Environmental Leadership and Pro-Environmental Behavior at Work: Adaptation and Openness as Key Conditions

Abstract

In response to increasingly complex work dynamics, organizations must develop leadership practices that prioritize both performance and the well-being and sustainability of human resources. This study examines how environmental leadership (EL) promotes pro-environmental behavior (PEB) through learning mechanisms and individual characteristics. The study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design. Data were collected from permanent employees in Indonesia and analyzed using the Hayes PROCESS Macro. The results demonstrate that EL serves as both a direct driver of PEB and primarily operates through mechanisms of capability development. Green adaptive ability (GAA) emerged as a key pathway, elucidating how leaders’ values and behavioral examples are translated into consistent work actions. Notably, the influence of openness to experience (OE) varied, suggesting that employees with high levels of openness internalize and process learning into adaptive capabilities before exhibiting pro-environmental work behavior. The cross-sectional design and reliance on self-perception data limit causal inference. However, these findings extend the application of social learning theory and trait activation theory to sustainability research in developing countries, particularly Indonesia. Organizations should develop leaders who explicitly model environmental values and foster employees’ GAA, while considering personality differences when designing interventions. This study presents an integrative model that links leadership, adaptive ability, and personality to explain PEB in developing countries.

Keywords

environmental leadership green adaptive ability personality traits openness to experience pro-environmental behavior

Introduction

Recent literature has shifted from structural to behavioral and psychological perspectives when examining the role of leaders in shaping employee behavior (Kanojia & Dhiman, 2025; Tang et al., 2023). Instead of relying only on formal policies or control systems, organizations now focus on leaders’ direct influence on employee learning, adaptation, and value internalization (Wu et al., 2021). This shift is significant for sustainability. It helps develop adaptable employees who voluntarily show responsible workplace behaviors (Alzaidi & Iyanna, 2021). Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) in the workplace includes discretionary actions that formal rules cannot fully regulate. PEB covers daily behaviors that show concern for resource use, efficiency, and environmental impact (Jiang et al., 2022). Research on discretionary leadership shows that personal values and the workplace social context shape PEB. Authority figures’ communication and modeling of values matter. As a result, the literature highlights leaders as social learning agents who shape how employees frame their behavior (Kennedy et al., 2015). Although prior studies have established the importance of leadership in shaping employee psychology and behavior, the underlying processes through which environmental leadership translates into pro-environmental behavior remain insufficiently explained. Existing research has predominantly focused on direct relationships, providing limited insight into how leadership-driven learning processes and individual differences jointly influence behavioral outcomes. This gap suggests the need to move beyond direct-effect explanations toward a more process-oriented and conditional understanding of leadership effectiveness in sustainability contexts.

As a form of behavioral leadership that specifically signals values and work standards related to environmental responsibility (Robertson & Carleton, 2018), EL is not only related to leaders’ attitudes toward environmental issues but is also reflected in how leaders make decisions, communicate, and demonstrate consistent daily work practices (Afsar et al., 2020). Within the framework of social learning theory (SLT), leaders with an environmental orientation serve as behavioral models that employees observe and emulate (Bandura, 1997), thereby enabling continuous social learning. Through repeated observation and interaction, employees not only understand what the organization deems important but also learn how to adapt their work behaviors to reflect the demands and values promoted by the leader. However, while SLT explains how employees learn from leaders, it does not fully capture how such learning is translated into adaptive capabilities that enable consistent behavioral enactment.

The emerging literature also suggests that leadership is more effective when employees possess adaptive capabilities that enable them to flexibly respond to new demands (Park & Park, 2021). In this context, GAA represents an individual’s ability to learn, adapt, and integrate environmentally oriented work practices into their work routines (Gabler et al., 2025). Leaders who serve as behavioral models not only influence employee attitudes but also facilitate learning processes that enable individuals to develop adaptive capabilities (Ahsan, 2025; Park & Park, 2021). When individuals possess strong GAA, they are better able to translate the values and examples demonstrated by leaders into consistent work behaviors. Thus, GAA can be understood as a key mechanism that links leadership-driven learning to observable pro-environmental behavior, addressing the limitation of prior studies that emphasize attitudinal outcomes over capability-based processes.

However, the leadership literature also emphasizes that the effectiveness of capability development is inseparable from individual characteristics (Sarwar, 2024; Tran Pham, 2026). As a personality dimension, OE reflects openness to new ideas, cognitive flexibility, and an exploratory orientation, with important implications for the development of work behavior (Jonkmann et al., 2012). This means that personality characteristics will express their influence when triggered by a relevant context. This is relevant to trait activation theory (TAT; Tett & Burnett, 2003), as GAA can create work situations that demand flexibility and exploration, thereby activating OE. Thus, OE functions as a boundary condition that explains variations in the effectiveness of adaptive capabilities in generating work behavior (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Despite this, prior research has rarely examined how personality traits condition the effectiveness of leadership-driven adaptive processes, particularly in the context of environmental behavior. Social learning mechanisms and the role of individual characteristics have been widely discussed in the leadership literature, and the effectiveness of these processes is strongly influenced by organizational and cultural contexts (Bai et al., 2019; Koutroubas & Galanakis, 2022). Contexts characterized by strong hierarchical structures and a high reliance on authority figures and behaviors tend to be more sensitive to signals from leaders (Berson & Halevy, 2014).

