Trust and Ethical Influence in Organizational Nudging: Insights from Human Resource and Marketing Practice

Abstract

This study investigates how persuasion, trust, and empathy from Human Resources (HR) managers affect the acceptance of nudging practices in workplace, especially when these interventions are meant to be ethical and supportive. Based on the theory of advisory nudge, the research connects ideas from Human Resource Management and ethical marketing. A quantitative method was applied using a structured questionnaire answered by 733 HR professionals in European companies. The model was tested with PLS-SEM, and results confirmed strong influence of supervisor’s persuasion and empathy on HR professionals’ perception of nudges as ethical and autonomy-enhancing. The findings also showed that empathy plays important role in how HR professionals experience the intention behind soft interventions, with gender-based differences being significant. Additional analyses with IPMA and MGA confirmed the strategic importance of trust and emotional intelligence in organizational settings. The results help to understand when a persuasive act is seen as ethical guidance and when it is not, offering theoretical and practical insights both for HR leadership and marketing communication. The study suggests future research to explore different types of nudging and include variables such as organizational culture or HR professionals’ values, to better understand the ethical acceptance of influence at work.

1. Introduction

The Nudge Theory belongs to the field of Behavioral Economics and focuses on how people’s decisions are influenced without limiting their freedom. In marketing, nudge is used to help consumers make choices that are considered beneficial, either for the consumer themselves, for the company, or sometimes for broader social interests [1,2]. In some cases, what is seen as “beneficial” may reflect the goals of the organization or society rather than only the individual’s own preference. However, its proper use requires attention, because it can easily cross the line between guidance and manipulation. For this reason, it is important to understand how nudge can be applied in an ethical and effective way in modern businesses.

One important factor that affects the effectiveness and the ethical side of nudge is the use of rhetorical persuasion. Rhetorical persuasion, through logical and psychological approach, shapes how people perceive their options and finally make decisions. If it is applied correctly, it can work as a tool of advisory guidance, supporting the autonomy of the individual instead of limiting it. Nevertheless, the connection between rhetorical persuasion and the ethical use of nudge in marketing remains limited in international literature. The need for an approach that uses persuasion with respect to customer values is critical, so that nudge is not seen as manipulation but as ethical support in decision making [2,3,4].

Even though research about nudge theory and its use in marketing is growing, the link of this method with rhetorical persuasion, especially with its ethical aspect, is still narrow. Most studies focus on how nudge techniques increase sales or influence consumer behavior, without deeply examining persuasion as a tool that strengthens autonomy and conscious decisions. Also, literature has not paid enough attention to the difference between advisory guidance and manipulation, leaving open questions about how nudge techniques can be applied in a moral and responsible way in the relationship between marketer and customer. This gap becomes more important in cultural environments like Greece, where perceptions about marketing and influence are different compared to other international standards [2,3,4,5,6,7].

This study comes to cover this gap, seeing nudge not only as a marketing tool, but as a way of advisory guidance based on rhetorical persuasion and ethical communication. The novelty of this research is the connection of nudge theory with Human Resources practices, showing how sellers and Human Resources (HR) professionals can act more like advisors and not only as shapers of consumer behavior. Through this approach, a new framework is proposed, where nudge is used to build trust, empathy, and ethical decision-making, helping both the improvement of commercial relationships and the development of a more responsible corporate culture. While the concepts discussed in the literature can apply to both HR managers and general managers, the current study is focused exclusively on HR professionals, as they play a central role in shaping, implementing, and receiving organizational nudging practices. By targeting this group, the research aims to capture both the perspective of those who design nudging strategies and those who experience them in the workplace. The empirical analysis specifically targets HR professionals working in private-sector organizations across several European Union countries. This population was selected because HR professionals play a central role in designing and implementing behavioral interventions, making their perspectives particularly relevant for the study’s objectives. This study highlights the importance of the ethical side of persuasion, placing it in a wider context that connects marketing with Human Resources management and organizational behavior principles [8,9].

2. Literature Review

This literature review focuses on the nudge theory and its connection to persuasion, its ethical dimensions, and human resources practices. By analyzing relevant studies, it presents the main theoretical approaches, the practical applications of nudge in marketing and HR management, as well as the ethical concerns related to its use. The review is structured around four key themes, with the goal of exploring how nudge can serve as a tool for ethical guidance rather than a method of manipulation, placing special emphasis on its role in the workplace, particularly in the relationship between HR professionals and organizational leaders.

In order to avoid confusion and to improve conceptual clarity, we provide below brief definitions of the main terms used in this study:

• Nudge: A soft behavioral intervention that steers people’s choices in a predictable way, without restricting options or changing incentives significantly [1]. For example, placing healthy snacks at eye level in a cafeteria, while keeping less healthy options available, is a typical nudge. In organizational settings, a reminder email encouraging employees to complete a training program, rather than enforcing strict rules, is another common nudge [1,5,10].
• Advisory nudge: A specific form of nudge where the main purpose is not just influence, but ethical and transparent guidance, with respect for autonomy and the intention to support rather than manipulate [8].
• Coaching nudge: A nudge in the context of organizational coaching, where the leader acts as a mentor and uses motivational and reflective strategies to help employees make ethical and autonomous decisions [11].
• Suggestion: Any informal recommendation or proposal by a manager, which may or may not have behavioral design features and is less systematic than a nudge [12].
• Guidance: A broad term for all managerial actions aiming to direct or support employees’ decisions. Ethical guidance refers to guidance that explicitly takes into account autonomy, values, and moral agency [2].

While “nudge” is the central concept of this study, the terms “advisory nudge” and “coaching nudge” are used to specify different intentions and contexts of application. “Suggestion” and “guidance” are used in a more general way. For consistency, we keep the distinction between these concepts throughout the manuscript, except when a general reference is intended.

In this study, “coaching nudge” is defined as a soft, supportive intervention where the HR manager adopts techniques from coaching psychology—such as open-ended questioning, active listening, and reflective dialogue—to help employees make ethical and autonomous decisions in specific situations. This approach is distinct from transformational leadership, which seeks to inspire followers towards broader organizational vision and change, and from mentoring, which involves a longer-term developmental relationship focused on direct advice and personal growth. By contrast, the coaching nudge emphasizes short-term, non-directive, situation-specific support, encouraging employees’ self-discovery and moral agency rather than providing direction or serving as a role model [13,14].

2.1. Persuasion in Nudge

The nudge theory is part of Behavioral Economics and is concerned with how people’s decisions are influenced without limiting their freedom [15]. Nudge is not based only on logical thinking, but also on spontaneity and emotions that affect behavior [16]. In this context, persuasion plays important role because it helps guide individuals to better decisions without pressure or force [12].

According to Thaler and Sunstein, nudge is a way to design choices that change behavior in predictable way, but without removing alternatives or changing financial incentives [4]. The research of Schmidt and Engelen supports this view, arguing that nudge must preserve the volitional autonomy of the person, so that choices are not only perceived as the individual’s own, but are in fact made freely, without undue external pressure. In other words, autonomy is both preserved in practice and subjectively experienced by the person [17]. Persuasion in this context works as a means to safeguard this autonomy, offering guidance with respect to an individual’s freedom [18].

The meaning of persuasion, as first analyzed by Aristotle, is based on logic, emotion, and the ethos of the speaker. These elements are important also in today’s use of nudge, where a marketer or supervisor must win the trust of the other without being seen as manipulative. The correct use of persuasion is not to manipulate, but to help the individual make a decision that is good for themself and for society [19,20].

Aristotle’s emphasis on ethos and emotional engagement in persuasion connects well with modern behavioral strategies. Recent studies have explored how moral framing and affective nudges can activate deeper cognitive and emotional responses, influencing decisions in more human-centered and ethical ways [2,21].

The ethical side of nudge is highlighted by scholars like Sunstein and Hansen, who explain that when nudge is applied properly, it does not limit freedom but provides rational guidance [2,5]. This approach is very important in the field of human resources field, where the relationship between organizational leader and HR professional is based on trust. The supervisor can use nudge and persuasion techniques to improve autonomy, satisfaction, and performance of HR professionals [22].

To sum up, persuasion is a key element for the ethical use of nudge, in marketing or human resources management. When applied correctly, it can turn nudge into a tool of advisory guidance, avoiding manipulation and respecting personal autonomy. However, it is still unclear how this approach is applied in real situations and how it is perceived by HR professionals themselves.

Recent research has further enriched this understanding, offering nuanced perspectives on the ethical acceptability of persuasive nudging within organizations. The impact of self-regulatory mechanisms on nudge acceptability has been examined, with particular emphasis on the relevance of individual differences in workplace settings [21]. The ethical challenges of using explainable AI with nudge theory in clinical support have also been explored, showing the growing intersection of technology and ethical persuasion [23]. In addition, the boundaries of behavioral interventions and their implications for autonomy and liberty in the digital era have been analyzed [24]. These studies collectively underscore the need for transparency, contextual awareness, and respect for individual autonomy in contemporary nudge strategies [21,23,24].

Based on these points, the first research question of this study is formed:

RQ1: How do HR professionals perceive the use of nudge by their HR managers as a tool of ethical guidance and not as a means of manipulation?

2.2. The Advisory Power of Nudge in Practice

As marketing evolves, the nudge theory is taking a more central role, not only as a tool for influence, but also as a means of ethical guidance. The meaning of “advisory nudge” is about using soft interventions that help people make better decisions, while preserving their autonomy and promoting values like empathy and social responsibility [25,26]. This approach is directly connected to the principles of ethical marketing, where the goal is not manipulation, but to support the client or the employee to make a better choice.

