Despite increased focus on workplace well-being in recent years, studies have revealed a troubling decline in the global workforce’s mental health. A comprehensive study across 46 countries with 1,500 participants revealed a startling fact: 89% of respondents experienced a decrease in workplace well-being (Moss, 2021). Simultaneously, another survey found that 82% of leaders reported feeling exhausted, with a staggering 96% experiencing a deterioration in their mental health (Deloitte, 2021). Against this backdrop, worker cooperatives have stood out as an exception, demonstrating higher levels of well-being at work (e.g., Berry, 2013; Opinionway for CGSCOP, 2022) and offering a unique business model that prioritizes members’ quality of work life over profits (Charmettant, 2020). Despite these findings and the abundance of research on workplace well-being across various contexts, studies specifically focusing on worker cooperatives remain surprisingly limited.

Worker cooperatives are value-driven businesses that prioritize worker and community welfare, considering financial profit as a means, not an end. While the values of democracy, equality, fairness, and solidarity are not exclusive to cooperatives, they are central to their identity. As they strive to put these values into practice, these companies serve as pioneering laboratories for innovative managerial approaches designed to ensure a high quality of work life (Négroni, 2019). Intuitively, one might assume that such innovations naturally have a positive impact on workplace well-being. This study investigates whether they genuinely create an environment conducive to the well-being of all stakeholders, including both employees and often-overlooked general managers (i.e., the leaders within cooperatives). Additionally, recognizing the crucial role leaders play in driving these innovations (Jaskyte, 2011), we examine the potential influence of leadership style, particularly transformational leadership, which has been shown to be effective in enhancing employee well-being (Arnold *et al.,* 2007) and facilitating management innovations (Volberda *et al.,* 2013).

Drawing on the robust theoretical framework of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti *et al.,* 2001), we propose that while management innovations aim to enhance the quality of work life in worker cooperatives, their impact on individual well-being may vary depending on whether one is an employee or a general manager. We argue that these innovations can act as job resources facilitated by transformational leaders, thus promoting employee well-being. However, as these innovations are implemented, general managers may encounter additional job demands—such as increased workload, time, and responsibilities—that could negatively affect their well-being.

This study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, while previous research has predominantly focused on employee well-being, often neglecting the well-being of leaders (see Arnold & Connelly, 2013 for a review; Wittmers & Maier, 2023), our study includes both employees and general managers. Like their counterparts in other organizations, general managers in worker cooperatives have unique roles and bear additional responsibilities compared to employees. The substantial impact of leader behaviors and well-being on both organizational outcomes and the health and performance of followers is well-established (e.g., Montano *et al.,* 2017). Enhancing our understanding of leaders’ well-being could benefit not only general managers but also employees and the entire organization (Kaluza *et al.,* 2020). Second, unlike previous studies that typically focus on either hedonic well-being (i.e., the predominance of positive emotions over negative emotions; Ryan & Deci, 2001) or eudaimonic well-being (i.e., personal fulfillment; Ryan & Deci, 2001), our study integrates these two distinct components to provide a comprehensive understanding of psychological health in the workplace. Third, while prior research often examines one leadership style at a time (e.g., Tafvelin *et al.,* 2011), our study considers two distinct styles: transformational leadership, widely recognized for its positive association with well-being (Inceoglu *et al.,* 2018) and management innovations (Volberda *et al.,* 2013), and transactional leadership, which has a more ambiguous relationship with these constructs (Kara *et al.,* 2013; Stordeur *et al.,* 2001; Vaccaro *et al.,* 2012). Then, we mirror the effect of transformational leadership with a different style, so that the contrast of the leadership impact becomes clearer (Berger *et al*., 2019). Finally, our research breaks new ground by exploring these innovations as a potential antecedent to workplace well-being and as a potential mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and employees’ well-being in these organizational structures.
# Theoretical background and hypotheses development

## Worker cooperatives: Fostering well-being in the workplace

### Worker Cooperatives: Challenging the dominant model

Worker cooperatives, also known as worker co-ops, have a long history within the social and solidarity economy, where they aim to combine economic and social performance. Indeed, they are typically for-profit businesses (no profit, no cooperative) but they operate within a broader set of principles and values such as democracy, equity, collaboration, responsibility, and solidarity (Charmettant *et al.*, 2020). Worker co-ops are jointly owned and democratically controlled by the employees, who are often referred to as worker-owners. Even if not all employees are initially shareholders, they all have the opportunity to become associates. Each employee-shareholder has equal voting rights in the decision-making process, regardless of their status, seniority, or the amount of capital invested (one person = one vote). These characteristics position workers as both the driving force and the direct beneficiaries of the company’s success, embodying the principles of economic democracy and participatory management. The interests of the worker-members and the interest of the enterprise are then closely aligned because, in a way that is not true for conventional companies, the members *are* the company (Kaswan, 2019). As a result, these societies are increasingly presented as an interesting alternative to the traditional capitalist business model (Cheney *et al.,* 2014).

Despite the high level of employee participation, effective leadership remains essential (De Vries *et al.,* 2011). Worker cooperatives have a leader (known as the “general manager”), democratically elected by the employee-shareholders during general meetings to fulfill their mandate and execute a strategy that has been collectively approved for a defined period. They are the figurehead and spokesperson for the cooperative, representing it to external stakeholders. As in any business, they are responsible for day-to-day decisions. More significant decisions involve the participation of all worker-owners.

Worker cooperatives are present across a wide range of sectors globally, varying in form and size, with some achieving significant national and international success. In the aftermath of economic crises, such as the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, they have experienced notable growth in their numbers and renewed recognition (Billiet *et al.,* 2021). They have proven to be sustainable enterprises with similar and often higher survival rates than conventional enterprises (Billiet *et al.,* 2021). In France, nearly 3,000 worker cooperatives employ over 60,000 people in 2023 (CGSCOP, 2023). Although they represent a minority of firms, their numbers are steadily growing, challenging the perception that they are niche organizations (Pérotin, 2013).

The dual role of employees as shareholders and decision-makers, coupled with a commitment to prioritizing well-being alongside economic performance, sets worker co-ops apart from traditional enterprises (Everaere, 2011).

### A comprehensive understanding of well-being at work

It is now widely accepted that maintaining well-being at work should be high priority for employees and employers alike. Workplace well-being is a key aspect of any organization, as it promotes employee health and productivity, which ultimately benefits the organization (Aryanti *et al*., 2020).

