Toward a Guna-Based Leadership Framework: Integrating Indian Knowledge Systems with Psychological Safety as a Mediating Mechanism for Employee Well-Being: A Conceptual Development and Exploratory Model Study

Employee well-being has emerged as a critical organisational priority in the context of global workplace stress, burnout, and disengagement. While transformational, ethical, and servant leadership models offer useful insights, they remain predominantly Western-centric and do not adequately address the intrinsic psychological dispositions grounded in Indian civilizational thought. Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) provide a refined psychological model through the Guna Theory, identifying three psychophysical forces—Sattva (harmony, clarity, compassion), Rajas (drive, ambition, activity), and Tamas (inertia, ignorance, aggression)—as described in the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 14), Samkhya Karika, and Yoga Sutras.
This paper advances a Tri-Dimensional Guna-Based Leadership Framework as a conceptual contribution, positioning it explicitly as a scale development and exploratory simulation study rather than a claim of full empirical validation. We develop the Guna Leadership Scale (GLS) with theoretical anchors in classical IKS texts and propose psychological safety as the critical mediating mechanism between leadership gunas and employee well-being. Drawing on narrative archetypes—Lord Rama as a pure Satvic exemplar and King Vikramaditya as a Satvic-Rajasic hybrid—and using an exploratory simulation (N = 500) aligned with published psychometric benchmarks in organisational behaviour, we test structural plausibility through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using the lavaan R package.
Simulation results indicate theoretical consistency: Satvic leadership demonstrates a strong positive path to psychological safety (β = 0.633, p < .001), while Rajasic (β = −0.452) and Tamasic (β = −0.540) leadership exhibit negative effects. Psychological safety fully mediates the guna-well-being relationship (R² = 0.85). These findings are interpreted as exploratory and should be validated through real organisational samples. The paper concludes with a fully developed GLS instrument, implementation guidelines, and a future research roadmap calling for empirical EFA/CFA/SEM validation.

Satvic leadership, Rajasic leadership, Tamasic leadership, Psychological Safety, Employee Well-Being, Indian Knowledge Systems, Guna Leadership Scale, Structural Equation Modelling, Lord Rama, King Vikramaditya, Scale Development

1. A. Indian Knowledge Systems and Guna Theory [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aurobindo, S. (1999). The Synthesis of Yoga. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bhagavad Gita. (Translated by S. Radhakrishnan, 2010). Harper Collins India. (Original work c. 200 BCE) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bryant, E. F. (2009). The Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali: A New Edition, Translation, and Commentary. North Point Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hiriyanna, M. (2000). Essentials of Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Larson, G. J., & Bhattacharya, R. S. (1987). Samkhya: A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Rastogi, P., & Pati, S. (2018). Guna theory in organisational psychology: A review and future research agenda. Psychology and Developing Societies, 30(2), 278–303. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Sharma, R. (2011). Guna theory and personality: An empirical study. Journal of Indian Psychology, 29(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Singhasan Battisi. (2005). (Translated by V. L. Sharma). Motilal Banarsidass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Srinivas, T. (2015). Ananda and flourishing: Comparative positive psychology and Vedantic thought. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 267–275. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Valmiki. The Ramayana. (Critical Edition, 1960–1975). Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. B. Leadership, Ethics, and Well-Being [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bennis, W., & Thomas, R. (2002). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 39–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 282–298. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. George, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Transformational leadership and leaders' self-perceptions. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 345–353. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. (2007). Psychological Capital. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sekerka, L. E., Bagozzi, R. P., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Facing ethical challenges in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 565–579. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. C. Scale Development Methodology [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323–326. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. D. Psychological Safety and Team Climate [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The Fearless Organisation. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 23–43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. E. Employee Well-Being and Burnout [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(3), 193–210. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. F. Structural Equation Modelling [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Cengage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. G. Cross-Cultural and Organisational Context [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Budhwar, P. S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2009). The Changing Face of People Management in India. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. Leadership, 6(4), 373–389. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Twenge, J. M. (2023). Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents. Atria Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria