Linking leader-member exchange and work–nonwork balance: the mediating role of thriving at work and the moderating role of gender

2.1 LMX and work–nonwork interface

A distinguishing feature of LMX is the view that the relationships between leaders and their followers are not homogeneous for several factors (Liden and Graen, 1980). Nonetheless, there is an intuitive logic to the argument that leaders are proximal to providing the enabling resources (relational, financial resources) that assist followers to achieve their goals (Major and Morganson, 2011). High-quality LMX relationships tend to be exemplified by four characteristics: mutual affect, perceived contribution to goals, loyalty such that parties have trust in the relationship and professional respect (Litano et al., 2016; Major and Morganson, 2011).

LMX has been demonstrated to serve as an antecedent in several work settings (Martin et al., 2016) and evidence suggests that the provision of organisational support from leaders and supervisors are key to managing WNWB (Allen et al., 2012; French et al., 2018). A study by Tummers and Bronkhorst (2014) reported that LMX served to decrease work–family interference by reducing employees' work pressure. These authors also found LMX contributed positively to work–family facilitation because LMX enabled employees to perceive the meaningfulness of work. Similarly, Russo and his colleagues (2018) reported family supportive supervisory behaviours were positively associated with work–family enrichment. These behaviours, which include emotional support, instrumental support, role modelling and creative solutions to assist the work–family interface, are resources that facilitate employees to manage the competing work and non-work goals. Finally, a meta-analytic review of LMX and the work–family literature has produced small- to medium-sized correlations. LMX was negatively linked with work interfering in family life (ρ = −0.26) and family interfering with work (ρ = −0.13), but LMX was positively associated with work–family enrichment (ρ = 0.38) and family–work enrichment (ρ = 0.28) (French et al., 2018). In summary, the literature generally indicates that LMX has important implications on the interface between work and nonwork domains.

2.2 The integrative model of human growth (IMHG)

The IMHG (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014) is grounded in self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2000) and serves as the overarching theoretical framework to explain the process through which LMX leads to WNWB. The IMHG proposes that workplace contextual enablers play a critical role in driving individuals' sense of thriving at work, and ultimately lead to desirable human growth outcomes (e.g. performance, adaptation and health) (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014) that signal a balance between one's work and nonwork domains (Timms et al., 2015). IMHG is grounded in SDT to explain why individuals thrive when relevant social, contextual features are present. A key notion of SDT is that individuals have an innate propensity to develop psychologically and in part, this growth depends on the broader social context. As per Spreitzer and Porath (2014), SDT portends the importance of three psychological needs that are central to feelings of growth and vitality: (1) relatedness – a sense of feeling connected and cared for, (2) competence – the notion of feeling capable in the environment and (3) autonomy – the perception of having volition to deal with the situation. The IMHG explains that employees can thrive largely because key social contexts help fulfil these psychological needs, which make them self-determined to be energized and grow.

Unpacking the implications of the IMHG, Spreitzer and Porath (2014) provide non-exclusive examples of contextual enablers to articulate the nature of the social context that operates to help employees achieve balanced human growth outcomes through fostering their sense of thriving. They describe that the development of thriving is facilitated by workplace social contexts that are characterized by decision-making discretion, information sharing, climate of trust and respect, performance feedback and/or low environmental volatility, which feed autonomy, competence and relatedness. That is, social, contextual factors that provide opportunities for autonomous decision-making, feedback receiving, and interpersonal interaction and support will be able to trigger employees' sense of thriving. LMX is such a factor, given that it represents a relational resource that employees can leverage to pursue thriving-enabling conditions within their workplace social context (Kleine et al., 2019). Supporting this view, the literature has shown that high-quality LMX leads employees to perceive more empowerment, volition and autonomy at work (Gómez and Rosen, 2001); allows them to gain more trust, respect and support from the leader (Martin et al., 2016); and helps them obtain meaningful and positive feedback (Cogliser et al., 2009). Due to these attributes and functions associated with LMX, it could be well positioned as a contextual enabler in the overarching framework of IMHG. Also, gender roles prove to be salient in processes of developing and reacting to LMX (Bauer and Green, 1996; Kailasapathy et al., 2014), echoing the traditional social role perspective that males and females differ in their relationship orientation (Cron et al., 2009). Integrating these perspectives with the IMHG we contend that LMX feeds psychological nutriments for thriving to benefit WNWB, a signal of positive human growth outcomes, and this process can vary with gender. We elaborate our reasoning in the following sections.