Workplace well-being is a multidimensional concept, with most researchers typically distinguishing between two components to gain a complete understanding: hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being, i.e., “feeling good” and “functioning well” (Ryan & Deci, 2001). The hedonic component relates to the affective aspect of well-being at work, combining infrequent negative emotions (such as anxiety) with frequent positive emotions (such as enthusiasm) (Sheldon & Elliott, 1999). By disregarding the notion of a bipolar dimension of affect, this component recognizes that positive and negative affective states can coexist and should be evaluated simultaneously (Demo & Paschoal, 2016). The greater the pleasure and the lesser the pain experienced by an individual, the higher their hedonic well-being (Kaswan, 2019). The eudaimonic component is also fundamental and relates to the cognitive evaluation of well-being at work. This dimension is growth-oriented, focusing on personal flourishing through meaningful, valuable, and stimulating activities at work (Ryff & Singer, 2008). While these two facets of well-being are complementary (Straume & Vittersø, 2012), their distinction is not trivial as it helps differentiate between feelings and experiences of well-being. In addition, hedonic well-being focuses on short-term happiness and pleasure, whereas eudaimonic well-being highlights the long-term pursuit of self-actualization (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In operational terms, workplace well-being can be organized around three main factors: positive affect, negative affect and personal fulfillment at work (Demo & Paschoal, 2016). Our study aligns with this research stream suggesting that a comprehensive view of workplace well-being should include both the extent to which employees experience positive emotions at work (and few negative emotions), and the degree to which they find meaning and purpose in their work (Robertson & Cooper, 2010).

### Well-being at work in worker cooperatives

Although employees are essential stakeholders for organizations, their well-being can sometimes be primarily regarded as a means to achieve shareholder value. In alternative organizational forms like worker cooperatives, promoting employee well-being is intrinsic to their mission and constitutes a significant goal in itself (Cheney *et al*., 2014). Surveys reveal that employees and general managers within these structures report higher levels of workplace well-being compared to their counterparts in traditional companies or other social economy organizations such as associations or foundations (e.g., Chorum-CSA Barometer of the Quality of Life at Work in the SSE, 2017; Opinionway for CGSCOP, 2022). However, aside from a few surveys, there is limited empirical research addressing the question of whether the workforce in worker co-ops experiences higher levels of well-being than in traditional firms. Nonetheless, the scant available studies generally tend to confirm this proposition. For instance, in a domain closely related to well-being, Berry (2013) found significantly higher levels of job satisfaction among worker cooperative members compared to both a for-profit and a non-profit company in similar situations. If job satisfaction strongly correlates with well-being, further investigation is needed to identify the specific factors contributing to higher well-being in worker co-ops. While their intrinsic values and principles likely play a significant role, it is essential that they translate into actionable practices in daily operations to truly impact well-being. Worker cooperatives are thus compelled to introduce innovative management practices (Négroni, 2019), aligned with their principles aimed at enhancing quality of work life (Debaillie-Bellissens, 2017). Yet, the question remains: Do these innovations genuinely improve workplace well-being for all members, including both employees and leaders?

## Management innovations and workplace well-being

### Do management innovations boost or bust workplace well-being?

Management innovations refer to specific organizational changes that introduce new elements into a company, including practices, processes, or structures that affect daily work and management operations (Birkinshaw *et al*., 2008; Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009). They can take various forms and have the potential to fundamentally transform the way work and collective action are conceived.

Most authors agree that the ultimate goal of management innovations is to improve a company’s performance and competitiveness (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009). In recent years, numerous management innovations have emerged, such as digital organization, collaborative management, and liberation management (see Bardon *et al.*, 2019). They typically aim to cultivate a culture that values risk-taking, initiative, and responsibility, often by providing employees with greater freedom, autonomy, and reduced hierarchical control.

Research on the impact of management innovations on the social performance of traditional organizations is limited and yields somewhat inconsistent results. While some studies report positive effects (e.g., Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Mattelin-Pierrard *et al*., 2023; Wong *et al*., 2011), others adopt a more critical stance, reporting negative influences (Bouville & Alis, 2014; Picard & Islam, 2019). Certain companies may adopt management innovations either as widely accepted “best practices” or as fleeting trends. Critical management studies (CMS) argue that such initiatives might create an illusion of employee empowerment, when they actually serve the company’s interests without fostering genuine reciprocity. Thus, the impact of management innovations on workplace well-being can be two-fold. On one hand, they can provide benefits such as skill development opportunities, increased autonomy, and the fulfillment of expectations for freedom, nurturing eudaimonic well-being and eliciting positive emotions contributing to hedonic well-being (Rasulzada, 2007). On the other hand, well-being may suffer if management innovations are perceived as detrimental, causing uncertainty or unfairness in implementation (Barth *et al.*, 2009). Certain forms of new work organization introduced through management innovations, particularly when imposed without employee consultation, can significantly increase psychosocial risks by intensifying demands for flexibility and adaptability, thereby exacerbating work-related pressures (DARES, 2017).

In worker cooperatives, where human welfare is a priority, the core goal of introducing management innovations is to improve working conditions and enhance the quality of work life. This focus distinguishes cooperatives from traditional companies, which may explain the contradictory results observed in prior studies. Innovative practices within worker co-ops often involve decentralizing responsibilities, embracing cross-functional project-based operations, fostering involvement in decision-making and collaborative relationships, reducing hierarchical structures, and promoting greater individual autonomy (Négroni, 2019). Such innovations aim to boost not just organizational effectiveness, but primarily the well-being of cooperative members.

### Do management innovations differentially impact the well-being of employees and
                general managers in worker cooperatives?

Theoretically, the impact of management innovations on workplace well-being varies depending on whether they lead to labor intensification (job demands) or job enrichment (job resources) (Hanif *et al.*, 2021). The JD-R model (Demerouti *et al*., 2001) provides a useful framework for explaining the mechanisms that condition workplace well-being. According to this model, job resources (i.e., physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects that enable goals to be achieved at work, reduce work demands and associated costs, or stimulate personal growth) lead to positive outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Conversely, job demands (i.e., physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects involving sustained efforts associated with costs) adversely impact individuals’ health (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Numerous meta-analyses support these relationships (e.g., Nielsen *et a*l., 2017).

