEADERSHIP_READINESS

50.

Putra

ASB

Kusumawati

Kartikasari

(2024) Unpacking the roots and impact of workplace well-being: a literature review. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach Research and Science 2(01): 312–321.

51.

Rajbhandari

MMS

Loock

Du Plessis

(2014) Leadership Readiness for Flexibility and Mobility: The 4th Dimensions on Situational Leadership Styles in Educational Settings. (Publication No. ED552915) [Doctoral dissertation]. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED552915.pdf.

52.

Reichard

Beck

(2017) Leader developmental readiness: deconstructed and reconstructed. In: Clark

Gruber

(eds) Leader Development Deconstructed. Annals of Theoretical Psychology. Cham: Springer, Vol. 15, 115–140. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-64740-1_6.

53.

Ruggeri

Garcia-Garzon

Maguire

, et al. (2020) Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: a multidimensional analysis of 21 countries. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 18: 192.

54.

Sandelowski

(1995) Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health 18(2): 179–183.

55.

Schwappach

Gehring

(2014) Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff’s decisions to speak up about safety concerns. BMC Health Services Research 14: 303. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-303.

56.

Schyns

Schilling

(2013) How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 24(1): 138–158.

57.

Skakon

Nielsen

Borg

, et al. (2010) Are leaders’ well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work & Stress 24(2): 107–139. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2010.495262.

58.

Sonja

Urska

Zizek

(2015) Training programs for managing well-being in companies. Our Economy (Nase Gospodarstvo) 61(4): 23–31. DOI: 10.1515/ngoe-2015-0015.

59.

Spranger

Colarelli

Dimotakis

, et al. (2012) Effects of kin density within family-owned businesses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119(2): 151–162. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.001.

60.

Stake

(1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Sage.

61.

Terry

(2019) Workplace health promotion is growing up but confusion remains about what constitutes a comprehensive approach. American Journal of Health Promotion 33(6): 845–849. DOI: 10.1177/0890117119854618.

62.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (2024, September 2) Wellbeing at work. https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/factsheets/well-being-factsheet/#the-key-domains-of-.

63.

Thompson

(2015) Locating the Epicenter of Effective (Educational) Leadership in the 21st Century. Kingston: Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280301152_Locating_the_epicentre_of_effective_educational_leadership_in_the_21st_century.

64.

Thornton

Walton

Wilson

, et al. (2018) Middle leadership roles in universities: holy grail or poisoned chalice. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 40(3): 208–223. DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2018.1462435.

65.

US Department of Health and Human Services (2023) Cultivating wellness: eight dimensions of staff well-being. Office of Head Start, National Center. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/publication/cultivating-wellness-8-dimensions-staff-well-being#:∼:text=Occupational,ofacultureofwellness

66.

Virtue

(2024) A tertiary institution’s approach to strategic planning and implementation for faculty wellbeing. In: Walker

Kutsyuruba

(eds) The Emerald Handbook of Wellbeing in Higher Education: Global Perspectives on Students, Faculty, Leaders, and Institutions. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, 183–197. DOI: 10.1108/978-1-83797-504-420241013.

67.

Wilmot

A-M

(2024) Six middle leaders speak to wellbeing initiatives in two Jamaican teacher training colleges. In: Walker

Kutsyuruba

68.

Wilson

(2014) Semi-structured interviews. Interview Techniques for UX Practitioners. 1st edition. Elsevier Inc, 23–41.

69.

Wooldridge

Schmid

Floyd

(2008) The middle management perspective on strategy process: contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management 34(6): 1190–1221.

70.

World Economic Forum (2024) From hierarchy to partnership: rethinking the employee/employer relationship in 2024. Forum Institutional. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/hierarchy-partnership-employee-employer-relationship/

71.

World Health Organization (2020) Health promotion glossary of terms. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/350161/9789240038349-eng.pdf?sequence=1.