2.3 Thriving as a mediator between LMX and WNWB

Linking LMX and thriving. In this section, we outline the origins of thriving and then suggest how thriving can be fostered by LMX. As mentioned earlier, thriving is underpinned by SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2000) but we highlight there are also parallels between LMX and SDT. Thriving is defined as a psychological state that denotes the joint experience of vitality and learning at work (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Vitality captures the essence of feeling energised and being alive, while learning refers to a sense of growing via knowledge acquisition and utilisation. It is important to highlight that as a state construct, thriving is “socially-embedded” and as such, is malleable in response to the changing contextual factors and resources at work.

Porath et al.’s (2012) seminal study found that thriving, being a state condition shaping several job and health-related outcomes, could results from various contextual settings. Over a one-month period the authors reported thriving fluctuated in response to changes in participants work and non-work environment. Similarly, a one-week diary study identified that thriving increased when participants experienced meaning at work (Niessen et al., 2012). It is not our intention to conduct a systematic review on the thriving literature, but we refer readers to a meta-analytic study of approximately 22,000 participants. Kleine et al. (2019) identified consistent evidence highlighting the effectiveness of relational resources in enabling employee thriving (Kleine et al., 2019).

More recent theorising has redefined thriving in terms of the IMHG (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014), which argues the importance of three psychological needs (i.e. autonomy, competence and relatedness) underlying SDT to subsequently feed vitality and learning (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014). The successful application of the contextual enablers in the IMHG is consistent with the resources that are provided in high-quality LMX relationship. Leaders that develop high-quality relationships with their followers are in effect providing the opportunity for thriving. Participating in, and/or making the decisions, joining in open information sharing, receiving feedback to adjust performance, feeling supported during challenges at work contribute to mutual respect and trust; high-quality interpersonal relationships that underpin a well-functioning dyad or team (Liden et al., 1977). These high-quality LMX relationships would seem to contribute to the development of a sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness, thereby demonstrating a close link between LMX and SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2000).

There is an emerging literature supporting the linkage between LMX and thriving. In a multi-level study of retail workers, Xu et al. (2019) reported a small-medium association between LMX and thriving (r = 0.23, p < 0.001). Paterson et al. (2014) reported that supervisors played a key role in creating a supportive work climate that predicted thriving and subsequently job performance, and Li (2015) reported thriving mediated the relationship between LMX and job performance. A meta-analytic study (Liu et al., 2021) reported that several leadership styles were antecedents of thriving, but the association was strongest with LMX. Leadership is a pivotal enabler (Rego et al., 2020) that creates and sustains high-quality relationships.

Linking Thriving and WNWB. We argue that employees' sense of thriving fostered by LMX will further help them achieve WNWB. Thriving has been associated with several positive health, work-related attitudes and task performance outcomes (Kleine et al., 2019) but we are unaware of prior studies linking thriving and WNWB. Unlike such popular and explicit outcomes identified in the current thriving literature, WNWB extends the implications of workplace thriving beyond a bounded work context to acknowledge the potential consequences of thriving in domains outside work. Thriving was originally conceived in terms of being socially embedded in relationships at work (Spreitzer et al., 2005). However, the work setting is one component of a broader social system that includes the non-work domain (Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012). The interface between the work and non-work domains is permeable, and this suggests that resources and challenges across the social systems can be exchanged. We contend that the benefits of thriving at work can equally be transmitted to the non-work domain.

The innate tendency for psychological growth (Deci and Ryan, 2000) suggests that people who are thriving are active participants in shaping their social environment. As active participants, thriving individuals aim to develop high-quality relational links with their leaders and peers, they seek to develop their knowledge and seek opportunities for continued development (Spreitzer et al., 2005). These types of behaviours allow individuals to develop confidence, strategic skills in prioritising their issues and problem solving. The fact that thriving is embedded in a social system suggests that the resources acquired via thriving have the potential to generalise to the non-work domain. SDT proposes that the motivation to grow, allows individuals to acquire energy via purposeful self-regulation which can be vitalising (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014). The tenets of SDT are not restricted to the work environment but apply to the broader social system.

There is some evidence in the literature that resources and skills acquired in one domain are transferable to the other domain to meet respective challenges (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006). For example, the contextual resources acquired from family supportive supervisors were shown to be linked with work–family enrichment and then thriving (Russo et al., 2018). Similarly, Ren et al. (2022) reported that family support led to family–work enrichment which in turn, predicted thriving. In addition to these studies which showcase the impact of family domains on workplace experiences, empirical research has just emerged to suggest that thriving at work can positively affect one's life satisfaction (e.g. Zhai et al., 2020). Coupled with Spreitzer and Porath's (2014) theoretical emphasis on the benefits of thriving beyond employees' specific work settings, this emerging evidence has consolidated the view that workplace thriving may help individuals achieve a positive, balanced interface between work and nonwork areas (e.g. Xu et al., 2020).

To summarise our discussion so far, we argued that LMX is an antecedent for thriving. LMX is a key enabler providing the necessary resources to allow followers to develop the necessary personal and intellectual resources to thrive at work. We then proposed that people that thrive are growing psychologically and responding in ways that allow them to maintain a balanced status between work and nonwork domains. On this basis, we posit that thriving is the mediator that links LMX with WNWB.

2.4 Moderating role of gender linking LMX and thriving

A central principle of LMX theory is the notion that leaders form differential relationships with followers and the impact of LMX diversifies across different population groups (Martin et al., 2016). LMX is essentially a relationship-based construct and those who place greater importance on socialisation and relationship in the workplace, are more inclined to value LMX (Son et al., 2014).

Social role theory would suggest that through socialisation and the development of gender roles, men and women perpetuate the division of labour along stereotypical lines such that males are the primary family earners and reflect agentic qualities such as competitiveness and assertiveness. In contrast, female roles are characterised by communal and caring qualities (Eagly and Wood, 2016; Parry et al., 2021). Consistent with these gender role expectations, females are likely to be motivated and energized in situations where personal relationships with others are effective and salient (Jiang and Hu, 2016). A main reason is that females are usually believed to be more interpersonally sensitive than males (Briton and Hall, 1995) and tend to be more psychologically reactive to interpersonal relationships at work (e.g. Jiang and Hu, 2016).

In keeping with the idea of gender differences there is also evidence to support a preference for distinct leadership styles. Males are considered to favour autocratic or task-focused leadership styles, while women favour interpersonal styles (Eagly et al., 2003). Based on a study that employed LMX, Collins et al. (2014) reported women responded more favourably when leaders were focused on communal behaviour, but no gender differences were found for agentic or task-focused behaviours. Other studies have reported that women favour leadership styles that are participative and democratic (Tziner et al., 2020). This logic that gender differences exist in leadership preferences has some implications for how males and females may react to LMX. In line with the gender role perspective (Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly and Wood, 2016), it might be more likely that females, who are usually more sensitive to interpersonal qualities, will benefit more from LMX to be fuelled with the nutriments of thriving (i.e. learning and vitality). In contrast, males care relatively less about relationship-driven leadership styles (Tziner et al., 2020) and may not respond to LMX as strongly as females. This line of reasoning would suggest that LMX might be more likely to enable females than males to thrive at work. Accordingly, we propose:

Our earlier theorization indicates that LMX can potentially enable employee thriving, which in turn would foster WNWB (Hypothesis 1). We have also suggested that gender would diversify one's reliance on LMX to thrive at work (Hypothesis 2). The combination of these mediation and moderation effects indicates a potential conditional indirect effect (Hayes, 2013), which denotes that the thriving-mediated relationship between LMX and WNWB varies with gender. Considering our prediction that females may more strongly react to LMX than males, we expect there will be a stronger indirect effect of LMX on WNWB via thriving among females. This leads us to state our third hypothesis.

