Vitality is an important resource for both employees and leaders; however, the focus of this study is on leader vitality. A leader high in vitality experiences a sense of enthusiasm, aliveness, and energy (Ryan and Frederick, 1997). Vogel (2017) showed that when individuals feel energized and are thriving, leadership capacity is expanded. Vitality is an inner resource that is both generative and dynamic, and can help leaders cope with challenges, improve overall performance, and meet role demands (Dubreuil et al., 2014). Leaders can utilize vitality to manage or employ inner resources for intentional behaviors (Ryan and Deci, 2008).

Leaders increasingly need to serve a wide array of follower and organizational needs without depleting their own energy or risking burnout. Burnout is defined by Perlman and Hartman (1982) as “emotional/and or physical exhaustion, lowered work productivity, and over depersonalization” (Perlman and Hartman, 1982, p. 293). Vigor, defined by an abundance of energy and resiliency, has been shown to be the opposite of burnout (Bakker et al., 2014). Given that vitality has been characterized by energized states like feelings of vigor (McNair, 1971), burnout and vitality can also be seen as opposite ends of the energy spectrum (Figure 1). The definitions of both burnout and vitality include a physical component making vitality a more precise opposing concept to burnout, even more than engagement which is often seen as the opposite of burnout (Crawford et al., 2010). Vitality can be defined as an abundance of physical, psychological, and emotional energy, where burnout is a depletion of physical, psychological, and emotional energy. Given the incredible demands and expectations on leaders, vitality can be a path to burnout resilience.

Even though the definition of vitality has been fragmented, positive outcomes have been established. Vitality has been associated with both behavioral and objective health outcomes (Lavrusheva, 2020) including greater work performance, better coping with stress and challenge, more physical and psychological resilience, greater physical functioning and recovery, decreased anxiety, and heightened self-confidence (Ryan and Frederick, 1997; Penninx et al., 2000; Greenglass, 2006; Ryan and Deci, 2008). There are many positive antecedents of vitality including somatic health, well-being, physical activity, mental health, and work contexts including: meaningful work and successful work performance (Lavrusheva, 2020). Given the clear antecedents and benefits of vitality, leaders and organizations need a way to better understand what builds and drains vitality to protect leaders from depleting this important resource. An important first step is to understand the mechanisms needed in leadership that drain leader vitality, including self-control, emotional labor, emotional dissonance, and relational energy.

The changing world of business and public pressure has put a focus on more ethical leadership and business practices that improve the culture of the organization (Kiker et al., 2019). Putting follower needs first, like in servant leadership styles, requires self-control from leaders, and an orientation to serving followers has been associated with more ethical leadership behaviors, morality-centered self-reflection, good organizational decision-making, and less focus on power, fame, or self-centered goals (Giampetro-Meyer and Brown, 1998; Hoch et al., 2018). Self-control is defined as the “overriding or inhibiting of automatic, habitual, or innate behaviors, urges, emotions, or desires that would otherwise interfere with goal directed behavior” (Muraven et al., 2006, p. 524). Self-control helps leaders adapt to their social environment, be more responsive to others in their approach, have more interpersonal success, and focus on followers and organizational needs (Tangney et al., 2004; Baumeister and Alquist, 2009; Liao et al., 2021). However, self-control has also been shown to deplete energy resources and can lead to self-control fatigue (Baumeister and Alquist, 2009).

Leader self-control is needed in ever changing, complex environments, and increasing requirements for self-control can cause self-control fatigue and ultimately drain vitality. Multiple empirical studies have shown that increased levels of self-control can bring about lower levels of mental well-being and potential burnout (Diestel and Schmidt, 2009, 2011; Schmidt et al., 2007; Rivkin et al., 2015). Schmidt et al. (2007) showed through empirical evidence that self-control demands were significantly correlated with indicators of job strain and burnout.

In sum, engaging in self-controlling behaviors over time that focus so heavily on followers and the organization, while putting the leader’s needs second, can come at a vitality cost for leaders and potentially lead to burnout. Understanding the perspectives of leaders in some of the most demanding roles in the country can help uncover the potential costs of self-control on vitality.

Emotional labor is a continuous requirement for effective leadership in organizations and it can also be another drain on vitality (Gardner et al., 2009). Emotional labor is defined as the effort, control and planning needed to express emotions to others that are organizationally desired (Morris and Feldman, 1996). Leaders utilize emotional labor to alter their emotional expression in two different ways: (1) surface acting (when leaders change their outward emotional expressions but do not attempt to feel the emotions that they are displaying) and (2) deep level acting (when leaders attempt to feel the emotions they want to display) (Humphrey et al., 2008). Surface level acting has been shown to have the greatest negative impact to leader resources and well-being (Wang, 2011). An important contribution to the literature in emotional labor from this study is the deeper understanding of how top leaders handle the need for emotional labor in their roles.