In Indonesia, many organizations still operate within a relatively hierarchical structure and are oriented toward obedience to superiors. This situation makes the role of leaders very central, shaping the learning process and developing employee capabilities (Irawanto et al., 2011). In such situations, EL can exert a stronger influence as a source of social learning that shapes GAA, as employees tend to observe and imitate leaders’ behavior when facing new work demands. At the same time, the diversity of individual characteristics, including OE levels, is an important factor in explaining the variation in the extent to which these adaptive capabilities are manifested in PEB (Tam, 2025). Local wisdom values such as cooperation, collective responsibility, and harmony between humans and the environment remain deeply embedded in Indonesian society (Gede et al., 2024), reinforcing the role of leaders as moral role models. Building on these arguments, this study contributes to the literature by developing a conditional process model that explains how environmental leadership influences pro-environmental behavior through green adaptive ability, and when this process is effective, depending on openness to experience. By integrating SLT and TAT, this study offers a more nuanced understanding of leadership effectiveness that goes beyond direct effects and highlights the importance of capability development and individual differences in shaping sustainability-related behavior.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Leadership as a Process of Learning and Individual Activation

The development of leadership literature has shifted from viewing leadership as merely a structural role to understanding it as a social process that shapes how individuals learn, adapt, and perform work behaviors (Othman et al., 2026; Sarwar, 2024; Su et al., 2020; Tran Pham, 2026). This perspective emphasizes that leader influence does not operate directly through formal control, but rather through social learning mechanisms and psychological activation that occur in everyday interactions (Su et al., 2020). Relevant to SLT, leadership influences employee behavior because individuals learn from observing figures with authority and social legitimacy (Khan et al., 2020). As the literature has evolved, SLT is now understood as a dynamic learning mechanism that enables individuals to develop new knowledge, skills, and capabilities in response to the demands of the work environment (Koutroubas & Galanakis, 2022). In the context of environmental leadership, this process helps explain how leaders’ behaviors and decisions shape employees’ understanding of environmentally oriented work practices. Furthermore, SLT creates a consistent leadership space that emphasizes an environment that provides opportunities for employees to experiment, adapt work procedures, and flexibly respond to changing demands. GAA can be understood as the result of a learning process facilitated by leadership, rather than as an individual characteristic formed separately from the social context (Dorsey et al., 2017). However, the leadership literature also recognizes that the same learning context does not always produce uniform behavioral responses (Lundqvist et al., 2023).

Contemporary leadership research integrates TAT, which emphasizes that behavior emerges when situations provide relevant cues to activate specific traits. Within this framework, leadership is understood as a situational trigger that can activate or desensitize the expression of personality characteristics. Conversely, OE, as a trait with openness to new ideas and cognitive flexibility, is important in explaining the extent to which individuals utilize learning opportunities and actualize their adaptive capabilities. Thus, integrating SLT and TAT provides a comprehensive understanding of how EL shapes PEB through individual learning and activation processes. The theoretical model of this research is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model.

Environmental Leadership and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Leaders’ influence on employee behavior is increasingly understood as a process of social meaning-making rooted in theories of learning and normative influence (Su et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2026). Social Learning (SLT) provides the initial foundation for the idea that individual behavior is guided by observed cues from figures with social authority and legitimacy. In contemporary leadership, leaders play a key role in shaping behavioral norms perceived as relevant within a given work context (Lundqvist et al., 2023). EL can be understood as a form of behavioral leadership that combines role modeling and norm signaling to shape employees’ behavioral orientations (Koutroubas & Galanakis, 2022). From an SLT perspective, role modeling occurs when leaders consistently display behaviors that integrate environmental considerations into work activities. By observing the consequences and consistency of leader behavior, employees develop a framework for effective and legitimate work practices, thereby increasing their likelihood of emulating these behaviors in their respective task contexts (Kennedy et al., 2015).

Beyond imitation mechanisms, leadership literature also emphasizes the leader’s role as a norm-shaper through norm signaling, which is part of TAT (Sarwar, 2024; Tett et al., 2021). Leaders’ actions serve as signals that clarify the organization’s behavioral standards, especially in areas not fully regulated by formal procedures (Tett et al., 2021). EL sends normative signals about the importance of environmental considerations through strategic decisions, priority setting, and how leaders evaluate performance. These signals reduce normative uncertainty and help employees interpret environmental behavior (PEB) as part of work role expectations, rather than simply personal preferences. The integration of role modeling and norm signaling enables environmental leadership to sustainably influence pro-environmental behavior. Thus, it explains that individuals learn “how to act” and explain “why the behavior is relevant and appropriate.” When these two mechanisms operate simultaneously, PEB becomes embedded in daily work practices and is no longer perceived as an additional behavior separate from primary job demands (Xu et al., 2026).

H1: Environmental leadership influences pro-environmental behavior.