Bekkers and Wiepking presented eight main mechanisms that affect philanthropic behavior, which can also be applied in the context of advisory nudge [25]. These mechanisms, like awareness of need, altruism, psychological benefits and focus on values, are strengthen the ethical side of motivation and help to create responsible behavior. Instead of working as simple persuasion tools, they offer a context where the choice is linked with social benefit and personal satisfaction [27,28].

The idea of “advisory nudge” is different from manipulation practices, because it is based on self-controlled decision making. Chapman argues that nudge must stay away from political or commercial control views and should focus on empowering the responsibility of the person [29]. In this way, nudge takes on a utilitarian character, promoting decisions that are good for the person and for the society [28,30,31].

Also, modern literature shows how important phronesis is– both individual and collective—as a key element of advisory guidance [32]. Kristjansson says that the ethical side of business practice becomes stronger when decisions are based on values and rational thinking [31]. Similarly, Thaler and Sunstein believe that with the help of nudge, people learn to make more ethical and healthy choices [1].

Connecting all these with human resources is very important. Advisory nudge is not only a marketing tool, but can also be part of HR policies, helping to promote ethical behavior and strengthen the trust between HR professionals and their supervisors [33]. Growing skills like persuasion, empathy and responsibility helps to build a working environment where decisions are made with respect to values and autonomy [34].

Taking these points into consideration, a critical question arises for this study to explore:

RQ2: What is the impact of supervisor’s persuasion and trust on the ethical acceptance of nudging by HR professionals?

These elements show that advisory nudge cannot work in isolation from the human interaction context. In real work environments, the success of such soft interventions also depends on the character and behavior of the person who applies them. Therefore, the emotional and ethical qualities of the HR manager become very important. In the following section, we explore how managerial empathy can influence the way HR professionals understand and accept nudging practices.

Beyond the classical view, recent studies have demonstrated how advisory nudging is evolving in modern organizational practice. Recent literature highlights that advisory nudging, when grounded in ethical intent and value alignment, contributes not only to behavioral change, but also to enhanced organizational performance and employee well-being. The practical impact of nudges in project performance management has been demonstrated [34], while the role of customer involvement in the effectiveness of sustainability nudges has also been highlighted [35]. At the same time, the integration of ethical considerations in digital and AI-driven nudging, signaling the growing complexity of advisory interventions in the digital era [10].

To further illustrate the conceptual intersections and differences between marketing and HRM theories regarding the use of nudging,

Table 1. Conceptual links and gaps between marketing theory, HRM, and the advisory nudge approach.

Dimension	Marketing Theory	HRM Theory	Advisory Nudge (Intersection)
Goal	Influence consumer choice	Guide employee behavior	Ethical support in decision-making
Approach	Behavioral interventions, persuasion	Coaching, empowerment, trust	Soft guidance, empathy, autonomy
Ethical focus	Avoid manipulation, promote well-being	Respect autonomy, build ethical climate	Balance between influence & autonomy
Typical tools	Framing, choice architecture, default options	Feedback, mentoring, empowerment strategies	Advisory nudges, coaching cues
Research gaps	Limited focus on workplace context, autonomy issues	Limited integration with market-facing techniques	Bridging HR and marketing for ethical nudging

summarizes the main perspectives and highlights the unique position of the “advisory nudge” approach. While marketing theory focuses primarily on influencing consumer decisions through behavioral interventions and persuasive tactics, HRM emphasizes the development of HR professionals’ autonomy and the creation of an ethical climate via coaching and empowerment. The “advisory nudge” serves as a bridge, promoting ethical guidance that respects both individual freedom and organizational objectives. Notably, a key gap in the literature is the limited exploration of advisory nudging at the intersection of HR and marketing, especially in the context of organizational ethics and leadership. This overview clarifies how advisory nudge serves as a conceptual bridge between these two theoretical traditions and highlights promising avenues for future research [8,10,23,24,34,36].

2.3. Manager’s Empathy and the Acceptance of Nudge Practices

The empathy of the supervisor is a very important factor for the acceptance of nudging practices by employees, especially when these practices are applied in environments that require ethical guidance and respect for autonomy. Even if nudge theory is focusing more on the design of the environment to influence decisions softly, its success greatly depends on how the HR professionals understand the intentions of their leader. Here, empathy plays a key role [20].

Empathy is described as the ability to understand and emotionally represent the feelings, needs, and goals of another person [37]. In the field of management, a supervisor who has empathy can adjust their behavior considering the personal and professional needs of his team. This creates trust, which is crucial for the acceptance of nudge strategies [38,39].

HR professionals are more likely to accept nudging when they feel that their supervisor understands their concerns and acts with the intention to support, not to control. On the contrary, if nudges are applied in a non-transparent way, without dialogue, there is a risk they will be seen as manipulation or paternalism. Empathy acts like a filter: it makes the nudge look like guidance and not like imposition [2].

In Human Resource Management, behavioral techniques refer to systematic interventions—drawing from behavioral economics and psychology—designed to influence employee choices in subtle and non-coercive ways. These approaches include structuring the way options are presented (choice architecture), setting positive default options, providing reminders, and using social comparison or normative feedback. The main aim is to guide employees towards beneficial decisions, while fully preserving their freedom of choice [1,5].

Empathy is not only a moral virtue, but also a useful tool in human resources strategy, especially in organizations that apply behavioral techniques such as default enrollment in employee wellness programs, reminder emails to encourage training participation, or feedback messages based on social norms [1,10,40].

Moreover, when the supervisor pays attention to the personal values of HR professionals and considers them before applying nudges, the process becomes fairer and more transparent. This is connected to the idea of “human-centered leadership”, where internal motivation grows through the recognition of the individual [41].

It is also interesting that nudge is more accepted when empathy is visible even in language. The way a nudge is presented—by words or small environmental changes—affects how HR professionals understand the leader’s intention. When the communication includes autonomy-supporting phrases, like “the choice is always yours”, then pressure is reduced and acceptance increases [21].

Research shows that high levels of empathy are linked with more acceptance of moral nudging practices. The key point here is trust: if HR professionals think their leader is honest and consistent, then even nudges about behavior are seen as acceptable [42].

Another important point is the decision-making context. In workplaces with high pressure, stress and deadlines, the existence of an empathetic supervisor helps nudging to be more supportive. HR professionals don’t feel their freedom is reduced, but they receive helpful direction [23].

Finally, supervisor’s empathy is strongly connected to organizational ethics. Organizations that promote empathetic leadership build cultures of trust, and this brings more long-term acceptance of changes and innovation. These leaders don’t rely only on their formal position, but also on the quality of the relationship with their team [31].

In line with these arguments, recent empirical studies have expanded our knowledge of empathy’s role in shaping ethical acceptance of nudges. Research in the last two years has deepened our understanding of managerial empathy in nudge acceptance. Τrust, as mediated by leader empathy, enhances psychological safety and job satisfaction, particularly in dynamic work environments [43]. Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership contribute to the perception of fair and ethical management [36], while resistance and adaptation to empathetic nudging among professionals have also been analyzed [23]. These findings collectively suggest that empathy not only facilitates acceptance, but also mitigates perceived manipulation [23,36,43].

Based on these points, the third research question of this study is:

RQ3: How does managerial empathy influence HR professionals’ acceptance of nudging practices?

2.4. Coaching Nudge and Ethical Decision-Making

As organizations seek ways to improve the quality of decisions taken by their HR professionals, the nudge theory is taking on a new role, going beyond traditional marketing. Especially in the field of Human Resources, the coaching nudge emerges as a soft and supportive intervention, with purpose not only to guide but also to empower the HR professionals to take ethical, autonomous and conscious decisions.

In contrast to classic guiding techniques, coaching nudge is not based on control or supervision, but on a supportive dialogue and motivation techniques that are based on emotional understanding, providing information and slowly building self-confidence of the HR professional. HR managers in this case act more like a coach than a supervisor, offering small, non-invasive nudges that promote moral thinking and responsibility [10].

Coaching nudge combines principles from the nudge theory with practices of organizational counselling. Νudging techniques that are applied through coaching are more accepted by HR professionals when they include elements like active listening, value recognition and focus on personal growth. That means, when the HR professional feels that he is involved in a process that is not changing his own choices, but helping him to make them stronger [42].

Moreover, the implementation of coaching nudge relates to key skills of HR managers, like empathy, communication flexibility and understanding of internal motivations of workers. In this context, the supervisor or senior manager applies coaching nudges to HR professionals, meaning that HR professionals are the recipients of these interventions. A supervisor who applies coaching nudge must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each HR professional in their team, in order to build a working environment that helps ethical judgment and autonomy. This is important because nudging is not the same for everyone; it needs to be personalized according to individual differences and needs [44].

The theoretical base of coaching nudge is also connected with the principal of minimal intervention, which says that behavior change happens better when the person does not feel pressure but internal motivation. In coaching environment, this rule means that the HR professional feels he has the control, even when he is guided. This is important for ethical decision-making, because it connects moral choice with personal responsibility [2].

In practice, coaching nudge can be used in the form of small reminders, focused questions or soft discussions during evaluation meetings. It may also include self-reflection tools or encouragement of self-criticism, where the HR professional is guided to think again about his actions according to common good and organizational values. This increases his commitment not because of fear, but because he chooses consciously to align with a moral framework [23].

The role of coaching nudge in developing ethical decisions is stronger when the organization has policies and culture that support HR professionals’ growthΤhe success of these practices depends on the level of trust from management and the credibility of managers as people of moral values. An HR professional who trusts his manager is more open to accept advisory-type nudges, because he sees them not as pressure but as support [11].