In the context of worker co-ops, management innovations empower employees by enabling them to make decisions, expand their responsibilities, and foster teamwork – elements that are highly valued by the workforce (Eurofound, 2013). Given that economic performance is not the primary objective, it is reasonable to expect that such innovations act as job resources in worker cooperatives, benefiting employees by fulfilling basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2001) such as autonomy (e.g., through self-managed teams), competence (e.g., through increased responsibilities), and relatedness (e.g., through teamwork). Previous research has shown that satisfying these psychological needs contributes to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Ahn, *et al.*, 2019). Accordingly, we are stating the following hypotheses:

```
**H1a:** Management innovations in
                            worker cooperatives are positively related to positive emotions (hedonic
                            well-being) experienced by employees at work.
```

```
**H1b:** Management innovations in
                            worker cooperatives are negatively related to negative emotions (hedonic
                            well-being) experienced by employees at work.
```

```
**H1c:**Management innovations in
                            worker cooperatives are positively associated with employees’ eudaimonic
                            well-being at work.
```

While the implementation of management innovations results from collective efforts, leaders play a pivotal role in shaping their direction (Bardon *et al*., 2019). Although the leader’s decision-making role may not be as pronounced as in traditional enterprises, leaders of worker cooperatives still exert significant influence (Malo, 2001; Stervinou, 2014). They are responsible for upholding both the cooperative project and the economic viability of the enterprise, making their role potentially more demanding than that of conventional business leaders. As Wagner (2022) recently highlighted, many cooperative members may lack preparation for leadership roles (as they are elected by the employee-shareholders), transitioning into business leadership positions that may not have been their original profession. Some may lack essential management and human resources skills, requiring substantial commitment, extra work, and dedication. Additionally, Négroni (2019) noted that general managers in French worker co-ops face risks of over-responsibility and over-investment, which may compromise their own well-being at work. Contrary to assumptions about worker cooperatives operating with participatory democracy, issues of time management and workload for leaders can pose genuine risks. Learning managerial and cooperative skills takes time and is not innate.

The introduction of management innovations involving new practices, processes, or strategies can create additional job demands for general managers, who allow these innovations to flourish (Vaccaro *et al*., 2010). Unlike technical innovations that often benefit from dedicated infrastructures like research labs, management innovations typically arise in contexts lacking such support. According to the JD-R model, job demands contain work aspects that require sustained effort and energy, which can be detrimental to well-being. These demands may encompass acquiring new skills, adapting to changes, and navigating uncertainties linked to the integration of innovations. As a result, general managers may experience increased workloads, potentially affecting their emotional well-being and personal fulfillment (Wittmers & Maier, 2023). We further hypothesize:

```
**H2a**: Management innovations in
                            worker cooperatives are negatively associated with positive emotions
                            (hedonic well-being) experienced by general managers at work.
```

```
**H2b**: Management innovations in
                            worker cooperatives are positively related to negative emotions (hedonic
                            well-being) experienced by general managers at work.
```

```
**H2c:**Management innovations in
                            worker cooperatives are negatively associated with the eudaimonic
                            well-being of general managers.
```

## Enhancing employee well-being through management innovations: The role of
                leadership style?

### Leadership styles and management innovations

In any organization, leaders' behaviors play a pivotal role in fostering an environment conducive to generating and implementing management innovations (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Stated differently, the widespread adoption of such innovations is not guaranteed in worker cooperatives, where the leadership style of general managers may be a determining factor.

Transformational leadership (see Figure 1 for a summary of its components) seems particularly well-suited for inspiring and promoting management innovations within these organizations. It is future-oriented, embraces change, prioritizes the development and empowerment of individuals (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), and encourages employees to challenge existing structures (Bass *et al.*, 2003). In support of this idea, Jaskyte (2011) identified a positive correlation between transformational leadership and management innovations in traditional organizations. Conversely, a transactional leadership style (see Figure 1 for a summary of its components), which focuses primarily on achieving objectives and short-term results, may hinder the implementation of management innovations aimed at improving the quality of work life in these cooperative settings. Such leaders are often more inclined to maintain the status quo rather than fostering new ideas and driving organizational cultural change (Burns, 1978). On this basis, we hypothesize:

```
**H3a:**Transformational leadership
                            is positively associated with the implementation of management
                            innovations in worker cooperatives.
```

```
**H3b:**Transactional leadership is
                            negatively associated with the implementation of management innovations
                            in worker cooperatives.
```

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 — Dimensions of transformational and transactional leaders</figcaption></figure>

### Management innovations: A mediator between transformational leadership and
                employees’ well-being in worker cooperatives?

Existing research has established the positive impact of certain leadership behaviors on workplace well-being (Arnold & Connelly, 2013; Gilbreath & Benson, 2004). Transformational leadership has been found to positively influence the well-being of both employees and leaders in traditional organizations. Within the JD-R model (Breevaart *et al*., 2014), it acts as a job resource, fulfilling employees’ psychological needs (Bass & Riggio, 2006), and promoting both their hedonic well-being (Arnold *et al.,* 2007; Rowold & Rohmann, 2009) and eudaimonic well-being by empowering them to leverage their skills and strive for self-actualization (Bass, 1985). For general managers, transformational leadership aligns closely with cooperative values and functioning. Transformational leaders prioritize the “common good,” foster team spirit, and provide a compelling vision and mission. Applying the JD-R model, transformational leadership can also serve as a personal resource for general managers, promoting their hedonic well-being at work (Arnold & Connelly, 2013) and eudaimonic well-being at work (Kaluza *et al.,* 2020; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2010). We expect that:

```
**H4a**: Transformational leadership
                            is positively related to positive emotions at work (hedonic well-being)
                            for both employees and general managers in worker cooperatives.
```

```
**H4b**: Transformational leadership
                            is negatively associated with negative emotions at work (hedonic
                            well-being) for both employees and general managers in worker
                            cooperatives.
```

```
**H4c**: Transformational leadership
                            is positively correlated with eudaimonic well-being for both employees
                            and general managers in worker cooperatives.
```

Research on the relationship between transactional leadership and workplace well-being is limited and yields mixed findings. Some studies found no significant correlation (e.g., Kara *et al*., 2013), while others reported either a negative (e.g., Shieh *et al*., 2001) or positive (e.g., Khan *et al*., 2021) association. In the context of worker cooperatives, we suggest that transactional leadership may not function as a beneficial resource for employee well-being due to the democratic and cooperative management practices that prevail in these organizations. Transactional leaders typically employ a bureaucratic style, focusing on short-term goals through monitoring behaviors and using rewards and punishments to drive job performance among their subordinates. While this leadership approach may offer tangible benefits for various organizational aspects, particularly in day-to-day management and the pursuit of economic objectives (Wang *et al*., 2011), it may not foster positive emotions or personal fulfillment within cooperative frameworks. Furthermore, there is likely a misalignment between transactional leadership behaviors and the particular requirements of worker cooperative employees. Therefore, as Arnold *et al.* (2007) argue, this form of transactional exchange may be linked to fewer reciprocal benefits that could otherwise enhance leaders’ well-being. In sum, this leadership style could potentially weaken both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being of all members. We hypothesize:

```
**H5a:**Transactional leadership is
                            negatively associated with positive emotions at work (hedonic
                            well-being) for all members of worker cooperatives.
```

```
**H5b:**Transactional leadership is
                            positively associated with negative emotions at work (hedonic
                            well-being) for all members of worker cooperatives.
```

```
**H5c:**Transactional leadership is
                            negatively associated with eudaimonic well-being at work for all members
                            of worker cooperatives.
```