Green Adaptive Ability

The influence of leadership on work behavior is rarely direct and instantaneous (Allio, 2012). Leadership operates through psychological mechanisms and capabilities that enable individuals to translate organizational expectations and values into consistent actions. In this context, GAA is positioned as a crucial mechanism that explains how environmental literacy can drive sustainable behavioral change (Tang et al., 2023). In accordance with SLT, it is an active process in which individuals observe, evaluate, and replicate behaviors deemed relevant in a particular social context (Jiang et al., 2022). In practice, EL serves as a learning stimulus that encourages individuals to adapt their work practices to dynamic environmental demands. Through this mechanism of repeated impact on environmentally oriented decisions and practices by leaders, individuals develop the ability to experiment, modify, and respond flexibly to environmental challenges (Özgül, 2025). Thus, GAA may reflect the outcomes of social learning that enable individuals to internalize and operationalize environmental values in diverse work contexts (Alzaidi & Iyanna, 2021).

TAT has also emphasized that the interaction between capabilities and situational conditions on behavior emerges when a leader provides cues that enable individuals to express their potential (Jonkmann et al., 2012). In this case, EL acts as a context that activates the use of GAA in daily work practices. When leaders consistently emphasize the importance of adaptive responses to environmental issues, capabilities developed through social learning are more likely to be realized as PEB (Park & Park, 2021). This means that GAA can be understood as part of the mechanism in the relationship between EL and PEB.

H2: Green adaptive ability mediates the relationship between environmental leadership and pro-environmental behavior.

Openness to Experience

TAT emphasizes that work behavior is shaped by the interaction between situational and personality characteristics (Jonkmann et al., 2012; Tett & Burnett, 2003). In this framework, leadership is a situational context that provides behavioral cues (trait-relevant cues) that can activate or lessen certain traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Therefore, EL’s effect on PEB depends on how closely leadership cues align with individual psychological tendencies. Leadership shapes behavior through capability development. It must also consider the boundary conditions that determine when learning and adaptation lead to concrete actions (Castillo & Trinh, 2019). Under TAT, personality traits appear when situations offer cues that matter to individuals (Tett et al., 2021). Through learning and adapting work practices, EL creates a context rich in relevant cues for those with high OE. Individuals high in OE are more exploratory, more tolerant of ambiguity, and more inclined to seek new experiences. This makes them more responsive to leadership cues, encouraging flexibility and innovation (Tran Pham, 2026; Xu et al., 2026).

The relationship between EL and PEB reflects the normative influence and outcome of openness trait activation. When leaders prioritize environmental initiatives and encourage adaptation, individuals high in OE see these cues as openings to experiment and display environmentally oriented behavior. From an SLT view, observation and interaction with leaders foster GAA. However, TAT notes that built capabilities do not always translate directly into action (Jonkmann et al., 2012). Capability activation depends on how well individual traits align with situational demands set by leadership. OE is a boundary condition that directs the focus and strength of conditional effects (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Thus, different levels of openness prompt varied behavioral responses to identical leadership cues. Even when EL is viewed positively, its behavioral impact weakens when leadership cues and individual traits do not align. OE highlights the uneven responsiveness: EL works far better for those with high OE.

H3a: Openness to experience moderates the relationship between environmental leadership and pro-environmental behavior.

H3b: Openness to experience moderates the mediating role of green adaptive ability in the relationship between environmental leadership and pro-environmental behavior.

Method

Samples and Procedures

This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design to examine the process of leadership influence and its behavioral consequences. In the leadership literature, this approach aligns with the emphasis on psychological mechanisms and interactions between variables at the individual level (Canavesi & Minelli, 2022). The study population comprised full-time employees from various companies in Indonesia. The context was selected based on the characteristics of a collectivist culture and a relatively hierarchical organizational structure (Tam, 2025). Indonesia provides a relevant context for studying leadership as a social learning process and the formation of behavioral norms (Irawanto et al., 2011). In this context, leaders’ behaviors and signals tend to strongly influence how employees understand organizational expectations and adjust their work accordingly.

A purposive sampling technique was employed to ensure that respondents were relevant to the research objectives, particularly in examining leadership processes and pro-environmental behavior in organizational settings. Respondents were selected based on their employment status as full-time employees and their exposure to organizational environments where leadership interactions are present. Participation in this study was limited to employees with at least 6 months of tenure, as this is considered sufficient to have had the opportunity to observe, interpret, and respond to the leadership behavior of their immediate superiors (Pioli et al., 2020). Leadership literature suggests that leadership influences, based on learning and modeling behavior, develop through repeated interactions and cannot be reliably captured by employees with very short tenures (Sarwar, 2024). While cross-sectional designs are not intended to test causal relationships longitudinally, they remain relevant for evaluating relationships among constructs grounded in strong theoretical foundations, such as SLT and TAT (Khan et al., 2020; Tett et al., 2021). Both theories emphasize that individual perceptions of leadership cues and work context can be important foundations for understanding variations in employee behavior, even when data are collected at a single point in time (Wang et al., 2023).