Also, literature shows that these practices have strong effects on organizational behavior. Coaching-type nudges do not only improve ethical choices but also help with participation, psychological safety and sense of initiative. That is, the HR professional does not feel like an object of pressure, but as a subject of development, who is consciously part of the company’s vision.

This way of thinking changes the leadership approach from traditional control to development-focused leadership. Instead of giving orders, the manager becomes more like a mentor, and the workplace becomes a space of growth, not just of obedience. This transition is important for ethical decision-making, because it builds culture of transparency, honesty and trust.

In conclusion, coaching nudge is a promising approach for supporting ethical and autonomous decisions within organizations. Its correct use requires deep understanding of human behavior and a sincere intention from management to support HR professionals.

Based on this, the following research question is formed:

RQ4: To what extent does coaching nudge support HR professionals in making ethically sound and autonomous decisions?

2.5. Autonomy, Trust, and the Mediating Role of Empathy in Ethical Nudging

Understanding how HR professionals perceive ethical nudging in the workplace requires us to look more deeply into the emotional and cognitive processes that affect behavior. While earlier sections focused on how persuasion, empathy, and coaching shape nudging strategies, another dimension involves the way autonomy and trust are developed in that context [45].

Autonomy, in particular, refers to the sense that one has freedom over decisions, while trust is about the belief that someone—in this case the manager—acts in good faith. These two are not disconnected. When a manager proposes a behavior or action through soft guidance, the HR professional evaluates not only the action but also the intent behind it [33].

Persuasion, when used ethically, supports rather than replaces the judgment of the HR professional. This means that when a suggestion or behavior is introduced through persuasive reasoning, the HR professional must feel free to reject it. When this perception is supported by transparency and consistency, it enhances the HR professional’s trust. This trust is not just a feeling but comes from repeated, perceived alignment between managerial actions and HR professionals’ values [46].

In this direction, the concept of advisory nudging becomes important. Advisory nudging respects the idea that the HR professional is not simply influenced, but guided—with care and purpose. Τhe legitimacy of nudging increases when it is supported by a clear moral rationale [47]. HR professionals are more likely to accept suggestions or behavioral interventions when they sense that the goal is not to control, but to support their development. This reinforces both autonomy and trust [47].

In many workplaces, HR professionals experience nudges daily, through reminders, feedback systems, or subtle process design. When those nudges are perceived as helpful and not manipulative, they contribute to a positive decision-making environment. This leads to the first new research question:

RQ5: What is the relationship between HR professionals ‘perceived autonomy and their trust in the supervisor’s ethical guidance?

However, understanding how nudging works ethically is not just a matter of trust and autonomy. It is also about how HR professionals interpret the intent behind the behavior. This is where empathy emerges as a possible mediator.

Managerial empathy is not only about understanding others’ emotions, but also about adjusting one’s communication and decisions based on that understanding [41].

When an HR professional receives a persuasive message that is emotionally calibrated—respectful, inclusive, and sensitive—they are more likely to consider it legitimate and ethical. In that case, persuasion does not operate alone, but through the empathy of the sender.

According to recent literature, empathy in leadership increases the acceptability of behavioral interventions, especially in contexts that involve moral issues [42].

From a behavioral science perspective, this means that empathy acts as a mediating psychological mechanism through which persuasive techniques are interpreted and morally evaluated. In this study, empathy is not treated as a moderator that changes the strength of the relationship, but as a mediator that explains how persuasive communication leads to the ethical acceptance of nudging. In other words, empathy is the process by which persuasive attempts become morally meaningful and are internalized as ethically acceptable by HR professionals [48].

This leads us to propose that managerial empathy may act as a mediator between persuasive strategies and moral decision-making. This reasoning leads to the second integrative research question:

RQ6: How does managerial empathy mediate the effect of persuasive techniques on employees’ moral decision-making?

Together, these two questions help extend the current model of this study. While the previous RQs focused on discrete paths of influence, RQ5 and RQ6 explore relationships and mechanisms that connect psychological and ethical dimensions. They also reflect more complex dynamics that take place in real work environments, where influence is never linear but always shaped by interpretation, intent, and interpersonal trust.

These conceptual links set the stage for recent empirical work, which has examined the dynamic relationships between autonomy, trust, and empathy—particularly in digitalized and rapidly changing organizations.

Last but not least, recent literature continues to explore the complex interplay between autonomy, trust, and empathy in digitalized and changing organizational contexts. The relationship between autonomy, trust, and ethical nudging has been further explored in recent works, which highlighting the importance of both organizational context and technological change. For instance, ethical alignment in digital management practices has been emphasized highlighting the need for human-centered interventions even as AI becomes more prevalent [10]. Meanwhile, perceived autonomy is a key determinant in the acceptance or resistance to nudge strategies, particularly when interventions are subtle and ongoing [23].

2.6. Summary of Research Questions and Thematic Axes

This literature review highlighted the main theoretical approaches and practical applications of the nudge theory, giving emphasis to its connection with persuasion, ethical dimension, and human resources policies. The analysis showed that nudge can work not only like influence tool, but also like a way of moral and advisory guidance, when it is applied with respect to autonomy and personal values.

During the study of international literature, four main thematic axes appeared, creating the theoretical background of this research. Each axis is connected directly with a critical issue about how nudge is used in working environment, forming the relevant research questions.

The following figure is organizing these concepts, helping to understand the logic behind the formulation of the questions. The choice of these thematic focuses is not random, because they reflect the gaps in existing literature and the need to explore the ethical use of nudge in supervisor-employee relations. This logical structure is also visually represented in Figure 1, where the four theoretical axes—Persuasion, Advisory, Empathy, and Coaching Nudge—are each connected with one main research question (RQ1 to RQ4), while two additional questions (RQ5 and RQ6) emerge from the intersection of these axes, reflecting deeper relational dynamics between autonomy, trust, and ethical influence. The figure illustrates how the conceptual flow of the study moves from theory to applied inquiry, providing a clear justification for the formulation of the research model.

While most of the research questions are formed through intersections of conceptual axes, it is important to note that RQ4, which focuses on the role of coaching nudge, is approached as an autonomous inquiry. This is because coaching nudge is not simply a derivative of persuasion or empathy, but a structured human resources practice that combines ethical leadership, mentoring, and developmental dialogue [23].

As such, RQ4 is examined as a standalone evaluative axis, focusing on how this intervention influences HR professionals’ moral and autonomous decision-making. This analytical separation does not contradict the integrated model but instead reflects the dual nature of nudging strategies: some are emergent and relational (as in RQ5 and RQ6), while others are applied and procedural, such as coaching-based nudges. This duality justifies the inclusion of RQ4 within the broader conceptual framework, ensuring that the study captures both relational complexity and managerial practice.

The structure above is showing the systematic approach of this study to understand nudge theory beyond its typical use in marketing. The focus is moving to the dynamic of human interaction, where persuasion, empathy, and moral principles are playing key role in the acceptance and effectiveness of nudging practices.

Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the study, illustrating the hypothesized relationships among the main constructs and their alignment with the research questions. In this framework, the independent variables include Persuasion and Empathy, which are theorized to influence the dependent variables Perceived Ethical Use of Nudge and Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making. The model is constructed to capture both direct and indirect effects between these variables, according to the theoretical rationale and research objectives.

While the main conceptual model does not incorporate explicit control variables, demographic factors such as gender, age, and job role are considered in supplementary exploratory analyses discussed later in the manuscript. This structure underpins both the questionnaire design and the empirical analysis that follows.

Although this study is organized around six research questions reflecting the multidimensional nature of ethical nudging in organizations, formal hypotheses were not explicitly formulated. This decision was guided by the exploratory character of the research and the aim to investigate complex, context-dependent relationships among constructs, following recommendations for theory-building in emerging fields. Similar approaches have been adopted in recent behavioral and HRM studies, where research questions guide model development and statistical analysis, especially when theory is not yet fully established. Nevertheless, future research could benefit from hypothesis-driven designs to further test and refine the proposed relationships [21,49,50].

Building on this conceptual framework, the next section outlines the methodology applied to investigate these theoretical relationships in an organizational context.

3. Methodology

This section presents the research methodology applied to investigate the relationship between key dimensions of managerial nudging and HR professionals’ acceptance of influence in the workplace. A quantitative research design was used, aiming to explore how specific elements of nudging practices are related with the acceptance and ethical decision-making in working environment. In this study, we adopted a research question-driven approach rather than formulating strict hypotheses. This was chosen because the field is still in a stage of theory development, and exploratory analysis is more appropriate for capturing complex and context-dependent relationships. While formal hypotheses could be developed in future studies, here our goal was to explore the dynamics between persuasion, empathy, and ethical nudging with an open and theory-building logic.e the proposed relationships [49,50]. The study followed a cross-sectional logic and the data was collected by a structured questionnaire that was built especially for the research objectives. For the analysis, Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was used, and the statistical processing was implemented using SmartPLS software (version 4.1.1.2).

Data collection was conducted using a quantitative method. A questionnaire was designed exclusively for the present research, in order to examine the four main axes that have been described in the second section (Literature Review), namely: Perceived Ethical Use of Nudge, Persuasion and Trust, Empathy and Nudge Acceptance, and Autonomous and Ethical Decision-Making.

Specifically, the questionnaire consisted of two parts: a General Section with five questions identifying the demographic profile of the sample, and a Specific Section. The operationalization of the four theoretical axes was made through five statements per axis, which were based on a five-point Likert scale.