3.1 Participants and procedures

All student nurses (n = 892) undertaking a clinical placement at an Australian university were invited to participate in the study. Data were collected from six cohorts across two semesters given the staggered nature of the placements. Placements were held across a variety of health-care settings, but mostly in hospitals in multiple locations.

Participants received an email one-week prior to the end of their placement to ensure responses were based on their immediate experience. The invitation set out the purpose of the study, assured participants their involvement was voluntary, confidential and anonymous, and contained a weblink to access the survey. Participants were offered a one-in-five chance to obtain movie tickets as an incentive and they provided informed consent prior to completing the survey.

The final sample consisted of 522 participants (59% response rate) and 95% were female. Mean age was 33 years (SD = 10.55) and age did not differ by gender (p = 0.79). Two-thirds of the sample were partnered and 59% were full-time students. Almost half the sample (48%) did not have children under 18 years of age living at home. The mean number of children in the sample was 1.18 (SD = 1.39). These participants were non-traditional students that represent a cohort of mature adults juggling study, parenting, work and placement. These characteristics make them a suitable sample for studying WNWB.

3.2 Measures

Participants provided demographic information and completed the following scales.

Leader-member exchange (LMX, α = 0.89). We used the twelve-item scale developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998). A sample item is: “My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend”. Responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Respondents rated the person that supervised their clinical placement.

Thriving (α = 0.91) was measured using the ten-item scale developed by Porath et al. (2012). A sample item from the learning sub-scale is: “I found myself learning often” and a sample item from the vitality sub-scale is: “I had energy and spirit”. Responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree.

Work–nonwork balance (α = 0.94) was assessed using five items from Valcour (2007). For example, participants were asked about their satisfaction with’ “The way you divide your time between work and personal or family life”. Responses were recorded using a five-point scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied.

Control variables. We included several variables related to WNWB (Tummers and Bronkhorst, 2014). Age, weekly paid working hours and the number of children under 18 years of age living at home were entered as continuous variables. We also used three categorical variables: gender (0 = men, 1 = women), marital status (0 = single, 1 = partnered) and study pattern (0 = part-time, 1 = full-time).

3.3 Data analyses

We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, AMOS V.26) to assess the construct validity of the hypothesized three-factor model (Figure 1). To conduct the CFA, we retained the five WNWB items as latent indicators of the construct and item parcelling to define the thriving and LMX factors. Item parcelling reduces the number of parameters being estimated and creates a parsimonious model (Little et al., 2002). For thriving, we combined the five items from the learning and vitality sub-scales to create two item parcels and we created three item parcels for the LMX scale by randomly assigning the items.

To test the hypotheses, we employed hierarchical regression (SPSS V.26) and Hayes' PROCESS macro (V3.5.3). Model 4 tested the indirect effect of LMX on WNWB via thriving, and Model 7 tested the moderated-mediation analysis. The presence of an indirect effect requires three conditions to be met; (1) the predictor (LMX) is significantly related to the mediator (thriving), (2) the mediator is significantly related to the dependent variable (WNWB) and (3) the product of these two relationships is significant (Zhao et al., 2010). Analyses were conducted with confidence intervals (CI) set at 95% and 5,000 bootstrap samples. CIs that do not include zero are considered significant. Bootstrapping is considered a robust approach for testing mediation effects and dispenses with concerns whether data are normally distributed (Shrout and Bolger, 2002).