Data were collected through an online survey conducted between October and December 2025. Of the 465 questionnaires distributed, 447 were found to be complete and eligible for analysis (a 96% response rate). The survey was distributed through professional networks and organizational contacts to reach respondents across different industries and organizational backgrounds. Participation was voluntary, and respondent anonymity was ensured to reduce potential response bias. Regarding gender, 52% of respondents were female, indicating a relatively balanced distribution. In terms of generation, the majority of respondents are Generation Y (47%), followed by Generation X (35%) and Gen Z (18%), reflecting the diversity of values and work orientations across age groups, with the majority having tenure of 4 to 7 years (36%). In terms of education level, most respondents had a bachelor’s degree (48%) and no degree (47%), while 6% had postgraduate education. The diversity of respondent characteristics provides an adequate basis for including gender, generation, tenure, and education level as control variables to minimize potential demographic bias.

Measurement

The environmental leadership (EL) variable was measured using six items adapted from Chen and Chang (2013) and Su et al. (2020) to capture the extent to which leaders demonstrate commitment to environmental sustainability. Green adaptive ability (GAA) was measured using five items adapted from Özgül (2025) to assess an individual’s perceived organizational ability to adapt structure, strategy, resource allocation, and communication patterns to respond to regulatory uncertainty and environmental demands. Openness to experience (OE) was measured using four items adapted from Tran Pham (2026) to capture an individual’s tendency toward openness to new ideas, imagination, and preference for exploratory cognitive experiences. Some items were reverse scored to reduce response bias and ensure consistent measurement of personality characteristics. Finally, Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) was measured using eight items adapted from Wu et al. (2021) and Xu et al. (2026) to assess an individual’s voluntary behavior aimed at protecting the environment, including daily actions at work and active participation in pro-environmental activities. All instruments were translated and adapted contextually to ensure clarity of meaning and suitability to the research context in Indonesia. All items were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). This scale was chosen to consistently capture respondents’ perceptions and facilitate analysis of structural relationships.

Analysis Approach

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics. Construct reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and convergent validity was evaluated according to the criteria recommended by Hair et al. (2010). To test the hypotheses, this study used the latest versions of the PROCESS Macro models 8 (Hayes, 2018). Testing was conducted using a bootstrapping technique to obtain confidence interval estimates that are more robust to non-normality.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The measurement model was evaluated using CFA to assess the validity and reliability of the constructs (Table 1). The CFA results showed that all indicators had factor loadings (LF) above the recommended minimum threshold (≥0.50), with the majority above 0.70, indicating adequate indicator contributions (Hair et al., 2010). For EL, the factor loadings ranged from 0.611 to 0.915, with an AVE of 0.803 and a CR of 0.897, indicating excellent convergent validity and internal reliability. GAA also showed adequate results, with factor loadings ranging from 0.577 to 0.866, an AVE value of 0.770, and a CR of 0.874. The OE has relatively high factor loadings (0.711–0.870), an AVE of 0.820, and a CR of 0.845, confirming its internal consistency and robustness as a measure of personality characteristics. Finally, the PEB demonstrates very strong measurement performance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.689 to 0.872, an AVE of 0.805, and a CR of 0.926. Overall, all constructs meet the criteria for convergent validity (AVE ≥ 0.50) and internal reliability (CR ≥ 0.70).

Table 1.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Variables	Factor loading	AVE	CR
Environmental leadership (EL)		0.803	0.897
EL1	0.756
EL2	0.611
EL3	0.771
EL4	0.914
EL5	0.849
EL6	0.915
Green adaptive ability (GAA)		0.770	0.874
GAA1	0.577
GAA2	0.711
GAA3	0.853
GAA4	0.843
GAA5	0.866
Openness to experience (OE)		0.820	0.845
OE1	0.711
OE2	0.856
OE3	0.842
OE4	0.870
Pro-environmental behavior (PEB)		0.805	0.926
PEB1	0.808
PEB2	0.849
PEB3	0.850
PEB4	0.806
PEB5	0.703
PEB6	0.689
PEB7	0.872
PEB8	0.861

Source. Authors’ own work.

Given that this study used a PROCESS macro-based regression analysis, evaluation of the measurement model through CFA, CR, and AVE provided an adequate basis for further testing the relationships between variables (Cheung et al., 2024). To assess potential common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted using exploratory factor analysis. The results show that the first factor accounts for 31.917% of the total variance, which is below the threshold of 50%, indicating that common method bias is not a serious concern. Thus, the measurement instrument was deemed suitable and adequate for use in further analysis.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix between the study variables, including the control variables, are presented in Table 2. The correlation results show that EL is positively and significantly correlated with GAA (.192), OE (.145), and PEB (.166). Furthermore, GAA is positively correlated with pro-environmental behavior (0.242), and OE also shows a significant positive correlation (.194). Regarding the control variables, education level shows a significant positive correlation with the main variables, while tenure has a relatively weak negative correlation with GAA and OE. While most correlation coefficients are within acceptable ranges, a relatively high correlation is observed between Green Adaptive Ability and Pro-Environmental Behavior. This reflects their conceptual proximity, as adaptive capability is theoretically expected to facilitate behavioral enactment. However, correlation alone does not indicate multicollinearity in regression-based analysis. Therefore, multicollinearity was further assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF), and all values were found to be below the recommended threshold, indicating that multicollinearity is not a concern (Vatcheva et al., 2016).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender
2. Gen			−.117*
3. Tenure			−.147**	.618**
4. Educ			.251**	−.422**	−.538**
5. EL	3.895	.692	−.001	.021	.022	.017
6. GAA	3.796	.684	.058	−.051	−.105*	.138**	.192**
7. OE	3.815	.685	.081	−.039	−.109*	.145**	.145**	.956**
8. PEB	3.788	.733	.101*	−.071	−.008	.139**	.166**	.242**	.194**