Table 2. Axis-based question categorization.

Construct	Question Code	Short Description
Perceived Ethical Use of Nudge	QA.1 (Q1)	Interventions respecting freedom of choice
	QA.2 (Q2)	Guidance aims at my well-being
	QA.3 (Q3)	No manipulation in decision-making
	QA.4 (Q4)	Work setting supports autonomy
	QA.5 (Q5)	Respect for ethical values
Persuasion	QB.1 (Q6)	Rational arguments for changes
	QB.2 (Q7)	Emotional approach improves communication
	QB.4 (Q9)	Persuasion based on honest reasoning
Trust	QB.3 (Q8)	Trust in supervisor’s judgment
	QB.5 (Q10)	Emotional intelligence supports guidance
Empathy	QC.1 (Q11)	Understanding my needs and views
	QC.3 (Q13)	Tailored guidance to my needs
	QC.4 (Q14)	Careful and personal influence
Nudge Acceptance	QC.2 (Q12)	Empathy helps proposal acceptance
	QC.5 (Q15)	Sincere interest in interventions
Ethical Decision-Making	QD.1 (Q16)	Moral reinforcement in decisions
	QD.3 (Q18)	Guidance promotes responsibility
	QD.5 (Q20)	Development as ethical professional
Autonomous	QD.2 (Q17)	Empowerment for better choices
	QD.4 (Q19)	Freedom of thought without pressure

presents the matching between item codes and their short descriptions per thematic axis.

The four theoretical constructs were treated as reflective variables, according to their measurement logic, where the observed indicators are considered outcomes of the underlying dimension.

In total, the HR managers were asked to answer 25 closed-ended items. The estimated time for completing the questionnaire was ranged from 17 to 26 min. Before the final distribution, two testing procedures were applied.

All items included in the questionnaire were specifically developed for this study. No existing pre-validated scales were found in the literature that fully captured the four thematic axes of the proposed model (Perceived Ethical Use of Nudge, Persuasion and Trust, Empathy and Nudge Acceptance, Autonomous and Ethical Decision-Making). The item development process was informed by a synthesis of relevant theoretical and empirical research in the fields of behavioral economics, organizational ethics, and human resource management.

The first stage of the process was a pilot test, which was conducted with a small team of five experts. These HR managers were professionals and academics with background in Behavioral Economics, Human Resources, and Research Methodology. They examined if the items belong to the right axis and if the way of writing was correctly expressing the construct that each group of questions was supposed to measure. Their feedback was collected through a semi-structured form where they gave comments about the clarity, relevance and conceptual fit of each item with its axis [50].

After that, two other tests followed. The alpha testing included 12 HR managers from the university, who were asked to fill the questionnaire and report any problems or observations. Their remarks were grouped and small modifications were made in the formulation of items, their order, and the total time of the answering process. This phase worked as a kind of cognitive debriefing, in order to see if the participants understand the exact meaning of each item and whether some parts needed to be simplified or changed [49].

Then, beta testing took place with 30 HR managers who were related to the field of nudge and human resources. The participants were professionals from the HR and organizational sectors and they were invited through existing networks and academic contacts. In this testing phase, the first check for internal consistency (using Cronbach’s alpha for each axis) was also conducted. In addition, useful comments were gathered about the real-life relevance of the items and the acceptance of the questionnaire by people working in these domains [51].

Based on the feedback that was provided from the three groups, the questionnaire was adjusted and finalized for the main phase of the data collection. The total procedure described above took place between June and September 2024, and included systematic revisions of the tool, according to the observations and comments of each stage.

The thematic axes of the questionnaire were defined with direct reference to the research questions presented in the theoretical background of the study (see Section 2.6). Each axis was designed to measure a theoretical dimension of the model, which is linked with specific RQs, as also visualised in Figure 1. This helped to ensure the theoretical validity of the instrument and the consistency between the questionnaire structure and the overall research purpose.

All items of the questionnaire were custom-developed specifically for the purposes of this study, as no comprehensive pre-validated instruments addressing the four selected axes (Perceived Ethical Use of Nudge, Persuasion and Trust, Empathy and Nudge Acceptance, and Autonomous and Ethical Decision-Making) could be identified in the existing literature. The construction of each set of items was informed by previous theoretical and empirical work on behavioral economics, organizational ethics, and human resource management, following guidelines for scale development and validation. The content validity of the questionnaire was further enhanced through expert review and multi-stage pre-testing, as described above [49,50].

The decision to focus exclusively on HR professionals was made for both theoretical and practical reasons. For clarity, the present study defines its target population as human resource (HR) professionals working in the private sector. Although the literature on nudging and ethical guidance often refers to “supervisors” or “managers” in a broader sense, in this research we specifically address HR professionals because they are typically responsible for designing, communicating, and implementing such practices within organizations. Throughout the manuscript, the terms “HR professionals” and “HR managers” are used interchangeably to refer to this group. No general employees (other than HR professionals) or supervisors outside the HR function were included in the sample. From a theoretical perspective, HR staff are typically more involved in designing, communicating, and implementing soft guidance practices, such as nudging and ethical leadership initiatives, within their organizations. Their perspectives are likely to be more informed regarding the use of behavioral interventions in workplace settings. On a practical level, the study aimed to maintain consistency and depth of responses, as including a wide range of employee roles or sectors could introduce substantial variation and confound the analysis. Future research could expand this approach by comparing HR perspectives to those of other employee groups or by including a cross-sector sample.

Importantly, HR professionals occupy a unique dual position within organizations: they are both responsible for designing and communicating behavioral interventions (such as nudges) and are also among the key recipients of these practices in the workplace. Unlike line managers or general employees, HR professionals are directly involved in shaping ethical policies, internal communications, and soft leadership interventions, placing them at the intersection of implementation and experience. By focusing on this group, the study allows for a more comprehensive understanding of both the application and the impact of ethical nudging. This dual vantage point provides deeper insight into the boundaries and effectiveness of behavioral interventions in organizational life [52,53].

It is important to underline that the questionnaire was fully aligned with the data protection rules of GDPR, according to the European directive and how it was adapted in the Greek legal framework. All responses were totally anonymous, and no profiling was done during or after the data collection. Before filling the form, HR managers had to read a short Informed Consent Statement, which was written based on GDPR (EU) 2016/679 and also the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The completion of the questionnaire was voluntary, and any HR manager who did not feel comfortable or wanted to stop could do it, and their answers would not be saved [54].

The data collection took place gradually, between October 2024 and March 2025. In total, 733 HR professionals working in Human Resources departments of private companies participated in the research. The completion of the questionnaire was done entirely online, using a structured form created with Google Forms. All the items were mandatory for submission, which means that if someone did not answer all the questions, the system was not allowing to register the form. If any respondent wanted to stop in the middle, their answers were not stored.

The questionnaire was distributed through email, using a personalized link for each recipient. The HR managers came only from companies that operate inside the European Union. Special attention was given to have a geographical variety of countries from which the HR managers originated, even if we did not collect IP addresses or country data, for keeping full anonymity. The forms were shared with the HR managers via their HR departments. The business contact data were collected from open databases and educational institutions which had previous training cooperation with these companies. Every effort was made for the distribution to be done in transparent way and through trusted academic and professional channels.

The first round of responses began in October 2024, and by the end of December more than 4500 emails had been sent. By that point, 526 completed questionnaires had been submitted. In January 2025, a second round of reminders was sent to the companies that had not responded yet. During February, the number of completed forms reached about 680, and by the end of March the total number had reached 733 fully completed questionnaires.

The sample of this study was shaped based on the practical accessibility to HR professionals working in Human Resources departments, through existing academic collaborations and professional networks. Although a random sampling technique was not applied, effort was made to achieve the best possible geographical and occupational diversity within the European context. This sampling method was considered appropriate, because it ensured that the collected responses were relevant and useful to the research topic, without violating the principle of anonymity.

This particular sample proved valuable for the present study, as HR professionals are often in positions where they are asked to apply or interpret guidance-related practices, including those connected with nudge theory. For clarity, the sample consisted of HR professionals from private-sector organizations located in various countries of the European Union. The study is not limited to the Greek context, and while Greece is referenced in some theoretical discussions, participants were drawn from a wider European base through academic and professional networks. As previous research notes, HR professionals are often responsible for the adoption and diffusion of organizational behavioral interventions [52,53].

The use of the PLS-SEM methodology was selected as the most appropriate for this research, since the aim was more about prediction and exploration of relationships among concepts, and not only the statistical confirmation of existing models. Also, the model included four distinct theoretical constructs and a primary measurement instrument, which are both considered suitable conditions for PLS analysis, according to the recent literature [55,56].

To check the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, the evaluation of the measurement model was performed as recommended in PLS-SEM literature. The analysis was conducted using SmartPLS (version 4.1.1.2), which allows a precise assessment of both the constructs and the structural model that follows. This step is important to ensure that the items used in the survey truly reflect the theoretical dimensions intended to measure [57].

First, the internal consistency of the four theoretical constructs was evaluated using Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability. As shown in

Table 3. Reliability and Validity Indicators.

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability (rho_c)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Autonomy_Decision	0.922	0.941	0.763
Empathy_Nudge	0.922	0.941	0.762
Ethical_Nudge	0.916	0.937	0.749
Persuasion_Trust	0.939	0.953	0.803

, all four constructs had high values in both indicators, well above the minimum required threshold of 0.70. Cronbach’s Alpha values ranged from 0.916 to 0.939, while Composite Reliability ranged from 0.937 to 0.953. These results indicate that the items under each axis are strongly correlated and consistently reflect the same conceptual dimension [58].

