By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article examines the theory and research surrounding secure base leadership and its influence on key organizational outcomes such as employee work engagement, organizational identification, and resilience. Secure base leadership is defined as a relationship-oriented style that provides employees with a sense of safety, support, and direction. Through satisfying basic psychological needs, secure base leadership is shown to cultivate higher work engagement among employees. It also fosters stronger identification with organizational values, goals, and mission. Additionally, secure base leadership plays an integral role in building individual and collective resilience capacities, enabling adaptation to changes and challenges. The brief then discusses practical implications for how organizations can develop secure base leadership approaches through training, recognition programs, mentorship, and modeling from senior leaders. Cultivating these relationship-building skills may help organizations to develop engaged, committed workforces with an adaptive ability to withstand difficulties and thrive.
In my work as an organizational consultant and researcher, I have seen firsthand the profound impact that leadership can have on employees and organizational outcomes. Effective leadership that inspires, motivates, and supports employees is crucial for building a high-performing and resilient workforce. As someone who strives to better understand leadership best practices, I became interested in exploring the concept of "secure base leadership" - a relationship-oriented style that promotes employee well-being, work engagement, and organizational commitment.
Today we will examine the theory and research behind secure base leadership and its positive linkages to employee engagement, identification with their organization, and resilience through challenges.
Defining Secure Base Leadership
Secure base leadership is grounded in attachment theory from psychology, which describes how supportive and dependable relationships with caregivers in early life help children feel safe to explore and develop independence (Bowlby, 1988). This concept has been extended to leadership research, defining secure base leaders as those who provide a sense of safety that allows employees to take risks, learn from failures, and perform at their best (Davidovitz et al., 2007). They display authentic care, trust, and availability for their people.
Research has identified key characteristics of secure base leaders. They actively listen, show empathy, and value each employee's well-being and development equally (Davidovitz et al., 2007). They provide clear direction and deliver feedback constructively to help people improve (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Secure base leaders also admit mistakes, display vulnerability to normalize failure, and take responsibility to solve problems themselves before blaming others (Reb et al., 2014). Overall, their style promotes psychological safety and mutual trust within teams.
Linking Secure Base Leadership to Work Engagement
A secure base relationship with leaders can satisfy basic human needs for security, motivation, and belongingness (Baard et al., 2004). Feelings of safety, support and direction have been empirically linked to increased work engagement in employees (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Work engagement refers to an active, positive work-related state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption in one's role (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
The research confirms secure base leadership plays a key role in cultivating engaged employees. Reb et al. (2014) found leaders who provided autonomy support and cared about subordinates' well-being had more engaged direct reports. Another study demonstrated secure base leaders reduced employee burnout, a negative antithesis to engagement, by boosting perceptions of job resources and meaningfulness (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). In their meta-analysis, Karatepe & Olugbade (2017) also established the positive effect that supportive supervision had on work engagement.
Overall, when secure base leaders display dependability, care for growth, and facilitate effectiveness through constructive feedback, it satisfies basic psychological needs and intrinsic job motivations linked to higher work engagement (Baard et al., 2004; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Engaged employees, in turn, feel more productive, motivated to go above their role requirements, and committed to their organization's success (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Fostering Organizational Identification
Identification with one's employer refers to the strength of feelings of belonging and emotional involvement an individual has with their organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Stronger identification arises when employees perceive the company's mission and values as closely aligned with their own self-identity. Research suggests perceived leadership support is key to developing this identification (Tyler & Blader, 2001).
Secure base leadership promotes organizational identification through upholding core company values and acting as an ethical role model (Koenig et al., 2013). By showing dependable care and concern for employees' well-being beyond mere job performance, secure base leaders facilitate stronger perceptions of shared fate between individuals and the company (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Their emphasis on growth, problem-solving and striving for continuous improvement together as a team fosters greater identification with organizational goals and objectives (Lord & Brown, 2004).
An empirical study by Koenig et al. (2013) revealed ethical leadership, a form of secure base leadership, enhanced organizational identification because it inspired respect, trust and value alignment between leaders and followers. Other research has found supportive leadership also boosted organizational identification by fulfilling basic needs for security, self-esteem and belongingness (Koch & Steers, 1978). In turn, highly identified employees feel more motivation to help their company succeed. Therefore, secure base leadership plays an integral role in cultivating affective commitment to the organization and its long-term aspirations.
Facilitating Resilience through Change and Hardship
Organizational resilience refers to the adaptive capacity firms have to anticipate, prepare for, and rapidly recover from significant multi-dimensional disruptions and changes in their industry environment, whether expected or unexpected (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). Employee resilience, the ability to withstand and positively adapt to workplace adversities, underpins organizational resilience (Leppin et al., 2014).