Source. Authors’ own work.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Hypothesis Tests

Hypothesis testing in this study was conducted using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro to estimate direct and indirect effects, as well as moderation and moderated mediation. This approach allows testing causal mechanisms and conditional effects without assuming normality in the distribution of the indirect effect. The significance of the effects was determined using bias-corrected confidence intervals (LLCI–ULCI), with the effect considered significant if the confidence interval did not cross zero. The results of the hypothesis testing presented in Table 3 show that tenure and education level exhibit a positive and significant influence on PEB. In contrast, gender and generation do not significantly influence PEB. Hypothesis 1, which tests the direct effect of EL on PEB, is supported (β = .130, SE = 0.049, t = 2.672, p = .008), with confidence intervals not including zero (LLCI = 0.030; ULCI = 0.230). Although this result confirms the baseline relationship, the magnitude of the direct effect is relatively modest, suggesting that additional mechanisms and conditions may better explain the relationship. Furthermore, Hypothesis 2, which tested the mediating role of GAA in the relationship between EL and PEB, was supported (β = .128; LLCI = 0.055; ULCI = 0.224), indicating that leadership effects operate through adaptive capability development rather than solely through direct influence.

Table 3.

Hypothesis Testing Results.

Variables	β	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Gender	.099	0.069	1.440	.145	−0.036	0.234
Gen	−.095	0.060	−1.574	.116	−0.213	0.024
Tenure	.137	0.057	2.383	.018	0.024	0.249
Educ	.163	0.068	2.389	.017	0.029	0.298
EL→PEB	.130	0.049	2.672	.008	0.030	0.230
EL × OE→PEB	.128	0.004			0.005	0.224
Low	.167	0.068			0.033	0.301
High	.062	0.067			−0.070	0.194
EL→GAA→PEB	.128	0.044			0.055	0.224
EL→OE × GAA→PEB	.018	0.010			0.002	0.041
Low	−.001	0.006			−0.004	0.010
High	.023	0.012			0.004	0.052

Source. Authors’ own work.

Furthermore, Hypothesis 3a tested the moderating role of OE in the relationship between EL and PEB. The results showed a significant EL × OE interaction effect (β = .128; LLCI = 0.005; ULCI = 0.224). Conditional effects analysis showed that the effect of EL on PEB was significant at low levels of OE but became insignificant at high levels of OE. This finding suggests that the direct influence of environmental leadership is not uniformly strengthened by higher openness, but instead becomes less dependent on direct leadership cues as openness increases. In other words, individuals with high openness may rely less on external leadership signals, which explains the reduced direct effect at higher levels of OE. Finally, Hypothesis 3b, concerning moderated mediation, was also supported with significant moderated mediation indices (β = .018; LLCI = 0.002; ULCI = 0.041). The analysis showed that the indirect effect of EL on PEB via GAA was significant at high levels of OE but not at low levels. This indicates that openness enhances the effectiveness of the adaptive mechanism, highlighting that leadership becomes more influential when it operates through capability development rather than direct behavioral influence.

Discussion

Environmentally oriented leadership plays a central role in shaping environmental sustainability, particularly when it creates a work environment that supports learning, adaptation, and the activation of relevant individual characteristics. These findings are crucial for developing countries like Indonesia, where organizational efforts toward sustainability often fall short of formal policies and daily practices at the employee level. The findings suggest that the influence of environmental leadership is not primarily reflected in direct behavioral change, but in its ability to create conditions that facilitate learning and adaptation. Within the SLT framework, individuals learn expected behavior not only through written rules but also through observation of authority figures. This is especially relevant in the context of Indonesia’s hierarchical organizational culture, where directives and examples from leaders carry strong legitimacy.

In line with these findings, Su et al. (2020) asserted that when leaders consistently demonstrate commitment to environmental issues, environmental sustainability becomes integrated into employees’ perceived work norms. However, this study’s findings suggest that the influence of environmental sustainability extends beyond mere behavioral imitation. GAA suggests that this process reflects dynamic learning, in which employees not only follow instructions but also learn to adapt to the demands of an increasingly complex, sustainability-oriented work environment (Özgül, 2025). This indicates that leadership effectiveness is better understood as a process of developing adaptive capacity rather than directly enforcing behavioral change. This phenomenon represents a transition phase toward environmentally friendly practices, making adaptive capacity crucial because changes in work procedures and standards are often neither linear nor uniform.