4.1 Measurement model

The results suggested the three-factor model fitted the data well (χ² = 129.98, df = 40, p = 0.001; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.07 [90% CI 0.05 to 0.08]; SRMR = 0.04). In comparison, the single-factor model was a poor fit of the data (χ² = 1,581.47, df = 34, p = 0.001; CFI = 0.61; RMSEA = 0.30 [90% CI 0.28 to 0.31] SRMR = 0.21). The results lend initial support that common method variance (CMV) may not have a major impact in our dataset.

4.2 Common method variance (CMV)

For a more rigorous test of CMV, we adopted an advanced procedure grounded in structural equation modelling (Williams et al., 2010), to perform an ad hoc marker variable analysis. We followed prior researchers' (e.g. Soo et al., 2017) practice to identify an appropriate variable as a proxy marker; one that is unrelated or weakly related to the core study variables (e.g. Cooper et al., 2020). Following this principle, we identified “year of study” as an ad hoc marker variable.

Consistent with Williams et al. (2010), we tested five nested CFA models. Model 1 is a CFA model, containing the three core variables (LMX, thriving and WNWB) and the marker variable (year of study). Since year of study had only one indicator for the latent variable, its factor loading was fixed at one and error variance was fixed at zero (Loehlin, 2004). Model 2 is a baseline CFA model, in which the three core variables are correlated but the marker variable is not correlated to the core variables. The marker variable's factor loadings and error variance remained the same as Model 1. Model 3, named Method-C model, added to Model 2 additional paths from the marker variable to each indicator of the three latent core variables; these paths' factor loadings were specified to be equal. Model 4, named Method-U model, removed constraints from Model 3 and allowed the factor loadings, which were associated with the paths from the marker variable to indicators of core variables, to vary. Model 5, named Method-R model, was equivalent to the better of Model 3 and Model 4, while also fixing the correlations among core variables using the values obtained from Model 2 (the baseline model). The principle is that if Model 5 does not have a significantly better fit than Model 3 or Model 4 (depending on which has a better fit), it is less likely that CMV would impact the study results (Williams et al., 2010).

Results showed no significant differences in terms of model fit between Model 3 (Method-C model) (χ² = 166.55, df = 41, p = 0.000; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.08 [90% CI 0.06 to 0.09]; SRMR = 0.037) and Model 2 (baseline model) (χ² = 166.55, df = 42, p = 0.000; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.08 [90% CI 0.06 to 0.09]; SRMR = 0.037); Δχ² = 0.005, Δdf = 1, p = 0.945. These results initially suggest that CMV might not be a significant issue. Our further model comparison demonstrated that Model 3 (Method-C model) was significantly better than Model 4 (Method-U model) in term of model fit (χ² = 403.69, df = 33, p = 0.000; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.15 [90% CI 0.13 to 0.16]; SRMR = 0.123); Δχ² = 237.14, Δdf = 8, p = 0.000. Thus, Model 3 was compared against Model 5 (Method-R model). Our findings suggested that Model 5 (χ² = 166.55, df = 44, p = 0.000; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.07 [90% CI 0.06 to 0.09]; SRMR = 0.037) was not a significantly better fit than Model 3; Δχ² = 0.000, Δdf = 3, p = 1.000. As such, our empirical results were less likely to be distorted by CMV.

4.3 Hypothesis testing

Regression results can be found in Table 2. LMX was significantly related with thriving (Model 1: β = 0.35, SE = 0.04, p = 0.000). Model 2 shows that thriving was a significant predictor of WNWB (β = 0.26, SE = 0.05, p = 0.000). Results from PROCESS demonstrated that the 95% bias-corrected CI for the indirect effect of LMX on WNWB via thriving did not include zero, indicating the indirect effect was significant (β = 0.09, SE = 0.02, CI = [0.05, 0.13]). These results supported Hypothesis 1.