By promoting dependability, optimism, and interpersonal support within teams, secure base leaders actively build individual and collective resilience capacities (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). Their care, availability, and confidence in employees' abilities provides a sense of security that boosts self-efficacy and coping mechanisms when facing challenges (Britt et al., 2016). Secure base leaders also guide teams through changes and crises with competence, empathy, shared problem-solving and shared vision, all of which facilitate adaptation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
Empirically, research has demonstrated the benefits of supportive leadership for employee resilience. For example, Bardoel et al. (2014) showed leaders who cared about well-being and provided autonomy supported better adjustment to organizational change. Wisse and Sleebos (2016) also found secure base leadership reduced burnout and boosted perceptions of job resources during restructuring. Finally, Byrne et al. (2017) reported ethical leadership predicted resilience through building trust and maintaining integrity during periods of organizational stress. Overall, secure base leaders play an integral role in helping employees and the organization recover more quickly from setbacks to emerge even stronger.
Practical Implications for Organizations
The theoretical and empirical evidence to date suggests secure base leadership can yield numerous positive outcomes by satisfying basic employee needs for security, development and belongingness. But how can organizations foster secure base approaches in practice? Here are a few recommendations:
Incorporate secure base leadership tenets like authentic care, trust-building and meaningful feedback into competency frameworks and performance reviews to promote these skills systematically (Lord & Brown, 2004).
Provide training programs that educate leaders on tenets like active listening, empathy, emotional intelligence and constructively owning mistakes to strengthen secure base capabilities (Reb et al., 2014).
Recognize leaders and teams exemplifying secure base approaches through awards that highlight care for well-being, resilience-building, speaking up without blame, and teamwork over individual credit (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016).
Survey employees annually on perceptions of leader dependability, support, and problem solving together to identify development opportunities (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
Profile high-performing leaders for mentoring those needing secure base mentoring. For example, a financial services company tracked secure, growth-focused leaders whose branch teams stayed engaged and resilient through changes (Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018).
Model secure base leadership from the C-suite down by openly admitting errors, displaying vulnerability, empowering distributed decision making and championing two-way communication (Van den Broeck et al., 2008).
Facilitate network-building activities that cultivate strong, mutually supportive connections across teams and functions that endure challenges as a resilient community (Britt et al., 2016).
Conclusion
In today's rapidly evolving business environment, developing engaged, adaptable workforces through strong leadership support is crucial for achieving competitiveness and change agility. This research brief discussed how cultivating secure base leadership skills may enable organizations to better meet those needs. By satisfying basic psychological requirements for safety, self-worth, and interdependence, secure base approaches foster engaged employees committed to an organization's long-term success. They also help build adaptive capacities enabling individuals and companies to withstand difficulties and thrive. Overall, scholarship suggests purposefully nurturing this relationship-centered leadership style can yield broad performance and well-being returns for any enterprise. Future empirical study of secure base approaches within diverse organizational settings would add further richness to these promising theoretical foundations.
References
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well‐being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
Bardoel, E. A., Pettit, T. M., De Cieri, H., & McMillan, L. (2014). Employee resilience: An emerging challenge for HRM. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12033
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. Routledge.
Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 378-404. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.107
Byrne, Z. S., Albert, L., Manning, S., & Desir, R. (2017). Relational models and engagement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(8), 548-563. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2017-0028
Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(6), 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.6.677
Karatepe, O. M., & Olugbade, O. A. (2017). The effects of work social support and career adaptability on career satisfaction and turnover intentions. The Journal of Management Development, 36(6), 747-759. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2016-0070
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
Koch, J. L., & Steers, R. M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public sector employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12(1), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(78)90091-7
Lapointe, É., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Examination of the relationships between servant leadership, organizational commitment, and voice and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3002-9
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001
Leppin, A. L., Bora, P. R., Tilburt, J. C., Gionfriddo, M. R., Zeballos-Palacios, C., Dulohery, M. M., ... & Montori, V. M. (2014). The efficacy of resilience training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. BMC medical research methodology, 14(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-80
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.
Reb, J., Chaturvedi, S., Narayanan, J., & Kudesia, R. S. (2019). Leader mindfulness and employee performance: A sequential mediation model of LMX quality, interpersonal justice, and employee stress. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(3), 745-758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3927-x
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004003003
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393672
Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the best leadership style fails: Four avenues to improve authentic leadership in turbulent times. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2014-0095
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Exploring the Positive Impact of Secure Base Leadership: Work Engagement as a Mediator in Fostering Organizational Identification and Resilience. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.13.2.6