At the same time, the convergent validity of the constructs was assessed through the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) indicator. All AVE values were above the minimum accepted threshold of 0.50, ranging from 0.749 to 0.803. This means that in every case, at least 74% of the variance of the observed indicators is explained by the latent construct they belong to. Therefore, each axis presents acceptable level of validity both in terms of content and interpretation.

In parallel, a multicollinearity check was conducted by examining the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values for all indicators across the four theoretical constructs (

Table 4. Item-level VIF indicators.

	VIF
Q1	2.546
Q2	2.541
Q3	2.784
Q4	2.749
Q5	2.464
Q6	3.243
Q7	3.242
Q8	3.284
Q9	3.440
Q10	3.338
Q11	2.827
Q12	2.655
Q13	2.717
Q14	2.755
Q15	2.877
Q16	2.644
Q17	3.003
Q18	2.679
Q19	2.641
Q20	3.008

). The VIF values ranged from 2.46 to 3.44, staying clearly below the maximum accepted level of 5.0 and, in many cases, close to the more conservative threshold of 3.3, as suggested in the literature. This result supports the view that no significant multicollinearity problem is present among the observed variables, and that each item contributes in a distinct way to the measurement of its latent dimension [59].

To assess the discriminant validity of the constructs, the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) was used, as it is considered a stricter and more reliable criterion compared to the traditional Fornell-Larcker method. As shown in

Table 5. HTMT Values by Dimension.

	Autonomy_Decision	Empathy_Nudge	Ethical_Nudge	Persuasion_Trust
Autonomy_Decision
Empathy_Nudge	0.728
Ethical_Nudge	0.767	0.737
Persuasion_Trust	0.761	0.759	0.824

, all HTMT values between the constructs were below the recommended cut-off of 0.85, ranging from 0.728 to 0.824. This confirms that each latent variable is conceptually distinct from the others, and that there is no problematic overlap between the dimensions included in the model [60].

Additionally, for completeness, the Fornell–Larcker criterion was also calculated. The results confirmed the discriminant validity of the constructs, since the square roots of the AVE values for each variable were higher than their correlations with the other constructs in the model (

Table 6. Fornell–Larcker criterion.

	Autonomy_Decision	Empathy_Nudge	Ethical_Nudge	Persuasion_Trust
Autonomy_Decision	0.873
Empathy_Nudge	0.672	0.873
Ethical_Nudge	0.705	0.677	0.866
Persuasion_Trust	0.708	0.706	0.764	0.896

). Although this criterion is considered less strict than HTMT, the findings still supported the conceptual distinctiveness of the dimensions also with this method [61].

It should be noted that the evaluation of the measurement model was carried out according to the most recent guidelines proposed in the PLS-SEM literature, using both the HTMT ratio and the Fornell–Larcker criterion in a cross-validated way. All values remained within the acceptable thresholds, which increases the confidence in the methodological soundness of the construct design and reduces the chances of interpretive ambiguity or modeling bias [60,61].

4. Results

This section presents the results of the statistical analysis based on the questionnaire data. At first, the analysis of the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample is shown, in order to define the context in which the ethical nudging practices are applied and perceived in the workplace. After that, the PLS-SEM statistical analysis is presented. For the demographic analysis, visualisation was conducted using the Seaborn library (v0.13.1) and Python software (v3.11), allowing the graphical display of variable combinations’ frequencies in the form of heatmaps. The two visual tables illustrate, from one side, the relationship between age, education and experience, and from the other side, the distribution by job role, gender, and education level, giving useful information for understanding the structure of the sample.

In the Figure A1 (Appendix A), the distribution of HR managers by age group, education level and years of work experience shows that the majority is concentrated in the age range between 25 and 44 years, with university or postgraduate education and from 1 to 6 years of experience. The highest concentrations appear in the group “25–34, Postgraduate, 1–3 years” (27 participants) and “35–44, University, 4–6 years” (22 participants), which suggests that the sample reflects a workforce in an active and growing stage of their professional development. On the contrary, the presence of people with less than one year of experience or over 55 years old is limited, and mostly appears in lower education categories. These findings support the view that nudging practices, in order to be ethically acceptable, should address populations who have at least a minimum level of professional maturity and critical capacity to recognize the intention behind the guidance [2]. At the same time, the connection of postgraduate education with the early stages of career development confirms earlier findings which underline the role of educational capital in accessing responsible job positions [62].

In the Figure A2 (Appendix A), the relationship between education level, job position, and gender is analysed. A notable observation is the strong presence of women with university education in the “Office Staff” category (52 female participants), while male participants appear more balanced between technical and supervisory roles, with also significant numbers having university and postgraduate degrees. The presence of both men and women with high education in Supervisor roles is also interesting, indicating that the level of studies works as a common factor of professional advancement regardless of gender.

However, a clear pattern remains: men tend to be present more often in technical positions with university education (e.g., 36 participants), which reflects broader career preferences and also cultural expectations regarding gender and the type of work [63]. The general picture of the heatmap supports the idea that ethical nudging techniques—especially those based on empathy or coaching—should take into account the job position and gender of the recipient, as these factors affect the way the message is received and how the intention of the supervisor is interpreted [42].

The data displayed in the two heatmaps reinforce the theoretical foundation of the research, suggesting that the design of nudging strategies should be adapted not only to the general profile of HR managers but also to subtle differences related to age, experience, gender, and job role. The combination of these factors creates acceptance or resistance identities that directly influence the effectiveness of ethically charged interventions in the workplace.

The next part presents the outcomes related to the model analysis. At this point, it is useful to briefly recall the latent variables studied in the research. The model includes four reflective constructs, which were based on conceptually well-established dimensions from the literature (

Table 7. Description of latent variables and associated items.

Latent Variable	Conceptual Focus	Item Codes
Ethical_Nudge	Ethical perception of nudging and respect for autonomy	Q1–Q5
Persuasion_Trust	Supervisor’s persuasive power and interpersonal trust	Q6–Q10
Empathy_Nudge	Supervisor’s empathy and personalized understanding	Q11–Q15
Autonomy_Decision	Perceived autonomy and moral self-determination	Q16–Q20

). Each construct was measured through five items, selected in a way to cover different aspects of each conceptual domain.

The construct Ethical_Nudge reflects the degree to which HR managers perceive the workplace interventions as respecting their ethical principles and personal autonomy. The Persuasion_Trust construct examines the supervisor’s ability to influence using rational and emotional tools, while maintaining a high level of trust. Empathy_Nudge captures the perceived empathy from the HR managers’ point of view, i.e., whether the supervisor takes into account the individual’s needs and personal circumstances. Finally, the Autonomy_Decision construct measures the extent to which HR managers feel that they make decisions in a morally responsible and self-directed way, without pressure or lack of control.

The structural model analysis was conducted using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) method, with the support of the SmartPLS software (version 4.1.1.2). The structural model tested in this study (Figure 2) corresponds directly to the conceptual framework described in Section 2 (Figure 1), with Persuasion_Trust and Empathy_Nudge modeled as exogenous (independent) variables, and Ethical_Nudge and Autonomy_Decision as endogenous (dependent) variables. This operationalization enables a direct empirical test of the hypothesized pathways outlined in the theoretical model. Specifically, the variable Ethical Nudge showed a high coefficient of determination (R² = 0.622), indicating that it can be largely explained by the variables Persuasion & Trust and Empathy & Nudge Acceptance.

Similarly, the construct Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making also demonstrated strong explanatory power (R² = 0.597), suggesting that it is related with multiple factors associated to ethical influence, emotional perception, and the interpretation of guidance in the work environment. Finally, these values (

Table 8. Structural Model with R² Values.

	R-Square	R-Square Adjusted
Autonomy_Decision	0.597	0.595
Ethical_Nudge	0.622	0.621

) remained stable after the correction for the number of predictors, with adjusted R² = 0.621 for Ethical Nudge and 0.595 for Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making, something that supports the model’s consistency [55].

The path analysis of the model revealed strong and statistically significant relationships between the constructs (

Table 9. Path Significance from Bootstrapping.

	Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p Values
Empathy_Nudge -> Autonomy_Decision	0.258	0.258	0.034	7.511	0.000
Empathy_Nudge -> Ethical_Nudge	0.275	0.275	0.030	9.090	0.000
Ethical_Nudge -> Autonomy_Decision	0.309	0.310	0.035	8.886	0.000
Persuasion_Trust -> Autonomy_Decision	0.290	0.289	0.038	7.710	0.000
Persuasion_Trust -> Ethical_Nudge	0.570	0.570	0.030	18.939	0.000

). The effect of Persuasion & Trust on Ethical Nudge was the strongest (β = 0.570, p < 0.001), showing that trust in the supervisor and the perceived rationality of persuasion act as key mechanisms in shaping the ethical dimension of a workplace intervention. Also, a significant effect was found from Empathy & Nudge Acceptance to Ethical Nudge (β = 0.275, p < 0.001), highlighting the role of emotional understanding as a precondition for perceiving guidance in an ethical way.

As shown in Table 9, all estimated structural paths in the PLS-SEM model were statistically significant at the p < 0.001 level. No non-significant paths were observed in the main analysis.

Regarding the variable Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making, the effect from Ethical Nudge was positive and significant (β = 0.309, p < 0.001), supporting the discussion around ethical guidance as a framework that strengthens personal responsibility in the workplace. In addition, Persuasion & Trust also contributed positively to decision autonomy (β = 0.290, p < 0.001), while Empathy & Nudge Acceptance had also a positive impact (β = 0.258, p < 0.001), indicating the complex emotional nature of decision-making when soft forms of influence are applied.