Several research studies demonstrate that a leader’s emotions are contagious and can impact people both inside and outside of the organization (Johnson, 2008; Gardner et al., 2009; Banerjee and Srivastava, 2019; Li et al., 2019). Leaders have requirements to always be “on,” appearing with high levels of positive emotions and vitality – even when they are feeling depleted – in order to influence others toward organizational goals (Gardner et al., 2009). Many leaders do not have the permission to share when they are feeling depleted, burned out, or even languishing. Instead, leaders are expected to “show up” for their followers with the level of vitality and emotional regulation needed to inspire an organization toward a vision. This creates challenges for leaders to be truly authentic due to the requirements for continuous emotional labor.

Research on the impacts of leaders’ positive and negative emotions on followers has shown the importance of leader’s staying positive in the face of organizational demands (George and Bettenhausen, 1990; George, 1995; George, 2000; Lewis, 2000; Humphrey, 2002; Gaddis et al., 2004; Sy et al., 2005; Humphrey et al., 2008). Sy et al. (2005) provide evidence that a leader’s emotions are contagious. The leader’s positive (negative) moods induced group members to experience more positive (negative) moods and affective tone. Lewis (2000) similarly found that a leader’s negative emotions induced more follower negative affective states and less favorable assessments of leader effectiveness. A leader’s high levels of emotional labor can benefit followers and organizations, but the potential cost can be emotional exhaustion and drained vitality.

Emotional labor has been shown to detract from well-being, an antecedent of vitality, through emotional exhaustion and contribute to burnout (Erickson and Ritter, 2001; Brotheridge and Lee, 2002; Grandey, 2003; Glomb and Tews, 2004; Grandey et al., 2007; Johnson and Spector, 2007; Martínez-Iñigo et al., 2007). Emotional exhaustion is defined as a lack of energy and a feeling that one’s emotional resources are depleted. Awareness of emotional labor may highlight the hidden costs of leadership roles. In sum, emotional labor in the absence of opportunities for replenishment leads to emotional exhaustion and depletes leaders of the energy resources needed for vitality (Gardner et al., 2009).

While closely related, emotional dissonance is another potential drain to a leader’s emotional vitality. Emotional dissonance is defined as the conflict between the actual emotions experienced and organizationally or situationally required emotions (Middleton, 1989). Emotional dissonance is thus created when a leader portrays emotions that they do not feel which can happen in both surface and deep level acting. Emotional dissonance is a significant factor in emotional exhaustion, leading to lowered psychological well-being and acts as another drain to leader vitality (Van Dijk and Kirk Brown, 2006; Abubakar et al., 2022; Winkler et al., 2023). Emotional labor and emotional dissonance are directly linked with some conceptualizations that consider emotional dissonance as an antecedent to emotional labor (Zapf et al., 1999; Abubakar et al., 2022), and others position emotional dissonance as the labor component of emotional labor and a consequence of performing emotional labor (Rubin et al., 2005). However, emotional dissonance has been empirically shown to be an independent construct, distinct from emotional labor (Abraham, 1998, 1999; Van Dijk and Kirk Brown, 2006).

When leaders engage in either surface acting or deep acting, if the gap between the required self and the natural self is too large, it can lead to an internal state of tension which is emotional dissonance (O’Brien and Linehan, 2019; Abubakar et al., 2022). Erickson (1991) asserts that the fragmentation of the required self and natural self is harmful to the individual, and that over time this disconnect may lead to emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction. Emotional dissonance has also been found to be a key contributor to burnout (Kenworthy et al., 2014; Andela et al., 2016; Andela and Truchot, 2017).

Leaders often strive to be authentic by expressing transparency, openness, and trust, while at the same time remaining true to their inner thoughts, beliefs, and experiences (Gardner et al., 2005, 2009; Gardner and Carlson, 2015). Being authentic in leadership has been shown to have several positive impacts on employees, including empowerment, job performance, increased organizational citizen behaviors, organizational commitment, trust in leadership, and work engagement (Gardner et al., 2011). However, an important question that has been raised is whether leader authenticity can be attained while leaders are attempting to meet the emotional labor demands of their roles (Gardner et al., 2009).