Individual characteristics have been shown to play a significant role in determining how effectively this learning and adaptation process occurs. From a TAT perspective, situational cues from EL activate the trait of openness, so individuals with higher levels of openness are more responsive to new environmental values, ideas, and practices (Milfont & Sibley, 2012). In a direct relationship, OE influences how individuals interpret leaders’ normative signals. EL provides situational cues that emphasize the importance of sustainability values, but not all individuals respond to these cues in the same way (Figure 2). Individuals with high levels of openness tend to be more receptive to new values and more flexible in adjusting their behavioral orientation. Conversely, individuals with lower levels of openness may adhere to environmental norms only to a limited extent or only in specific situations. Importantly, the weakening of the direct effect at higher levels of openness should not be interpreted as a contradiction, but as a shift in the source of behavioral regulation. Individuals with high openness are more intrinsically motivated, cognitively flexible, and inclined to explore and adopt environmentally friendly behaviors independently. As a result, they rely less on external leadership cues to guide their actions.

Figure 2.

Direct conditional effect of OE.

From a Trait Activation Theory perspective, this indicates a substitution effect, where internal dispositions reduce the reliance on situational cues provided by leaders. In other words, when openness is high, pro-environmental behavior is more self-driven, thereby diminishing the observable direct influence of environmental leadership. In contrast, individuals with lower openness depend more heavily on leadership signals to interpret expected behavior, making leadership a more salient driver in such contexts.

Therefore, the negative moderation effect reflects a boundary condition of leadership effectiveness rather than a limitation of environmental leadership itself. This finding extends TAT by demonstrating that personality traits do not always strengthen leadership effects, but may also substitute for them under certain conditions.

In contrast to the moderating role of the mediation pathway (Figure 3), OE functions as a catalyst that strengthens the learning and exploration process. Individuals who are more open to new experiences not only understand environmental leadership messages but are also more willing to experiment with new ways of working, try environmentally friendly solutions, and adapt their work routines sustainably. In this context, GAA is not simply possessed but activated and utilized optimally. This suggests that openness plays a more critical role in facilitating the transformation of leadership influence into adaptive capability rather than strengthening direct behavioral compliance. This finding confirms that OE is stronger when environmental leadership operates through capability mechanisms rather than through direct normative influence. In other words, individual openness is more relevant to supporting the internalization and translation of environmental values into repetitive work behaviors than to simply responding to the leader’s example or expectations. This finding also explains why the moderating effect of the mediation pathway shows a more stable and positive direction, as it involves a cumulative, experience-based learning process.

Figure 3.

Indirect conditional effect of OE.

Interestingly, employees with longer tenure and higher levels of education tend to exhibit stronger PEB. This indicates that experience and knowledge enrich the social learning process. Individuals with longer tenure in an organization have more opportunities to observe consistent leadership behavior, understand the implications of environmental policies, and develop more mature cognitive frameworks related to sustainability. Similarly, higher levels of education likely increase an individual’s capacity to process complex environmental information and relate it to daily work practices. Overall, the findings suggest that environmental leadership is most effective when it operates as a conditional and capability-based process, rather than as a uniform direct influence. In Indonesia, sustainability is often still perceived as an organizational agenda rather than an individual responsibility (Gede et al., 2024). This means that a leadership approach is not only normative but must also develop adaptive capacity and facilitate individual differences through the interaction among leadership, learning, experience, and individual characteristics.

Theoretical Contributions

This study makes important theoretical contributions to EL and PEB by confirming that EL operates through social learning mechanisms and the activation of individual characteristics, rather than simply as a normative value orientation. Consistent with SLT, this study’s findings indicate that EL serves as a source of behavioral cues that enable employees to learn about the importance of environmental issues by observing leaders’ actions and decisions. This broadens the understanding of EL, which has been studied primarily at the policy and organizational system level, emphasizing micro-processes at the individual level (Sajjad et al., 2024). As a mediating mechanism, GAA is shaped by individuals’ ability to adapt their work practices, experiment with environmentally friendly practices, and respond to dynamic sustainability demands. Thus, these results enrich the literature by demonstrating that social learning involves not only the internalization of values but also the development of adaptive capabilities that enable these values to be translated into consistent actions.

More importantly, this study advances prior research by explicitly integrating SLT and TAT into a unified conditional process framework. While SLT explains how environmental leadership influences behavior through observational learning and capability development, TAT complements this perspective by explaining when and for whom these learning processes become effective. This integration moves beyond prior studies that typically examine leadership effects in isolation by demonstrating that learning-based mechanisms are contingent upon individual differences. The integration of TAT also provides additional conceptual contributions by explaining why the influence of EL varies across individuals, depending on the extent to which individuals are sensitive to leadership cues and able to activate their adaptive capabilities. Specifically, this study confirms that OE operates at two distinct process levels: first, as an interpretive lens for responding to normative leadership signals and second, as a catalyst in the learning process that leads to GAA. Furthermore, the findings contribute to the leadership literature by introducing a conditional process perspective, where leadership effectiveness is not viewed as a uniform influence but as a dynamic interplay between social learning processes and individual differences. This shifts the focus from whether leadership matters to how and when leadership becomes effective, thereby extending existing research that has predominantly emphasized direct effects. .