Based on prior theoretical and empirical evidence, we finally propose that in worker cooperatives, management innovations mediate the positive relationship between transformational leadership and both dimensions of employee workplace well-being. Therefore, we expect that:

```
**H6a:** Management innovations
                            mediate the positive relationship between transformational leadership
                            and employees’ positive emotions (hedonic well-being) at work in worker
                            cooperatives.
```

```
**H6b:** Management innovations
                            mediate the positive relationship between transformational leadership
                            and employees’ eudaimonic well-being at work in worker
                            cooperatives.
```

The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 2.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 — Hypothesized Model — Notes: - - - - - H6 a,b mediation: Transformational leadership – Management innovations – Employees’ Hedonic (a) and Eudaimonic (b) Well-being — a: Positive emotions (hedonic well-being); b: Negative emotions (hedonic well-being); c: Eudaimonic well-being</figcaption></figure>
# Methods

## Participants and procedure

This study was conducted in France between 2019 and 2020 in collaboration with CGSCOP (General Confederation of Cooperative and Participatory Societies), which represents the cooperative movement to public authorities and various stakeholders in politics, economy, and society.

Two distinct samples participated in the research: 205 general managers (41.7% women and 58.3% men; M = 45 years old) and 545 employees (54.3% women and 45.7% men; M = 41.7 years old; 78.5% are employee-owners) from French worker cooperatives. The study encompassed a wide range of sectors, including Consulting Services (24%), Construction (13.2%), Industry (10.7%), Education, Health, and Social Services (12.7%), Commerce (15.6%), Transportation (15%), Energy and Environment (7.3%), and Agriculture (2%).

The average workforce size was 79 employees. However, half of the worker cooperatives (50.1%) employed no more than 12 individuals, 70% had no more than 30 employees, and only 14.8% had 100 employees or more.

Data collection was carried out through an online survey distributed to 1,800 companies (selected from the pool of 2,400 French worker cooperatives at the time of the study). The survey included self-reported measures and detailed completion instructions provided to both general managers and employees. Participants were assured of the anonymity of their responses. The questionnaires were administered in French, the official language of communication in the French workplace. The back-translation method proposed by Brislin (1986) was used to translate the scales from the original English version into French.

## Measures (see Appendix A)

*Leadership Styles*. A 14-item scale from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X-Short; Bass & Avolio, 1995) was used to assess transformational leadership style (α = .92) and transactional leadership style (α = .64). Participants indicated their level of agreement on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). For each leadership style, general managers provided self-descriptions, while employees evaluated their own general manager.

*Management Innovations* were evaluated using 8 items capturing various innovative practices, processes, or structures. In the absence of a validated scale specifically for measuring such innovations in worker cooperatives, these items were developed based on semi-structured interviews with ten general managers from French worker co-ops. The overarching aim of these interviews was to gain a better understanding of these organizations and to determine how they can concretely distinguish themselves from conventional businesses in their practices and daily operations. To this end, an interview guide was developed. In the questions posed, leaders were asked to identify and describe the main management innovations implemented in their company in recent years. Among all the mentioned innovations, those cited by at least half of these leaders were selected for the purposes of the present study. All participants (employees and general managers) rated the frequency of each new practice, process, or structure implemented in their company over the past few years, using a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very often, if not always). The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (α = .78). To assess the scale’s factor structure, a principal component analysis was conducted. The analysis supported the unidimensionality of the scale, with the first component explaining 44.75% of the variance. All items showed strong loadings on this component, ranging from .59 to .77.

*Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being at Work* were measured with 15 items, modelled after those from the Well-Being at Work Scale (WBWS; Paschoal & Tamayo, 2008). The hedonic component was assessed with 5 items measuring positive emotions (α = .91). and 5 items measuring negative emotions (α = .86). The eudaimonic component was assessed with 5 items measuring fulfillment at work (α = .88). Participants rated their agreement on a 5-point scale (1 = *strongly disagree*; 5 = *strongly agree*).
# Results

## Preliminary Analyses

Using AMOS 26, we conducted a CFA on the full sample to assess whether the specified measurement model, in which multiple indicators of each latent construct are used to reduce measurement error, demonstrates an acceptable fit to the data. Our measurement model was specified to capture the six latent constructs (i.e., transformational leadership, transactional leadership, management innovations, hedonic well-being (through positive emotions and negative emotions), and eudaimonic well-being) with their associated multiple indicators. The results of CFA (see Table 1) revealed that our hypothesized six-factor model fit the data reasonably well (χ2/df = 3,108, CFI = .907, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .053). We also compared our hypothesized model with four alternative models (see Table 1 for details). The results indicated that the hypothesized model showed superiority over the other alternative models.

## Descriptive Analyses

SPSS 26 was used for data managing, *t* tests of Student, descriptive, correlational and reliability analyses. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables included in both samples are presented in Table 2. Means and standard deviations for each group and for each variable are presented in Table 3.

As seen in Table 2, the two leadership styles are positively correlated with hedonic well-being: they are positively associated with positive emotions and negatively related to negative emotions. Both styles are positively linked to eudaimonic well-being. Each time, the correlations are stronger with the transformational style.