When leaders are striving for authenticity but cannot be truly authentic in their emotions, it can lead to feelings of inauthenticity, creating emotional dissonance. While some research suggests that authenticity can contribute to leader well-being for leaders who can achieve authenticity, there is a question as to whether true authenticity is ever possible given the demands placed on leaders (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Weiss et al., 2018). Hearing directly from leaders around this question contributes to the understanding of this complex issue. Weiss et al. (2018) showed that authenticity in leadership can build leader mental well-being through reducing stress and improving engagement. However, they also found that feelings of inauthenticity can deplete leaders’ mental resources, resulting in lower mental well-being. The emotional dissonance created from leaders striving for authenticity, and not being able to be truly authentic, can drain a leader’s vitality. Furthermore, when leaders are depleted, they cannot be authentic in their vitality, and therefore vitality becomes a potential negative loop for leaders because their desire for authenticity is not being met, creating even more emotional dissonance. High expectations for leaders are further compounded with the importance of leaders transferring positive energy to followers (Cameron, 2021).

Prior research demonstrates that a leader can transfer energy resources to others through positive relationships which results in higher levels of engagement, lower turnover, and enhanced feelings of well-being among followers (Vogel, 2017; Cameron, 2021). The transference of positive energy from one person to another is called positive relational energy (Owens et al., 2016). Positive relational energy is defined as an increased level of positive psychological capacities that is generated through the interaction of people and leads to an increase in a person’s capacity to do work (Owens et al., 2016). Although vitality is positive energy, the crucial distinction is that vitality is an inner energy resource available to a leader, where positive relational energy is the transference of that energy to others. The continual need for transference of positive relational energy to followers thus creates another potential drain to leader vitality.

Cameron et al. (2011) explains that the transfer of positive relational energy creates a heliotropic effect which is defined as “the attraction of all living systems toward positive energy and away from negative energy, or toward that which is life giving and away from that which is life depleting” (Cameron et al., 2011, p. 288). The positive energy ripple effect is based on the theories and empirical research including positive energizers and energy networks theory (Cross et al., 2003; Cameron, 2021). According to Cameron (2021), some individuals are identified as positive energizers and create ripples of positive energy throughout the organization. There are substantial benefits of positive relational energy, but the outcomes have primarily been focused on the leader’s impact on followers and the organization, and there is limited literature and research on the required vitality needed from the leader.

For a leader to be a positive energizer in an organization and consistently transfer positive relational energy to followers, s/he needs a foundation of vitality or could risk burning out. Positive relational energy can potentially have a high energy resource demand from leaders without the vitality returns needed. A recent study showed that not all leaders feel energized from giving positive relational energy to followers, finding no direct relationship between positive relational energy and vitality (Shapiro and Donaldson, 2022). Cameron (2021) argues that positive relational energy is a renewable energy resource that energizes both the leader and the follower. However, it is possible that these energy relationships do not translate to leader-follower interactions due to power dynamics and the high expectations placed on leaders, making these relationships unique. This study explores these relational energy dynamics from the leader’s perspective to create greater clarity on how the mechanism of positive relational energy can potentially drain leader vitality.

Given the drains in vitality that everyday leadership induces, it is important to further understand how a leader’s well-being can foster vitality and help protect against burnout. Lavrusheva’s (2020) literature review showed that there are many positive antecedents of vitality, and all are elements of well-being. Well-being is broadly defined as human flourishing and wellness of mind and body (Diener, 2009). Seligman (2018) developed the PERMA model for well-being that includes positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. Donaldson et al. (2020) added four additional elements to the PERMA model: physical health, mindset, environment, and economic security. PERMA+4 has been validated through extensive research and measurement and has been shown to have a strong link to work role performance (see Table 2).

Antecedents of vitality can be classified into psychological, physiological dispositions, and external circumstances or life events (Lavrusheva, 2020). The psychological antecedents can all be classified as either well-being or mental health factors, including both positive meaning and emotions. Physiological antecedents include somatic factors of well-being (Lavrusheva, 2020). The PERMA+4 model of well-being most closely aligns with the antecedents of vitality and has been shown to build vitality in leaders (Shapiro and Donaldson, 2022). Cultivating positive emotions and a positive mindset has been shown to help minimize the well-being costs of emotional labor (Humphrey et al., 2015). Relational support, another key element of PERMA+4, has also been shown to have a buffering effect against the negative effects of emotional dissonance (Abraham, 1999). Meaning in life has also been shown to be an important antecedent to vitality even when people are unable to engage in regular physical activity (Ju, 2017).

Weiss et al. (2018) showed that authentic leadership can improve leaders’ mental well-being through reducing stress and increasing work engagement when leaders can be truly authentic in interactions with followers. The Weiss et al. (2018) study underscores the importance of bringing into alignment leader vitality and the energy they are sharing with others, highlighting the leader-follower relationship. Aligning the internal and external worlds of leaders allows more authenticity in their interactions. Perhaps this alignment for leaders is the missing link for creating reciprocal positive relational energy that builds leader vitality through follower interactions. This qualitative study explores how leaders build vitality, and how follower interactions can potentially enhance leader vitality. This study investigates how vitality is fostered and drained at the highest levels of leadership.