Hierarchical regression was used to investigate Hypotheses 2; the moderating role of gender in the relationship between LMX and thriving. The results found a significant interaction between LMX and gender on thriving (Model 3: β = 0.48, SE = 0.17, p = 0.004). The interaction effect was plotted in Figure 2. Simple slope analysis suggested that the effect of LMX on thriving was positive and significant for females (simple slope = 0.37, t = 9.77, p = 0.000) than for males (simple slope = −0.11, t = −0.682, p = 0.495). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Building on Hypothesis 1, which demonstrated an indirect effect of LMX on WNWB via thriving and Hypothesis 2, which evidenced that gender moderated the path between LMX and thriving, we continued to test Hypothesis 3. Results from PROCESS Model 7 showed that the conditional indirect effect of LMX on WNWB via thriving was significant for females (β = 0.10, SE = 0.02, CI = [0.06, 0.14]) but not for males (β = −0.03, SE = 0.06, CI = [−0.14, 0.10]). The index of moderated mediation was significant (β = 0.13, SE = 0.60, CI = [0.01, 0.25]). These results indicated that thriving was more likely to mediate between LMX and WNWB for females than for males, supporting Hypothesis 3.

5.1 Theoretical contribution

The first contribution of this study is that we draw closer links between LMX (Dansereau et al., 1975) and the SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2000) literature to extend empirical literature focused on LMX and work–life/family interactions (e.g. French et al., 2018; Litano et al., 2016; Russo et al., 2018). Most prior studies in this area have investigated LMX as an antecedent in the studies of work–family interface with a focus on work–family facilitation and conflict (e.g. Culbertson et al., 2009) and work interface with family (e.g. Litano et al., 2016). Our study extends this line of work to broaden the focus to WNWB, which potentially captures aspects outside of family, work and other professional domains (e.g. education). The LMX–WNWB relationship is hinted at in the IMHG framework (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014) and we now make explicit. High-quality LMX relationships are mutually beneficial. From the follower's perspective they receive a variety of relational, intellectual and emotional resources that provide them with opportunities to grow and develop as capable employees. The resources provided from high-quality LMX relationships run parallel with the antecedents in the IMHG (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014) that are considered as contextual enablers of performance. Involvement in decision making, the sharing of information with a supervisor, a relationship that fosters a sense of climate of trust and respect based on honesty and feedback and being supported in a turbulent environment are resources that create the three key conditions for human growth: autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deci and Ryan, 2000). These three characteristics are necessary to fuel thriving (Porath et al., 2012). In bringing the LMX (Dansereau et al., 1975) and SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2000) literature together we contribute to a better understanding of the importance of leadership in sponsoring thriving at work (Spreitzer and Hwang, 2019) and subsequently in enabling WNWB. In doing so, we also add to the emerging studies that link LMX and thriving. Xu et al. (2019) found a smaller association between these variables (r = 0.23, p = 0.001) whereas our results show a moderate correlation between LMX and thriving (r = 0.39, p = 0.001). These results provide further evidence that LMX is an antecedent in fostering employee thriving.

A second contribution from our study is the finding that gender acted as a significant moderator in the path between LMX and thriving and subsequently, the indirect effect with WNWB. Specifically, the relationship between LMX and thriving was more positive for females. We hypothesised the relationship may be explained by sex role theory and a preference among females for interpersonal forms of leadership (Eagly et al., 2003). While our results are largely consistent with our predictions, these results were grounded in nurse interns who were dominated by females. As such, we encourage future studies to draw on population-based samples to avoid occupation and gender bias to confirm our findings.

Arguably, the main and novel contribution of this study is that we advance both the thriving (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014) and the WNWB literature (Casper et al., 2018; Hammer et al., 2016). To date, the literature has focused on the benefits of thriving in explaining job-related outcomes (Jiang et al., 2020; Kleine et al., 2019) but in demonstrating that thriving predicts WNWB, our results suggest thriving has potential to explain other phenomena in the social system. While boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000) would suggest that some people are better able to separate their work and non-work responsibilities, this distinction is to some extent artificial. The notion that the social systems of work and non-work interact such that they influence each other is increasingly recognised (Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012). For example, Ren and her colleagues (2021) reported that family-work conflict and family-work enrichment predicted thriving at work.