<table><caption>Table 1 — Model fit index — Notes: χ2/df = Chi-square/degree of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual</caption><tr><td>Modelχ2/dfCFIRMSEASMRMModel 1 (hypothesized six-factor
                        model)3,108.907.053.053Model 2 (five-factor model: combines transformational
                        and transactional leadership)3,177.903.054.054Model 3 (four-factor model:
                        combines hedonic and eudaimonic well-being)5,573.795.078.072Model 4
                        (three-factor model: combines transformational and transactional leadership,
                        and combines hedonic and eudaimonic well-being)5,637.791.079.072Model 5
                        (one-factor model)10,632.565.113.106</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table 2 — Means, standard deviations, and correlations among constructs — Notes: Status is coded 1: General Manager; 2: Employee; Gender is coded 1: Female; 2: Male; **p* <.05; ***p* <.01</caption><tr><td>VariablesMeanSD123456781. Status--12. Gender---.113**13. Management
                        innovations2.88.83-.103**.00014. Transformational
                        leadership3.71.79-.252**-.038.437**15. Transactional
                        leadership3.06.76-.190**.000.196**.610**16. Positive emotions (positive
                        aspect of hedonic well-being)3.80.81.021.005.316**.532**.324**17. Negative
                        emotions (negative aspect of hedonic
                        well-being)2.71.98.005-.053-.117**-.311**-.197**-.389**18. Eudaimonic
                        well-being3.93.75.017.015.298**.465**.319**.713**-.326**1</td></tr></table>

Management innovations are positively related to both leadership styles, with a stronger association observed for transformational leadership. They are also related to hedonic well-being and to eudaimonic well-being.

There is no significant difference between employees and general managers, either for the hedonic or the eudaimonic aspect of well-being. For both samples, positive emotions are significantly higher than negative emotions (*t*<sub>*Managers*</sub>*=*12.60*, p*<0.001*: t*<sub>*Employees*</sub>*=*16.35*, p*<0.001), and the level of fulfillment at work is relatively high. For both groups, the transformational leadership style predominates over the transactional style in their organization (*t*<sub>*Managers*</sub>*=*18.01*, p <*0.001*: t*<sub>*Employees*</sub>*=*20.20*, p <*0.001). We can add that 94% of general managers consider themselves to have a more transformational leadership style than transactional. 77% of employees perceive their leader to have a more transformational style than transactional. General managers describe themselves as more transformational and transactional leaders than employees describing their managers. They also report a more frequent implementation of management innovations than employees do.

## Test of hypotheses

### Goodness of fit in SEM

The proposed hypotheses were tested using multigroup Structural Equation Modeling. The results of the fit indices of structural equation model indicated an acceptable fit of the data (χ2/df = 2,098; CFI = .90; RMSEA= .038; SRMR = .075).

<table><caption>Table 3 — Means and standard deviations for General Managers and Employees</caption><tr><td>General managersEmployeest test of StudentMSDMSDTransformational
                        leadership4.03.473.59.84t = 9.06; p <.001Transactional
                        leadership3.29.652.97.77t = 5.67; p <.001Management
                        innovations3.02.722.83.86t = 3.07; p = .002Positive emotions (hedonic
                        well-being)3.78.683.81.84t = -.63; nsNegative emotions (hedonic
                        well-being)2.70.902.711t = -.15; nsEudaimonic well-being3.91.673.94.78t =
                        -.48; ns</td></tr></table>

### Common method variance

Since all measures were rated at the same time by the respondents, the likelihood of common method bias is high. Therefore, we tested for common method bias (Podsakoff *et al.*, 2012) using the latent method factor approach. All items were allowed to load on the latent method factor. This new model presents an adjustment almost equivalent to that of our measurement model (χ2/df = 2,003; CFI = .910; RMSEA = .037; SRMR = .075). The average variance extracted (AVE) by the common method factor was 0.31, falling below the 0.50 threshold that indicates the presence of CMB (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). We conclude that common method bias was unlikely to be problematic in our model.

### Structural Model

Based on the empirical model proposed in this research, hypothesis testing was conducted using the path coefficients on SEM. To evaluate the structural model, firstly the direct effects of transformational leadership and transactional leadership on hedonic well-being (positive emotions and negative emotions) and eudaimonic well-being (fulfillment) were tested. Then we included management innovations in the model. The significance of management innovations as a mediator in the relationship between leadership and employees’ well-being was tested using AMOS bootstrapping. Gender was entered as a control variable, as gender differences have been shown in several leadership styles studies (e.g., Carless, 1998).

The results of the hypothesis testing are presented in Table 4 for employees and Table 5 for general managers. Figures 3 and 4 show the results of the structural model for employees and for general managers.

### Relationship between management innovations and well‑being at work

As predicted, a notable distinction emerged between general managers and employees. Management innovations are positively related to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being among employees in worker co-ops. Specifically, they are positively associated with positive emotions and, to an even greater extent, with fulfillment at work (refer to Figure 3): H1a and H1c are supported. However, they do not show any association with negative emotions at work: H1b is not supported, as a negative relation was initially anticipated.

Conversely, management innovations do not have any connection with the positive side of hedonic well-being or eudaimonic well-being among general managers. Instead, they are significantly associated with negative emotions. As the implementation frequency of management innovations increases in worker co-ops, so do the levels of negative emotions experienced by general managers at work. Thus, H2b is supported, while H2a and H2c are not.

### Relationship between leadership styles and management innovations

Transformational leadership is positively linked to the implementation of management innovations, both among employees and general managers: A greater inclination towards transformational leadership corresponds to a more frequent introduction of such innovations in the company. H3a is confirmed. Conversely, transactional leadership exhibits a negative relationship with management innovations as perceived by employees, and it shows no association with them according to general managers. Therefore, H3b is supported for employees.

### Relationship between leadership styles and well-being at work

Transformational leadership significantly relates to both the hedonic and eudaimonic well-being of employees and general managers. It is positively associated with positive emotions and fulfillment, and negatively linked to negative emotions. H4a, H4b, and H4c are supported. Transactional leadership exhibits no significant association with the two components of well-being, contrary to the expected negative relationship. Thus, H5a, H5b, and H5c are not supported.

### Management innovations: A mediator between transformational leadership and
                employees’ well-being at work?

The bootstrapping technique (2,000 samples; 95% confidence interval) was used. According to the results of the AMOS analysis, one mediation appeared significant (Table 6): The indirect effect of transformational leadership on employees’ eudaimonic well-being through management innovations is significant, while its direct effect is no longer significant. Therefore, management innovations fully mediate this relationship. Transformational leadership, by allowing the implementation of these innovations, is positively associated with employees’ fulfillment at work. However, this leadership style is not indirectly related to employees’ positive emotions through management innovations. H6 is then supported for eudaimonic well-being (H6b) but not for hedonic well-being (H6a).