The research questions that guided this study are:

This study includes Fortune 1,000 CEOs or equivalent, who face extreme demands both internally and externally as well as high expectations from multiple stakeholders. These CEOs must report to their followers, the Board, shareholders, and investor communities. They are required to be “on” continually with high levels of vitality to tackle strategy, vision, organizational culture, quarterly earnings, and the survival of the organization. The sampling criteria included a Board reporting structure, internal and external stakeholders, over 4,000 employees, at least six executive level direct reports, and financial responsibility for over US$1 billion.

Based on the similarities in pressures, demands and responsibilities of the CEOs that were selected for this study, the sample size included a total of 20 participants. Theoretical saturation (the point in data collection when no additional insights are identified about the theoretical construct) was used to determine if the sample size was sufficient, and that point was reached at 12 interviews. However, 8 additional interviews were conducted as a further step in validation (Hennink and Kaiser, 2022).

One of the largest challenges of the sample was the homogeneity of this population and lack of diversity; almost 90% of Fortune 500 CEOs are white males (The Society Pages, 2020). There is not only a lack of gender diversity and homogeneity in race in this population, but also ethnicity, functional and educational backgrounds, age, and socioeconomic status. Participants recruited for this study were a convenience sample from the researcher’s network; however, additional efforts were taken to recruit as diverse a sample as possible (see Table 3).

To recruit participants, email requests were made for a 30-min interview. Participants did not receive any compensation for their participation; however, they did receive a “thank you” gift in appreciation for their time. Interviews were audio recorded using Zoom software, transcribed using Otter.ai software, and identifying information was removed prior to analysis using MAXQDA. Interviews were recorded for transcription purposes only and deleted after transcription. All names have been changed to pseudonyms, and all identifying information has been removed from the quotations below.

The semi-structured interview protocol can be found in Table 4.

Thematic analysis was utilized, a common approach when existing theory is limited (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Data was systematically sorted, summarized, and compared while identifying the major themes around leader vitality. It was important to use a flexible approach in the face of emergent findings, as well as grounded in prior research. Given prior research in leader vitality, an a priori coding scheme was utilized and combined with inductive codes that emerged. Table 5 details the initial coding scheme.

As recommended by Kondracki and Wellman (2002), interview transcripts were initially reviewed in entirety to gain a holistic understanding and capture key concepts. Next, initial impressions and a priori codes were applied. The data was subsequently analyzed for emergent themes not initially identified in the coding scheme, data was then organized into broader categories of themes and a final set of codes was identified (see Appendix A in Supplementary material). This approach led to findings that are grounded in the data of each participant’s unique perspectives (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005).

Qualitative research allows for rich contextual insights into CEO’s lived experiences in relation to vitality, but it was essential to eliminate as many threats to validity as possible. Given the self-report nature of the semi-structured interview format, the steps outlined by Creswell and Poth (2018) were taken for the interview protocol. Questions were designed to be open ended, short, and clear.

Another threat to validity was related to the recruitment process. Many of the CEOs interviewed are clients that work directly with the researcher and therefore have existing knowledge related to what fosters leader vitality. To minimize this threat, 8 of the 20 CEOs recruited had no previous experience with the researcher. Data was also collected past the point of saturation to minimize this potential validity threat.

A final area of concern was researcher bias and prior experience in the topic of leader vitality. To minimize this threat, all interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. This minimized the tendency to only capture data that fit existing theory, goals, or preconceptions (Maxwell, 2004). In addition, through the process of transcription, each full interview was reviewed prior to analysis.

As expected, many of the psychological mechanisms outlined in prior research were identified as drains in leader vitality. There were also three emergent themes – loss of job control, the unproductive mindsets of others, and isolation created from the role.

To explore this theme in greater detail, open ended questions were asked detailed in Table 4. Clear and opposing themes emerged highlighting leaders’ behaviors with high and low vitality (see Table 10).

There are several limitations of this study that could be addressed with future research. First, this study focused on leaders only in the US, limiting the generalizability of the results. Also, the qualitative study is an extreme sample from the top level of US based organizations. Future research should include international participants and leaders at multiple levels. Another limitation of this study is related to diversity. This study used convenience sampling, which limits the diversity of participants. It is important to study leader vitality and well-being in larger and more diverse samples across multiple countries. This study was also cross-sectional in nature which makes the findings limited. Future longitudinal research could help us better understand leader vitality over extended periods. Future research can further explore the early findings in personality dimensions for vitality and should explore the Big Five factors of personality. Finally, given the unexpected absence of positive emotions as a theme in fostering vitality, additional studies can explore this finding.