All paths were statistically significant (p < 0.001), with T-values higher than 7.5, proving the stability of the model. The outer loadings (

Table 10. Outer Loadings and p-values.

	Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p Values
Q1 <- Ethical_Nudge	0.862	0.861	0.011	77.487	0.000
Q2 <- Ethical_Nudge	0.861	0.861	0.012	74.323	0.000
Q3 <- Ethical_Nudge	0.875	0.875	0.011	82.550	0.000
Q4 <- Ethical_Nudge	0.874	0.874	0.011	81.715	0.000
Q5 <- Ethical_Nudge	0.856	0.856	0.012	73.764	0.000
Q6 <- Persuasion_Trust	0.893	0.892	0.009	99.638	0.000
Q7 <- Persuasion_Trust	0.894	0.894	0.009	104.261	0.000
Q8 <- Persuasion_Trust	0.895	0.895	0.009	104.008	0.000
Q9 <- Persuasion_Trust	0.901	0.901	0.008	108.272	0.000
Q10 <- Persuasion_Trust	0.898	0.898	0.008	106.141	0.000
Q11 <- Empathy_Nudge	0.878	0.878	0.010	87.011	0.000
Q12 <- Empathy_Nudge	0.867	0.867	0.011	82.519	0.000
Q13 <- Empathy_Nudge	0.871	0.871	0.011	81.323	0.000
Q14 <- Empathy_Nudge	0.872	0.872	0.011	82.952	0.000
Q15 <- Empathy_Nudge	0.876	0.876	0.010	84.777	0.000
Q16 <- Autonomy_Decision	0.865	0.865	0.011	79.698	0.000
Q17 <- Autonomy_Decision	0.885	0.885	0.009	95.023	0.000
Q18 <- Autonomy_Decision	0.866	0.866	0.011	78.923	0.000
Q19 <- Autonomy_Decision	0.865	0.865	0.011	79.724	0.000
Q20 <- Autonomy_Decision	0.886	0.886	0.009	94.056	0.000

) of the observed indicators were very high, with values above 0.86 for all items, which strengthens the validity of the measurement for the studied concepts. The model, as resulted from the analysis, illustrates a consistent network of relationships between persuasion, empathy, ethical guidance and perceived autonomy, offering a clear conceptual framework for examining soft interventions in the workplace context.

The overall explanatory strength of the model is also supported by the evaluation of the effect sizes (f²), which show how much each factor contributes to the explanation of the respective dependent variable (

Table 11. Construct-Level Effect Sizes (f²).

	Autonomy_Decision	Empathy_Nudge	Ethical_Nudge	Persuasion_Trust
Autonomy_Decision
Empathy_Nudge	0.120		0.155
Ethical_Nudge	0.145
Persuasion_Trust	0.135		0.460

). The strongest effect was recorded from Persuasion & Trust to Ethical Nudge (f² = 0.460), further reinforcing the observation that persuasion and the HR managers’ trust in their supervisor are key components for accepting an intervention as ethical.

At the same time, the variable Empathy & Nudge Acceptance demonstrated a medium-level effect on Ethical Nudge (f² = 0.155), which shows that when emotional understanding is present, the ethical dimensions of nudging become more visible to the HR managers. On the level of decision-making, the effect from Ethical Nudge to Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making was measured at f² = 0.145, an influence that goes beyond a small effect and carries conceptual weight. This finding is consistent with prior research showing that, although empathy is widely recognized as a valuable leadership skill, it is often more challenging to translate into systematic daily practice than other managerial competencies such as persuasive communication or trust-building. Barriers may include cultural norms, workload, or insufficient training in emotional intelligence. As a result, organizations may need to invest more in targeted empathy development programs to realize its full potential in the workplace [64,65].

Finally, both Empathy and Persuasion showed clear contribution to autonomy (f² = 0.120 and 0.135 respectively), confirming that the perception of freedom in thinking is not determined by a single dimension, but rather by the overall quality of the relationship and the message that is being delivered.

The predictive power of the model was examined using the Blindfolding method, calculating the Q² (cross-validated redundancy) indicators for the two dependent variables (

Table 12. Predictive relevance (Q²) of endogenous constructs.

	Q2 (Cross-Validated Redundancy)
Autonomy_Decision	0.395
Ethical_Nudge	0.361

). The recorded values were Q² = 0.395 for Ethical Nudge and Q² = 0.361 for Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making. Both values exceed the threshold of 0.35, which is considered as an indication of strong predictive relevance, especially in complex social models that include cognitive and emotional dimensions [55]. These values indicate that the model is not only descriptively adequate, but also has meaningful predictive depth, as it can forecast how an HR manager is likely to react when facing an ethically designed form of guidance [66].

The level of predictive power that was found is comparable or even higher than that reported in other studies in the field of organizational behavior. For example, in the analysis of ethical nudging acceptance models, Q² values close to 0.30 were reported for variables related to emotional acceptance [42]. Similarly, in studies about empathy in workplace settings, the predictive values for constructs such as trust and psychological safety ranged between 0.26 and 0.34 [43,67]. Therefore, the findings of the current analysis show that the proposed model not only describes the observed relationships but also holds substantial predictive strength regarding HR managers’ responses to ethically designed nudging interventions [43,67].

In the next step, in order to highlight the practical significance of the model’s effects, the Importance–Performance Map Analysis (IPMA) was applied, focusing on the dependent variable Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making. This analysis allows for the simultaneous estimation of the total effect and performance of each predictor, helping to identify which factors deserve to be strategically strengthened in organizational interventions [59].

In the enriched visual output (Figure 3 and Figure 4), the three main predictors that influence HR manager autonomy are included: Persuasion & Trust, Empathy & Nudge Acceptance, and Ethical Nudge.

The variable Persuasion & Trust showed the highest total effect on autonomy (Total Effect = 0.466), along with high performance (53.1%). This finding (

Table 13. Total Effects Used in IPMA Analysis.

	Autonomy_Decision	Empathy_Nudge	Ethical_Nudge	Persuasion_Trust
Autonomy_Decision
Empathy_Nudge	0.343		0.275
Ethical_Nudge	0.309
Persuasion_Trust	0.466		0.570

) confirms that transparency, persuasiveness, and trust in the supervisor are fundamental pillars for the development of ethically autonomous decisions in the workplace. The presence of this variable in the upper-right quadrant of the IPMA plot (Figure 4) indicates that it is already functioning effectively and could be further strengthened as a good example of successful practice.

Empathy & Nudge Acceptance demonstrated a smaller total effect (0.343) and lower performance (45.4%), suggesting that while empathy is an important element, its application in practice seems to be less developed in comparison to its perceived importance. Its location in the lower-left quadrant highlights the need to strengthen practices such as personalized communication, contextual sensitivity, and non-paternalistic guidance.

The variable Ethical Nudge also contributed meaningfully (Total Effect = 0.309) with medium performance (48.2%). Although it is not the strongest factor, its presence in the IPMA plot indicates that the perception of ethical intention in a workplace intervention can enhance autonomy, especially when supported by honesty and clarity. The fact that its performance is not very high suggests that such practices might be present in organizations, but not applied consistently or not in ways that are clearly perceived by HR managers.

IPMA is a suitable tool for translating SEM results into strategic actions [55]. Instead of only evaluating statistical relationships, the attention is focused on what actually deserves improvement. In the present study, the message is clear: while persuasion and trust are already strong foundations, empathy and the communication of ethical intentions need reinforcement in order for the guidance framework to function in an ethical and empowering way [55].

The multi-group analysis (MGA), using gender as a grouping variable, revealed two statistically significant differences in the relationship between the predictors and Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making (

Table 14. Multi-Group Analysis Results by Gender.

	Difference (GenderGroup_0—GenderGroup_1)	1-Tailed (GenderGroup_0 vs. GenderGroup_1) p Value	2-Tailed (GenderGroup_0 vs. GenderGroup_1) p Value
Empathy_Nudge -> Autonomy_Decision	0.220	0.001	0.002
Empathy_Nudge -> Ethical_Nudge	−0.064	0.857	0.286
Ethical_Nudge -> Autonomy_Decision	−0.065	0.826	0.349
Persuasion_Trust -> Autonomy_Decision	−0.145	0.020	0.041
Persuasion_Trust -> Ethical_Nudge	0.025	0.339	0.679

). More specifically, the effect of Empathy & Nudge Acceptance on Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making was significantly stronger for women compared to men (difference = 0.220, p = 0.002). This result is aligned with previous studies showing that women are more likely to respond positively to ethical guidance frameworks when they include empathetic features, such as emotional closeness, understanding, and personal recognition [31,40].

In addition, research in organizational behavior has demonstrated that psychological safety and the acceptance of nudging interventions increase when HR managers—especially women—feel that their supervisor takes into account their needs without violating their autonomy [41,42].

The second significant difference concerned the variable Persuasion & Trust, which showed a stronger effect on Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making among male participants (difference = −0.145, p = 0.041). This suggests that men are more likely to perceive their autonomy as a result of persuasive, reliable, and logically expressed guidance, rather than through emotional connection. This gender-based differentiation is also confirmed by findings from gender theory in organizational psychology, which show that men tend to evaluate leadership based on effectiveness, persuasiveness, and direction, while women emphasize more the interpersonal dimension [68].