<table><caption>Table 4 — Estimation for Employees — Note: ****p* <.001</caption><tr><td>Hypothesized path  Estimate S.E. C.R. PHypotheses testingH1a Management
                        Innovation Positive emotions (Hedonic
                        well-being).089.0481.839.056SupportedH1b Management Innovation Negative
                        emotions (Hedonic well-being).018.055.332.740Not supportedH1c Management
                        Innovation Eudaimonic well-being.144.0453.187.001SupportedH3a
                        Transformational leadership Management
                        Innovation1.008.1705.924***SupportedH3b Transactional leadership Management
                        Innovation-.931.328-2.838.005SupportedH4a Transformational leadership
                        Positive emotions (Hedonic well-being).498.1363.667***SupportedH4b
                        Transformational leadership Negative emotions (Hedonic well-being)
                        -.357.155-2.308.021SupportedH4c Transformational leadership Eudaimonic
                        well-being.238.1261.895.055SupportedH5a Transactional leadership Positive
                        emotions (Hedonic well-being).148.236.628.530Not supportedH5b Transactional
                        leadership Negative emotions (Hedonic well-being)-.135.269-.502.616Not
                        supportedH5c Transactional leadership Eudaimonic
                        well-being.329.2221.482.138Not supported</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table 5 — Estimation for General Managers</caption><tr><td>Hypothesized path  Estimate S.E. C.R. PHypotheses testingH2a Management
                        Innovation Positive emotions (Hedonic well-being).025.099.251.802Not
                        supportedH2b Management Innovation Negative emotions (Hedonic
                        well-being).266.1341.988.047SupportedH2c Management Innovation Eudaimonic
                        well-being.038.111.343.732Not supportedH3a Transformational leadership
                        Management Innovation.661.3571.849.054SupportedH3b Transactional leadership
                        Management Innovation-.171.362-.474.636Not supportedH4a Transformational
                        leadership Positive emotions (Hedonic
                        well-being).970.3542.739.006SupportedH4b Transformational leadership
                        Negative emotions (Hedonic well-being) -.407.409-.994.320Not supportedH4c
                        Transformational leadership Eudaimonic
                        well-being.947.3842.468.014SupportedH5a Transactional leadership Positive
                        emotions (Hedonic well-being)-.426.352-1.210.226Not supportedH5b
                        Transactional leadership Negative emotions (Hedonic
                        well-being).321.422.760.447Not supportedH5c Transactional leadership
                        Eudaimonic well-being-.312.381-.821.412Not supported</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 — Path analysis and standardized regression coefficients for Employees — Notes: **p* <.05; ***p* <.01; ****p* <.001 A path in dash is not significant.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 — Path analysis and standardized regression coefficients for General Managers — Notes: **p* <.05; ***p* <.01; ****p* <.001 A path in dash is not significant.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>Table 6 — Mediation Analyses - Outputs of AMOS and bootstrapping — Notes: * *p* <.05; ** *p* <.01; *** *p* <.001</caption><tr><td>HypothesesDirect Beta without MediatorDirect Beta with MediatorIndirect
                        BetaMediation type observedMediationTransformational leadership – Management
                        innovations – Employees’ hedonic well-being (positive
                        emotions)+.589***+.499*+.090 nsNo mediationMediationTransformational
                        leadership – Management innovations – Employees’eudaimonic well-being
                        +.440***+.274 ns.168**Full mediation</td></tr></table>
# Discussion

Drawing on the JD-R model as our guiding framework, this study explored the often-overlooked relationship between management innovations and workplace well-being, with a specific focus on worker cooperatives. We also examined the mediating role of management innovations in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee well-being in these organizations.

## Theoretical contributions

Our results show that the relationship between management innovations and well-being varies by role, whether one is an employee or a general manager. Consistent with the JD-R model (Demerouti *et al.*, 2001), we found that these innovations serve as valuable job resources for employees, leading to positive well-being outcomes. The positive associations between management innovations and both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are particularly significant, as they suggest an influence on both immediate (positive emotions) and long-term (personal fulfillment) workplace well-being. This insight can guide organizations in creating work environments that not only enhance immediate job satisfaction but also support long-term personal growth.

However, for general managers, who bear the primary responsibility for implementing these innovations (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010), such innovations may instead act as job demands. The additional tasks of planning, organizing, and adapting to new methods associated with these innovations (Lendel et *al*., 2015) can increase workload and stress, potentially leading to negative emotional outcomes as evidenced in our study (e.g., feelings of nervousness and anxiety). While management innovations aim to improve quality of work life in worker co-ops, their implementation may present challenges that could negatively affect the psychological health of general managers.

Grounded in the JD–R model, the present study extends this theoretical framework by proposing that management innovations serve as both job resources and job demands depending on the role within the organization, thereby influencing various indicators of both positive and negative well-being.

Also consistent with the JD-R model (Demerouti *et al.*, 2001) and prior research (Arnold & Connelly, 2013), our findings establish that transformational leadership acts as a valuable resource for all cooperative members. This leadership style not only cultivates positive emotional states, contributing to hedonic well-being, but also facilitates self-realization and personal growth, fundamental aspects of eudaimonic well-being. In contrast, our findings reveal a lack of significant association between the transactional leadership style and well-being within worker co-ops. This style tends to prioritize task completion and performance outcomes, its task-oriented nature may not adequately address the well-being requirements of cooperative members. Likewise, consistent with previous studies (Jaskyte, 2011), our research emphasizes that transformational leadership not only promotes overall well-being, but it also facilitates the implementation of management innovations (Su & Baird, 2018). Transactional leadership exhibits no significant relationship with management innovations within worker co-ops, as reported by general managers. Moreover, employee perceptions suggest that transactional leadership may even have a negative association with the adoption of management innovations in their organizations. The differential impact of leadership styles underscores the importance of leadership in shaping organizational outcomes, even in democratic workplaces like worker cooperatives.

Ultimately, through the integration and differentiation of eudaimonic and hedonic well-being, we gained a deeper understanding of the factors that influence each. Transformational leadership was found to to be indirectly related to employees’ personal growth at work (eudaimonic well-being) through the implementation of management innovations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that such innovations have been tested as a mediator in this relationship. Conversely, this leadership style is directly associated with positive affects (i.e., hedonic well-being); it does not predict employees’ emotions through management innovations. This study thus contributes valuable insights into the complex relationship between transformational leadership and the two complementary yet different components of employee well-being at work. While this leadership style directly promotes immediate happiness and pleasure (positive emotions at work), it indirectly facilitates the long-term pursuit of self-actualization through the introduction of management innovations it enables.