Practical Implications

Effective environmental stewardship (EL) must be accompanied by consistent, observable and replicable decision-making and communication by employees. Leadership development should emphasize role modeling and the integration of environmental values into routine work practices. The importance of developing environmental stewardship (GAA) as a primary focus of organizational interventions can also generate temporary behavioral changes. Therefore, organizations need to create a work environment that allows employees to learn, experiment, and adapt their work practices to address environmental challenges. Experiential learning approaches, cross-functional green projects, and space for innovation can help strengthen the adaptive capabilities needed to generate consistent PEB.

These findings also indicate that employees respond differently to EL, so sustainability management strategies need to account for individual differences. Organizations can leverage this understanding in recruitment and development processes, for example, by placing individuals who are more open to new experiences in roles that require high levels of innovation and environmental adaptation. For employees with lower levels of openness, structural support and more targeted learning can help optimize the implementation of environmentally friendly practices. In Indonesia, these findings are relevant to organizational cultures that emphasize hierarchy and leadership role models. When EL aligns with local wisdom values, it can increase the legitimacy and acceptance of PEB. By linking environmental initiatives to existing cultural values, organizations can build PEB into their work identity rather than treating it as a mere formal obligation.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study contributes to the literature on leadership and pro-environmental behavior, several limitations warrant further research. First, the cross-sectional design may limit the ability to draw strong causal conclusions. Future research is recommended to employ longitudinal or experimental designs to more accurately capture the dynamics of learning processes, trait activation, and GAA development. Second, the data used in this study were entirely self-reported measures, potentially introducing perceptual bias. Although various statistical procedures were employed to minimize bias, future research could strengthen validity by combining data from multiple sources, such as ratings from superiors and peers, as well as objective behavioral indicators of environmentally friendly practices.

Third, local wisdom values, collectivist cultural characteristics, and hierarchical organizational structures in developing countries may influence how employees perceive and respond to EL. Therefore, future research is recommended to replicate this model in different country contexts or industrial sectors to test the stability and theoretical limitations of the findings. Fourth, although this study positions OE as a moderator, other individual characteristics could potentially play an important role in explaining variations in pro-environmental behavior. Future research could explore the role of other personality traits, such as conscientiousness, and of personal values related to sustainability, as well as contextual factors, such as organizational climate and reward systems, as additional moderators. Thus, future research could deepen our understanding not only of how these behaviors are formed but also of how they contribute to long-term organizational performance and sustainability.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the leadership literature by demonstrating that EL shapes PEB through a process of learning and capability activation, integrating SLT and TAT to translate leader role models into sustainable work behaviors. As an individual-level condition that differentiates the effectiveness of environmental leadership across process levels, OE demonstrates that personality characteristics influence both responses to leadership and the strength of the GAA mediation mechanism, providing a more nuanced perspective on the heterogeneity of employee responses. In line with leadership development and organizational learning, this study emphasizes that environmental leadership needs to be understood as a process of human capability development embedded in social interactions and organizational contexts. These findings open space for further leadership research oriented toward processes, learning, and sustainable development in the workplace.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely appreciate all respondents who participated in this study for their valuable time, cooperation, and willingness to share their experiences and perspectives.

ORCID iD

Harnida Wahyuni Adda

Ethical Considerations

This study adhered to ethical standards for social science research. Ethical approval was not required as no sensitive.

Consent to Participate

Participants were fully informed about the study’s purpose and provided informed consent prior to participation.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer

They do not inherently mirror the official policy or stance of any associated institution, funding body, agency, or publisher. The authors bear responsibility for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References

Afsar

Maqsoom

Shahjehan

Afridi

S. A.

Nawaz

Fazliani

(2020). Responsible leadership and employee’s proenvironmental behavior: The role of organizational commitment, green shared vision, and internal environmental locus of control. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 297–312.

Ahsan

M. J.

(2025). Cultivating a culture of learning: The role of leadership in fostering lifelong development. Learning Organization, 32(2), 282–306.

Allio

R. J.

(2012). Leaders and leadership – Many theories, but what advice is reliable? Strategy and Leadership, 41(1), 4–14.

Alzaidi

S. M.

Iyanna

(2021). Developing a conceptual model for voluntary pro-environmental behavior of employees. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(2), 441–452.

Bai

Lin

Liu

J. T.

(2019). Leveraging the employee voice: A multi-level social learning perspective of ethical leadership. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(12), 1869–1901.

Bandura

(1997). Social learning theory, encyclopedia of animal behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Berson

Halevy

(2014). Hierarchy, leadership, and construal fit. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 20(3), 232–246.

Canavesi

Minelli

(2022). Servant leadership: A systematic literature review and network analysis. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 34(3), 267–289.

Castillo

E. A.

Trinh

M. P.

(2019). Catalyzing capacity: Absorptive, adaptive, and generative leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(3), 356–376.

10.

Chen

Y. S.

Chang

C.-H.

(2013). The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119.

11.

Cheung

G. W.

Cooper-Thomas

H. D.

Lau

R. S.

Wang

L. C.

(2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 745–783.