These findings confirm the need to adapt soft guidance (nudging) strategies to the characteristics of their recipients. Designing ethically sensitive interventions in the workplace cannot be neutral—it must consider differences in perception and responsiveness between genders, in order to maintain the balance between ethical intent and respect for individual freedom.

As shown in Table 14, not all group differences in path coefficients were statistically significant. For example, the difference between genders for the paths Empathy_Nudge → Ethical_Nudge (p = 0.286) and Ethical_Nudge → Autonomy_Decision (p = 0.349) did not reach statistical significance, indicating that gender did not play a substantial moderating role in these relationships within the current sample. In contrast, significant gender differences were observed for the paths Empathy_Nudge → Autonomy_Decision (p = 0.002) and Persuasion_Trust → Autonomy_Decision (p = 0.041), suggesting that gender may influence how these factors affect autonomous decision-making. Reporting these non-significant as well as significant findings adds transparency and nuance to the interpretation of the model.

The findings of the study revealed a coherent and statistically strong model, confirming the combined impact of persuasion, trust, and empathy on the understanding and acceptance of soft interventions in the workplace. The reliability and validity indicators were particularly high, while the R² and Q² values demonstrated significant explanatory and predictive strength for the dependent variables Ethical Nudge and Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making.

Through the IPMA analysis, the high importance of persuasion and trust in promoting ethical autonomy was visualized, while space for improvement was also identified regarding empathetic guidance. The MGA analysis showed gender-based differences, with women being more influenced by empathy, and men responding more strongly to persuasive and argumentative structures.

These findings support the theoretical approach of ethical nudging and allow for the formulation of targeted recommendations for differentiated leadership interventions within the field of human resource management.

5. Discussion

This section aims to interpret the findings of the current study, by placing them into the theoretical and practical context centered on the idea of ethical nudging in workplace. The discussion is not limited to the confirmation or rejection of the research questions, but also seeks to show how the results can help the theoretical understanding of the field and also the practical use of leadership policies that respect HR professionals’ autonomy. At the same time, some important issues are highlighted, such as gender, leadership and organizational culture, which offer a more nuanced view about why some soft interventions are accepted or not. The sub-sections focus on the validation of the research questions, the theoretical and practical implications, and also the limitations of the present study.

While the statistical effects observed (e.g., β = 0.27 for the impact of managerial empathy on HR professionals’ perceived autonomy) are significant, it is important to interpret what these numbers mean in everyday organizational life. For example, a β = 0.27 suggests that when a manager or supervisor actively demonstrates empathy—by listening, personalizing guidance, and considering the HR professionals’ concerns—HR professionals are substantially more likely to feel autonomous in their decisions. In practical terms, this could translate to HR professionals being more willing to take initiative, propose new ideas, or accept organizational changes, because they trust that their supervisor values their individual perspective.

Similarly, the strong effect of persuasion and trust (β = 0.57) means that when managers are transparent in their reasoning and consistently honest, HR professionals are much more likely to perceive organizational nudges as ethical and supportive, rather than manipulative. For example, when introducing a new workplace policy, if the manager clearly explains the purpose and invites feedback, HR professionals are more open to the change.

Overall, these effect sizes suggest that even moderate improvements in empathy or persuasive communication by supervisors or organizational leaders can have a substantial positive impact on how HR professionals experience autonomy, trust, and ethical leadership in their daily work.

5.1. Validation of the Research Questions

The first research question (RQ1) is fully supported, as the model showed that the variable Persuasion & Trust had the strongest effect on Ethical Nudge (β = 0.570, p < 0.001, f² = 0.460). This highlights the importance of trust in the supervisor and the perceived logic of persuasion as two basic elements for accepting nudges as ethical. The additional effect of Empathy & Nudge Acceptance (β = 0.275, f² = 0.155) also shows that ethical intention is better understood when it is combined with emotional understanding. These findings are in agreement with the theory that nudges are different from manipulation when they are transparent and respect autonomy [4]. They also support the view that trust is a key condition for accepting any type of influence [2]. It has also been argued that ethical guidance is only accepted when the person feels in control of their choice—something that is confirmed here as well [5].

The second research question (RQ2), which focused on the connection between empathy and the acceptance of nudging as ethical, is also supported both statistically and theoretically. The variable Empathy & Nudge Acceptance showed a significant effect on Ethical Nudge (β = 0.275, p < 0.001, f² = 0.155), meaning that when the HR professional sees the supervisor as someone who understands their needs and situation, the intervention is more likely to be accepted as morally appropriate. This aligns with the framework suggesting that the ethical meaning of a message is not only about the content, but also about the quality of the relationship between leader and HR professional [31]. Similarly, it has been argued that nudges with emotional or human elements are more acceptable because they give a sense of dignity and reduce the feeling of being pushed [42]. The present findings confirm these views and show that empathy is not just a social skill, but a key part of how leadership becomes morally acceptable in the workplace.

The effect of supervisor’s empathy on the acceptance of nudging practices (RQ3) is supported by the statistical significance of the variable Empathy & Nudge Acceptance, both to Ethical Nudge (β = 0.275, p < 0.001) and to Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making (β = 0.258, p < 0.001). This shows the important role of emotional intelligence in shaping a positive attitude towards ethically structured interventions. This effect became even stronger through the MGA analysis, which showed that women respond more strongly to empathy as a leadership quality, confirming older findings in the field of organizational behavior [31,40]. The presence of empathy in leadership also seems to connect with higher levels of psychological safety and acceptance, especially when the intervention is made without a paternalistic tone [42]. The model supports the idea that empathy is not just a secondary trait but an essential driver of ethical acceptance, especially when guidance must respect the HR professional’s autonomy without losing its impact.

The fourth research question (RQ4) is statistically confirmed, as the variable Ethical Nudge has a positive and significant effect on Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making (β = 0.309, p < 0.001), with effect size f² = 0.145. This means that when nudging is applied with ethical clarity and with the aim of supporting the HR professional, it encourages in favor of autonomous and responsible decisions. The form of coaching nudge—that focuses on developing the receiver’s judgment rather than controlling the choice—seems to increase responsibility and initiative. This finding is consistent with the approach that guidance is acceptable when it gives space for choice and respects the values of the person [4]. It has also been explained that the ethical content of the guidance is critical if we want it to be seen as advisory and not manipulative [3]. Therefore, RQ4 supports the view that coaching nudge is not limiting the thinking freedom of the HR professional but can help them build better moral decisions.

The fifth research question (RQ5), which explores the connection between perceived autonomy and HR professionals’ trust in the ethical guidance of their supervisor, is confirmed by the findings of the structural model. The variable Persuasion & Trust had a significant effect on Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making (β = 0.290, p < 0.001, f² = 0.135), showing that trust and persuasive communication from the supervisor increase the sense of personal responsibility and ethical independence. This result supports the idea that leadership based on honesty, reliability, and respect creates a space where autonomy is not threatened, but actually strengthened. As noted, ethical leadership helps autonomy grow when it includes transparency and gives people space to express their values inside the organization. In addition, the idea that trust as part of emotional intelligence underlines the importance of emotional connection with a leader in motivating HR professionals to take responsible decisions has been highlighted [69]. These findings give strong empirical support to the idea that autonomy is not just the absence of pressure but grows through relationships built on moral trust [69].

The sixth research question (RQ6), about how managerial empathy affects the link between persuasion and ethical decision-making, is also supported by the model. The variable Empathy & Nudge Acceptance showed a positive and significant effect both on Ethical Nudge (β = 0.275, p < 0.001) and Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making (β = 0.258, p < 0.001), while Persuasion & Trust was strongly connected to ethical perception (β = 0.570, p < 0.001). The simultaneous presence of these three variables in the model shows that empathy makes the guidance more accepted and supports autonomy, especially when it goes together with trust and rational persuasion. The practical value of empathy is also seen in the IPMA results, and the gender-based differences in the MGA analysis show that emotional dimensions shape how leadership is received and interpreted. RQ6 is supported by the strong presence of empathy in the model, confirming its role as a key factor in the ethical management of influence. This finding agrees with the emotional leadership model, where empathy works as a regulator that turns rhetorical influence into internalized value [41]. It is also confirmed in practice that moral decisions are not based only on logic but also on emotional response is confirmed here in practice [42]. RQ6 adds an important point to the study of soft interventions, proving that empathy is not just a “soft” part of leadership, but a real mechanism in how ethical persuasion works [42].

As shown in the

Table 15. Confirmation of Research Questions.

Research Question	Status	Justification
RQ1: How do HR professionals perceive the use of nudge by their HR managers as a tool of ethical guidance and not as a means of manipulation?	Confirmed	Strong total effect from Persuasion & Trust to Ethical Nudge (β = 0.570, f2 = 0.460)
RQ2: What is the impact of supervisor’s persuasion and trust on the ethical acceptance of nudging by HR professionals?	Confirmed	Significant effect of Persuasion & Trust on Ethical Nudge (p < 0.001)
RQ3: How does managerial empathy influence HR professionals’ acceptance of nudging practices?	Confirmed	Empathy & Nudge Acceptance significantly predicts Ethical Nudge and Autonomy (β = 0.275 and 0.258)
RQ4: To what extent does coaching nudge support HR professionals in making ethically sound and autonomous decisions?	Confirmed	Ethical Nudge significantly predicts Autonomy & Ethical Decision-Making (β = 0.309)
RQ5: What is the relationship between HR professionals’ perceived autonomy and their trust in the supervisor’s ethical guidance?	Confirmed	Persuasion & Trust significantly predicts Autonomy (β = 0.290)
RQ6: How does managerial empathy mediate the effect of persuasive techniques on HR professionals’ moral decision-making?	Confirmed	Supported through interconnected significant pathways: Persuasion & Trust → Ethical Nudge (β = 0.570), Empathy → Ethical Nudge (β = 0.275), and Empathy → Autonomy (β = 0.258).