## Practical implications

Leaders in worker cooperatives are often overlooked due to the collective governance structure. However, our findings highlight their crucial role in these organizations. Adopting a predominantly transformational leadership style not only enhances both dimensions of well-being but also drives the implementation of management innovations. In addition, it is important for cooperative members to recognize that management innovations can be a double-edged sword: While they significantly contribute to employee well-being, they may simultaneously pose challenges for general managers, potentially leading to increased stress and workload. Recognizing the potential negative emotional impact of implementing management innovations on leaders offers valuable insights into the intricacies involved in their adoption. It emphasizes the importance of considering the unique challenges and demands faced by leaders during this process and advocates for the provision of suitable support and resources to alleviate these effects. Comprehensive training programs and practices should be developed for general managers, empowering them with the necessary tools and skills to navigate this demanding role. For example, facilitating peer learning and communities of practice could enable leaders to share experiences, best practices, and lessons learned in introducing managerial innovations. These forums can create a collaborative space to exchange ideas, seek advice, and learn from each other’s successes and challenges. Additionally, coaching sessions could help general managers apply their training to real-world scenarios, receive personalized guidance, and address any issues that may arise during the introduction of managerial innovations. Furthermore, team-oriented training programs should be designed to foster active participation, recognizing that the successful implementation of management innovations is a collective effort that involves the entire organization.

## Limits and avenues for future research

This study focused on general managers and employees in French worker cooperatives, which are well-known for their global presence and shared values. While we expect similar findings in other contexts, future research should test this model in different countries to assess the generalizability of our results. Given the cross-sectional nature of our study, causal inferences are limited, though they are supported by existing literature. The robustness of our findings is enhanced by the use of reliable bootstrap methods; However, future research would benefit from a longitudinal design to establish causal relationships more definitively.

Our findings underscore the key role of management innovations in predicting well-being for employees and emotional discomfort for general managers in worker co-ops. While we propose that these innovations may generate negative emotions due to increased job demands, this hypothesis warrants further empirical investigation. Additionally, the well-being and recognition of worker cooperative leaders merit deeper exploration in future studies. Although their overall well-being is relatively high, this study suggests that certain factors, such as the implementation of management innovations, may induce negative emotions. Future research should focus on identifying job resources that could enhance the well-being and recognition of leaders in cooperative settings.

## Références

J., Back, K.-J., & Boger, C. (2019). Effects of integrated resort experience on customers’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. *Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43*, 8, 1225–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019861740

K. A., & Connelly, C. E. (2013). Transformational leadership and psychological wellbeing: Effects on followers and leaders. In H. S. Leonard, R. Lewis, A. M. Freedman, & J. Passmore (Eds.), *The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of leadership,* *change, and organizational development*(p. 175–194). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118326404.ch9

K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of the meaning of work. *Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,*3, 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193

R. D., Sari, E. Y. D., & Widiana, H. S. (2020). *A literature review of workplace well-being*. Proceedings of the International Conference on Community Development (ICCD 2020). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201017.134

T., Arnaud, N., & Letierce, C. (2019). *Les innovations managériales*. Paris: Dunod.

Barth, E., Bryson, A. & Dale-Olsen, H. (2009). *How Does Innovation Affect Worker Well-being*? CEP Discussion Papers dp0953, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

Bass, B. M. (1985)*.*Model of transformational leadership. In T.F. Mech & G.B. McCabe (Eds.), *Leadership and academic librarians*(pp. 66-82). Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1998.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). *Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership*. Sage Publications, Inc.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). *MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Leader Form, Rater Form, and Scoring*. California. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). *Transformational leadership* (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. *The Leadership Quarterly, 10*, 2, 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8

R., Czakert, J. P., Leuteritz, J.-P., & Leiva, D. (2019). How and when do leaders influence employees’ well-being? Moderated mediation models for job demands and resources. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 10, Article 2788. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02788

D.P. (2013). Effects of Cooperative Membership and Participation in Decision Making on Job Satisfaction of Home Health Aides, Sharing Ownership, Profits, and Decision-Making in the 21st Century. *Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory &* *Labor-Managed Firms, 14*, 3-25.

A., Dufays, F., Friedel, S., & Staessens, M. (2021). The resilience of the cooperative model: How do cooperatives deal with the COVID-19 crisis? *Strategic Change, 30*, 2, 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2393

J., Hamel G., & Mol M.J. (2008). Management innovation. *Academy of Management Review, 33*, 4, 825-845. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421969

G. & Alis, D. (2014). The effects of lean organizational practices on employees’ attitudes and workers’ health: evidence from France. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, *25*, 21, 3016-3037. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.951950

K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87*, 1, 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12041

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), *Field methods in cross-cultural research* (pp. 137–164). Sage Publications, Inc.

Burns, J.M. (1978). *Leadership*. New York: Harper and Row.

S.A. (1998). Gender Differences in Transformational Leadership: An Examination of Superior, Leader, and Subordinate Perspectives. *Sex Roles, 39*, 887–902. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018880706172

Charmettant, H., Boissin, O., Dubrion, B., Hirczak, M., Juban, J-Y. *et al.* (2020). *Scop & Scic: les sens de la coopération: rapport d’études*. [Rapport de recherche] Centre de Recherche en Economie de Grenoble. 221 p. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02535566/document

G., Santa Cruz, I., Peredo, A. M., & Nazareno, E. (2014). Worker cooperatives as an organizational alternative: Challenges, achievements and promise in business governance and ownership. *Organization, 21*, 5, 591-603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508414539784

Chorum-CSA Quality of Life at Work Barometer (2017). https://chorum.fr/sites/default/files/barometreqvt/Synthese-Resultats-2e-edition-Barometre-CHORUM-QVT-ESS-2017.pdf

M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. *Journal of Management Studies*, *47*, 6, 1154-1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x

DARES survey (2017). Quelles sont les évolutions récentes des conditions de travail et des risques psychosociaux? https://dares.travail-emploi.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/pdf/2017-082v3.pdf

Vries, R. E., Pathak, R. D., & Paquin, A. R. (2011). The paradox of power sharing: Participative charismatic leaders have subordinates with more instead of less need for leadership, *European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20,*779-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.509923

Debaillie-Bellissens, A. (2017). *L’organisation en Scop favorise-t-elle le bien-être au travail?* Mémoire de Master 2 Manager du développement des ressources humaines, CESI, France

Deloitte survey (2021). Well-being and resilience in senior leaders. A risk to post-pandemic recovery. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/consulting/ca-consulting-well-being-senior-leaders-en-aoda.pdf

E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 86*, 3, 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

G., & Paschoal, T. (2016). Well-being at work scale: Exploratory and confirmatory validation in the USA. *Paidéia, 26*, 63, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272663201605

Eurofound (2013). *Work organisation and employee involvement in Europe: a report based on the fifth European working conditions survey*, Publications Office of the European Union. Luxenbourg. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2806/18346

Everaere, C. (2011). Valeurs et pratiques de GRH dans l’économie sociale. *Revue française de gestion, 217*, 15-33. https://www.cairn.info/revue--2011-8-page-15.htm .