We add to the non-work literature in two ways. First, we add to the evidence suggesting leadership can positively facilitate WNWB (Litano et al., 2016; Russo et al., 2018). Our results suggest the benefits of a high-quality LMX relationship allows individuals to thrive and that, the intellectual and emotional resources accruing from this relationship were transferred to the non-work setting. Second, we identified thriving as a construct that may extend benefits into the nonwork domain. Several dispositional trait-like constructs such as self-efficacy and negative affect have previously been found to be linked with WNWB, but unlike these constructs, thriving is considered a psychological state (Spreitzer and Porath, 2014) that varies in response to the subjective experience of vitality and growth. The opportunities presented to thrive at work appear to provide individuals with the strategies, tools and knowledge to manage their non-work environment.

5.2 Practical implications

In todays pressured work environments, the results from this study have important implications for human resource management (HRM). Based on our finding that LMX enables employee thriving, which in turn fosters WNWB, we suggest organisations should invest in leadership programs that facilitate thriving at work. While we employed LMX, other literature has reported associations between thriving and other leadership styles, such as transformational (Hildenbrand et al., 2018) and servant leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2018), which tends to foster high-quality LMX. What seems important are forms of leadership that provide relational and supportive resources such that they fuel employees to develop a sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deci and Ryan, 2000) to enable thriving (Spreitzer et al., 2005).

Situating our findings in broader HRM contexts, we suggest that employers may implement targeted management and HRM practices to facilitate the development of thriving, in addition to focusing on the leadership (LMX) itself. A better job (re)design might be an option. For example, Jiang and his colleagues (2020) reported that jobs with task identity and autonomy led to thriving and subsequently, job satisfaction. This suggests that it might be useful that managers to initiate practices which enable these motivational job characteristics to be featured in work design.

An extended implication for HRM is to reconsider their working from home policies. The popular press describes working from home as the “new normal” in response to COVID-19 but a review across nine countries and 800 jobs by McKinsey Consulting suggests working from home will primarily continue among the educated and well-paid workforce (Lund et al., 2020). Nonetheless, the continued blurring of the work non-work boundary requires organisations to rethink how to sustain supportive forms of leadership that allow thriving to be sustained in the workplace. For example, Chaundhry and Rosenbloom (2021) suggested, employers may focus on three strategies to enable employees to thrive and flourish in the new normal: recalibrate expectations, re-establish commitment and rebuild capacity.

5.3 Limitations and future research directions

The results need to be considered in the context of some limitations; these limitations serve as features to be addressed in future studies. First, we collected cross-sectional data and this design precludes causal inferences from the findings. Our explanation of the direction of relationships among variables is mainly driven by theory than by empirical data. Future studies should employ cross-lagged, or longitudinal designs to capture the causal chain embedded in our research model.

A second limitation is that the data is self-reported, and this raises potential the data is tainted by CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2012). We partially addressed this issue statistically. Model fit of our hypothesized three-factor model was superior to alternative models and the use of the “marker variable” technique (Soo et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2010) also suggested the results may not be influenced by CMV. Also, some researchers (Podsakoff et al., 2012; Siemsen et al., 2010) generally believe that CMV does not affect interaction effects, and thus the moderating role of gender detected in our study is less likely to be driven by CMV. However, it is important we highlight that self-report data is entirely appropriate in measuring two of our core variables. Perceptions of thriving and WNWB are subjective responses to an individual's dynamic environment. Both constructs cannot be objectively measured.

Finally, we used an undergraduate sample that were undertaking a work placement. While the practicum is typical of a work setting, participants were not actual employees. On the other hand, we underline our sample consisted of older adults (M = 33 years) with work and life experiences; two-thirds were partnered, and half the sample were parents. A related limitation may be that our sample was 95% female. The bias is perhaps unavoidable given nursing remains a profession dominated by females. Estimates suggest females make up 88% of the Australian nursing workforce (Nursing and Midwifery Board, 2021).