12.

Dorsey

D. W.

Cortina

J. M.

Allen

M. T.

Waters

S. D.

Green

J. P.

Luchman

(2017). Adaptive and citizenship-related behaviors at work. In Farr

Tippins

(Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 448–475). New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Gabler

C. B.

Chaudhury

S. H.

Landers

V. M.

(2025). Aligning sustainability strategy across the organization: The role of environmental orientation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2025.2564791

14.

Gede

D. A.

Nasih

A. M.

Kurniawan

(2024). Local wisdom as a model of interfaith communication in creating religious harmony in Indonesia. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100827.

15.

Hair

Anderson

Tatham

Black

(Eds.). (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

16.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis–model numbers (Vol. 46). Guilford Press.

17.

Irawanto

D. W.

Ramsey

P. L.

Ryan

J. C.

(2011). Tailoring leadership theory to Indonesian culture. Global Business Review, 12(3), 355–366.

18.

Jiang

Jackson

S. E.

Shim

Budhwar

Renwick

D. W. S.

Jabbour

C. J. C.

Jabbour

A. B. L. D. S.

Tang

Müller-Camen

Wagner

Kim

(2022). Culture as context: A five-country study of discretionary green workplace behavior. Organization & Environment, 35(4), 499–522.

19.

Jonkmann

Becker

Marsh

H. W.

Lüdtke

Trautwein

(2012). Personality traits moderate the big-fish–little-pond effect of academic self-concept. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 736–746.

20.

Kanojia

Dhiman

(2025). Does ethical leadership foster employee green behaviour? The mediating role of psychological ownership. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 18(1), 110–131.

21.

Kennedy

Whiteman

Williams

(2015). Workplace pro-environmental behavior as a collective driver for continuous improvement. The Psychology of Green Organizations; Oxford University Press.

22.

Khan

M. A.

Ismail

F. B.

Hussain

Alghazali

(2020). The interplay of leadership styles, innovative work behavior, organizational culture, and organizational citizenship behavior. Sage Open. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019898264

23.

Koutroubas

Galanakis

(2022). Bandura’s social learning theory and its importance in the organizational psychology context. Journal of Psychology Research, 12(6), 315–322.

24.

Lundqvist

Wallo

Coetzer

Kock

(2023). Leadership and learning at work: A systematic literature review of learning-oriented leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 30(2), 205–238.

25.

Milfont

T. L.

Sibley

C. G.

(2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 187–195.

26.

Othman

M. A.

Kharoub

Zaid

A. A.

Jum’a

(2026). Unravelling the impact of environmental leadership on sustainable organisational performance in the food manufacturing industry: The mediating role of eco-design. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2025-5502

27.

Özgül

(2025). Bridging the gap between green mindfulness and new green product success: The role of green adaptive ability and green human capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 26(2), 327–361.

28.

Park

(2021). How can employees adapt to change? Clarifying the adaptive performance concepts. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(1), E1–E15.

29.

Pioli

B. L. T.

Feuerschütte

S. G.

Tezza

Cancellier

É. L. P. L.

(2020). Authentic leadership: Scientific production analysis and measurement scales. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 21, eRAMG200126.

30.

Robertson

J. L.

Carleton

(2018). Uncovering how and when environmental leadership affects employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 197–210.

31.

Sajjad

Eweje

Raziq

M. M.

(2024). Sustainability leadership: An integrative review and conceptual synthesis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(4), 2849–2867.

32.

Sarwar

M. A.

(2024). Leadership styles and employee innovative work behaviour: A bibliometric study of research trends. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=5466608

33.

Lin

Chen

Liu

(2020). Environmental leadership, green innovation practices, environmental knowledge learning, and firm performance. Sage Open. Advance online publication. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/2158244020922909

34.

Tam

K. P.

(2025). Culture and pro-environmental behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 62, 101986.

35.

Tang

Ren

Wang

Zhang

(2023). Employee green behaviour: A review and recommendations for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(2), 297–317.

36.

Tett

R. P.

Burnett

D. D.

(2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.

37.

Tett

R. P.

Toich

M. J.

Ozkum

S. B.

(2021). Trait activation theory: A review of the literature and applications to five lines of personality dynamics research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 199–233.

38.

Tran Pham

T. K.

(2026). How empowering leadership impacts on innovative behavior: The roles of learning orientation and openness to experience. European Journal of Training and Development, 50, 50–64.

39.

Vatcheva

K. P.

Lee

McCormick

J. B.

Rahbar

M. H.

(2016). Multicollinearity in regression analyses conducted in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology, 6(2), 1–20.

40.

Wang

van Woerkom

Breevaart

Bakker

A. B.

(2023). Strengths-based leadership and employee work engagement: A multi-source study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 142, 103859.

41.

Font

Liu

(2021). Tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors: Moral obligation or disengagement? Journal of Travel Research, 60(4), 735–748.

42.

Cai

Yan

(2026). Linking environmental interpretation to pro-environmental behavior: The sequential mediation of awe and nature connection. Tourism Review, 81, 1180–1208.