C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. *Journal of Marketing Research*, *18*, 3, 382-388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980

B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee psychological well-being. *Work & Stress, 18,*3, 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370412331317499

A., Hussain, I., & Hameed, F. (2021). Innovation and Employee Performance: Mediating Role of Psychological Well Being. *Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 7*, 3, 699-710. https://doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v7i3.1896

I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D., & Gerbasi, A. (2018). Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda. *The Leadership Quarterly, 29*, 1, 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.006

K. (2011). Predictors of Administrative and Technological Innovations in Nonprofit Organizations. *Public Administration Review, 71*, 1, 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02308.x

D. & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. *Journal of Business Research*, *64*, 4, 408-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010

T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,*5, 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

A., Boer, D., Buengeler, C., & van Dick, R. (2020) Leadership behaviour and leader self-reported well-being: A review, integration and meta-analytic examination, *Work &* *Stress, 34*, 1, 34-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1617369

D., Uysal, Sirgy, M., & Lee, G. (2013). The effects of leadership style on employee well-being in hospitality. *International Journal of Hospitality Management,* *34*, 1, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.001

M. (2019). Happiness theory and worker cooperatives: A critique of the alignment thesis. *Journal of Labor and Society. 22*, 3, 637–660. https://doi:10.1111/wusa.12442

Khan, R., Masih, S., & Ali, W. (2021). Influence of Transactional Leadership and Trust in Leader on Employee Well-being and Mediating role of Organizational Climate. *International* *Journal of Business and Economic Affairs, 6*, 1, 13-23.

V., Hittmár, S., & Latka, M. (2015). Application of management of innovation processes in enterprises: management approach, problems and recommendations. *Procedia Economics and Finance, 34*, 410-416.

M. (2001). La gestion stratégique de la coopérative et de l’association d’économie sociale (2e partie): L’entreprise et ses orientations, *Revue internationale de l’économie sociale, 282,* 84-94.

C., Dubey, A. S., & Battistelli, M. (2023). Management innovations and social performance: What can we learn from looking at the adoption of liberation management practices? *Management international, 27*, 4, 77-91.

M.J., & Birkinshaw J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: when firms introduce new management practices. *Journal of Business Research, 62*, 12, 1269-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.001

D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., & Hüffmeier, J. (2017). Leadership, followers’ mental health and job performance in organizations: a comprehensive meta-analysis from an occupational health perspective. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38*, 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2124

Moss, J. (2021). *The burnout epidemic: The rise of chronic stress and how we can fix it*. Harvard Business Review Press.

Négroni, P. (2019). *Innovations managériales, pratiques coopératives et QVT*. Synthèse des diagnostics. Projet FACT – Réseau SCOP.

K., Nielsen, M. B., Ogbonnaya, C., Känsälä, M., Saari, E., & Isaksson, K. (2017). Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Work & Stress, 31*, 2, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463

Opinionway for CGSCOP (2022). Baromètre de la nouvelle performance, 2<sup>nde</sup> édition. https://documents.scop.coop/share/s/qUXQ2qGRQOqW1XYoKR7mmw

Paschoal, T., & Tamayo, A. (2008). Construction and validation of the work well-being scale. *Avaliação Psicológica, 7*, 1, 11-22.

V. (2013). Worker Cooperatives: Good, Sustainable Jobs in the Community. *Journal*o*f Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 2*, 2, 34-47.

H., & Islam, G. (2020). ‘Free to Do What I Want’? Exploring the ambivalent effects of liberating leadership. *Organization Studies, 41,* 3, 393-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618814554

P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. *Annual Review of Psychology, 63,* 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Rasulzada, F. (2007). Organizational Creativity and Psychological Well-Being: Contextual Aspects on Organizational Creativity and Psychological Well-Being from an Open Systems Perspective. Doctoral Thesis. Department of Psychology, Lund University.

I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Full engagement: The integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. *Leadership & Organization Development Journal*, *31*(4), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011043348

J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Relationships Between Leadership Styles and Followers’ Emotional Experience and Effectiveness in the Voluntary Sector. *Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38*, 2, 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008317304

R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. *Annual Review of Psychology, 52,*141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. *Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary* *Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 9,*1, 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0

C., & Meyer, B. (2020). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and flow at work. *European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 29*, 5, 740-752. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1749050

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76*, 3, 482–497 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.76.3.482

H.L., Mills, M.E., & Waltz, C.F. (2001) Academic Leadership Style Predictors for Nursing Faculty Job Satisfaction in Taiwan. *Journal of Nursing Education*, 40, 203-209. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20010501-05

S., D’Hoore, W., & Vandenberghe, C. (2001). Leadership, organizational stress, and emotional exhaustion among hospital nursing staff. *Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35*, 533-542. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01885.x

L. V., & Vittersø, J. (2012). Happiness, inspiration and the fully functioning person: Separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in the workplace, *The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7*, 5, 387-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.711348

S., & Baird, K. (2018). The role of leaders in generating management innovation. *International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29*, 19, 2758-2779. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1282533

S., Armelius, K., & Westerberg, K. (2011). Toward Understanding the Direct and Indirect Effects of Transformational Leadership on Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study. *Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18*, 4, 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811418342

I., Jansen, J., Van Den Bosch, F. & Volberda, H. (2012) Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating Role of Organizational Size. *Journal of Management Studies, 49*, 1, 28-51. https://doi.org/j.1467-6486.2010.00976.x

H.W., Van Den Bosch F.A.J. & Heij C.V. (2013). Management innovation: Management as fertile ground for innovation. *European Management Review, 10*, 1, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12007

Wagner, A-C., (2022). *Coopérer. Les Scop et la fabrique de l’intérêt collectif*, Paris, CNRS Editions.

H., Tsui, A. S., & Xin, K. R. (2011). CEO leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and employees’ attitudes. *The Leadership Quarterly, 22*, 1, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.009

A., & Maier, G. (2023). Leaders’ mental health in times of crisis: work intensification, emotional demands and the moderating role of organizational support and self-efficacy. *Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1,122,881.*https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1122881

E. M., Ormiston, M. E. & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. *Academy of Management Journal*, 54, 6, 1207-1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0762

A., & Constanti, P. (2010). Leadership styles and burnout: is there an association? *International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22,* 3, 300-320. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011035927