, all six research questions were empirically confirmed through the SEM analysis. The results demonstrated strong statistical support and conceptual consistency across the relationships examined, especially concerning the role of persuasion, empathy, and ethical perception in shaping HR professionals’ decision-making. These findings provide a robust foundation for the theoretical and practical implications discussed in the following sections.

Furthermore, to provide a more nuanced interpretation of the results, demographic intersections and the exploratory MGA were included in the analysis. The inclusion of these demographic intersections and the exploratory MGA is intended to enrich the interpretation of the main results and provide practical insights for differentiated HR strategies, rather than to serve as standalone research aims.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study supports the theoretical understanding of nudge as a tool for ethical guidance and not just as a simple behavioral intervention. The connection between persuasion, empathy, and ethical acceptance shows that the context in which an intervention is applied is as important as its content. The proposed model suggests that influence is more acceptable when it includes elements of ethical intention and emotional understanding. This view is consistent with the theory of the “reflective nudge”, which emphasizes importance to transparency and the perceived intention of the sender [2]. It has also been argued that the acceptance of a nudge depends on whether HR professional feels they retain their freedom of choice [5]. In this model, trust is not just a result but serves as a moral base that makes the nudge acceptable. This adds something new to the theory, by showing that the intention and the style of the intervention shape how it is received.

At the same time, the study adds theoretical value to the field of Human Resource Management. The presence of empathy as a separate variable shows that soft interventions can be accepted positively only when they are part of a leadership style that prioritizes emotional connection. This supports the theory of ethical leadership, which says that the integrity and care of the leader affect the behavior of HR professionals [70]. Also, the theory of psychological safety becomes relevant, because employees are more open to guidance when they feel they are heard and not judged [40]. The acceptance of nudging is not only about the content, but also about the relationship between HR professional and leader. This means that modern HR practices can use elements of coaching nudge, as long as they respect the personality of the HR professional.

Finally, the theoretical contribution of the study is not only relevant inside the organization but also connects with the field of ethical marketing. The ideas of persuasion, trust, and empathy, as developed in the model, can also be analyzed in the relationship between customer and seller. The theory of the “advisory nudge” proposes that nudges should help the person make better decisions, not manipulate them. This study shows that the acceptance of influence is linked directly to how the receiver sees the intention and values of the person who sends the message. This helps the theoretical discussion about when persuasion is ethical and when it goes too far. Therefore, the model can also be useful in areas outside HR and helps the academic development of nudging as an ethical tool for influence [12,27,71,72].

5.3. Practical Implications

The results of this study have direct practical value for the field of Human Resource Management. Trust, persuasion, and empathy emerged as key factors for the acceptance of soft and ethically structured leadership. Organizations can use these findings by developing leadership training programs that focus on soft skills and emotional intelligence. Empathy, in particular, showed different effects depending on gender (MGA analysis), which indicates the need for more personalized leadership approaches. Using coaching tools, giving clear and respectful feedback, and creating a culture of psychological safety can support the ethical acceptance of guidance. Applying such strategies in practice can increase HR professionals’ trust and their commitment to ethical organizational behaviors [36,73].

It is also important that these findings extend to the field of sales and ethical marketing. The concept of “advisory nudge” becomes practical in B2C and B2B environments, as it shows that the customer or message receiver is more open to influence when the intention is transparent and the action does not limit their freedom. Marketing professionals can design campaigns that respect customer choice by using the logic of “help, not push”. Especially in sectors like health, sustainability, or finance, nudges that include empathy and value-based messages can improve acceptance and increase buying intention. The model of this study suggests that persuasion is not enough by itself—it must be combined with moral consistency [24,35,74].

Finally, the practical use of these findings includes designing leadership policies that incorporate technology. With AI tools and big data, organizations can apply personalized soft interventions that focus on ethical alignment, not manipulation. The creation of “ethically aligned algorithms” that consider values, emotional signals, and social norms is a promising direction for modern organizational technologies. At the same time, strengthening leader training on ethical awareness and including topics like digital empathy and non-paternalistic communication in executive seminars can improve everyday leadership quality. This study offers a useful roadmap on how guidance can stay ethical even in digital or high-pressure environments [17,75].

Based on the priorities identified by the IPMA and MGA, organizations and HR leaders should prioritize interventions that strengthen both persuasive communication and empathy in daily management. Specifically, managers are encouraged to:

• Consistently explain the reasoning behind workplace changes or new policies, making the decision-making process transparent for HR professionals (and, where applicable, for employees more broadly).
• Actively seek and consider HR professionals’ feedback, fostering a culture of mutual trust and open dialogue.
• Engage in regular training to develop empathetic leadership skills, especially for groups of HR professionals where empathy has a stronger impact on autonomy and acceptance of nudges.
• Adapt communication and support strategies according to the differing needs and responses of different groups of HR professionals (or other employee groups, where relevant; e.g., by gender or other demographic factors, as highlighted by the MGA results).

By adopting these practices, organizations can ensure that behavioral interventions and soft guidance strategies are seen as supportive and ethical, thereby increasing both HR professionals’ acceptance (in HR contexts) and employee acceptance more generally and overall organizational effectiveness. These recommendations help translate the study’s findings into concrete steps for improving leadership and HR practices.

Furthermore, as highlighted by the MGA results, the observed gender differences in the impact of empathy and persuasive strategies suggest that HR and leadership training programs should be tailored to address diverse needs and preferences. For example, organizations could offer targeted workshops or coaching sessions focusing on empathy skills for teams where these factors have a stronger effect, or adjust communication strategies to better resonate with different groups of HR professionals or other employee groups, depending on the organizational context. By recognizing and responding to gender-based differences in how soft guidance is perceived and accepted, leaders can foster a more inclusive and effective work environment.

5.4. Limitations

This study presents certain methodological limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. The sample was based on convenience sampling and not on random selection, which reduces the generalizability of the results. In addition, the research was conducted only in the private sector, without including employees from public organizations. This may affect how leadership guidance is perceived in different contexts. All variables were measured using self-reported Likert-scale items, which may introduce perception bias or socially desirable responses. Finally, while the model assessed the relationships between the variables using PLS-SEM, no additional analysis was conducted to formally confirm indirect effects.

One important limitation of this study is the use of a convenience sampling approach, focusing exclusively on HR professionals from private-sector firms in Europe. Consequently, the findings may not be directly generalizable to other populations, such as employees from public organizations or different cultural or national contexts. Although certain theoretical considerations reference Greece, the empirical sample was drawn from multiple EU countries, which somewhat broadens the applicability of the findings, but still warrants caution in interpreting the external validity and cross-cultural relevance of the results. Moreover, the sampling strategy may introduce response bias, as those who chose to participate might have distinct attitudes or experiences regarding nudging and ethical leadership compared to those who did not respond. These factors should be considered when interpreting the implications and limitations of the study.

Additionally, the exclusion of other employee groups means that the results mainly reflect the perceptions and experiences of HR professionals. As such, the findings cannot be assumed to represent the views of the broader workforce.

Beyond the technical aspects, the study is also limited by its thematic focus. The theoretical constructs were based on the idea of advisory nudging, without comparisons to other forms of influence, such as directive or manipulative nudges. Also, the variable of empathy was analyzed as a perceived attitude, not as an objectively measured behavior. Organizational culture, employee personality, and other potential factors like age or leader experience were not included as moderators or control variables. These elements could help further explain how ethical nudging is accepted in more complex settings. Taken together, these limitations highlight areas for future research.

6. Conclusions

This research underlined the importance of persuasion, trust and empathy in the acceptance of soft leadership interventions in workplace. The findings showed that the HR professional’s perception about the ethical intention of the supervisor has a direct impact on the feeling of autonomy and personal responsibility. The relationship between the theoretical constructs was statistically confirmed and proves that influence can be perceived as ethical when it is performed in a way that respects both the logical and the emotional dimension of the recipient.

However, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution, as the exclusive focus on HR professionals from European private-sector organizations and the use of convenience sampling may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Also, the study contributes to the enhancement of knowledge about how soft leadership strategies can operate without undermining the autonomy. The proposed model gives emphasis to the human side of guidance and highlights that the effectiveness of leadership does not depend only by the content of the intervention, but also by the context, the relationship and the intention.

Finally, future research can explore the use of different types of nudging, such as manipulative or directive nudge, in order to compare the HR professionals’ responses with the advisory model. Moreover, variables like organizational culture, age, gender or work stress could be examined as moderators. Another direction is to use experimental or longitudinal research design, for better understanding of causal relationships and how the acceptance of guidance evolves through time. Combining behavioral data or mixed methods also could offer a more complete picture of the mechanisms that stand behind the ethical perception of leadership influence.

Looking ahead, future research could benefit from adopting longitudinal designs to track how perceptions of ethical nudging and leadership evolve over time, especially as organizations introduce new policies or adapt to external pressures. A mixed-methods approach—combining quantitative surveys with in-depth interviews or participant observation—could provide a richer understanding of the mechanisms behind acceptance or resistance to soft interventions, revealing nuances that may not appear in large-scale data.

Moreover, cross-cultural and international studies are needed to examine how organizational culture, national context, or sector-specific factors shape both the perception and effectiveness of ethical nudging. Such research could identify best practices and pitfalls in diverse environments, helping to generalize or refine the proposed model for different workplace realities.