Sustainable Leadership Practices Based on the Logic of the Honeybee Pyramid—Comparison of Hungarian and Polish SMEs

Abstract

The popularity of sustainability as a research topic in different areas of organisational functioning is marked by the number of studies on the topic. Significantly less research is addressing the factors that fundamentally influence the functioning of organisations. Among these factors, this paper will review the criteria for sustainable leadership. Competition in the economy has made it necessary to build sustainability capabilities in all areas of business, of which the practice of sustainable leadership is a fundamental requirement for making strategic decisions. This paper aims to examine the thinking, leadership styles, and decisions of leaders of organisations in everyday practice based on the pyramid logic of sustainable leadership. In this research, structured interviews with managers of Hungarian (32) and Polish (28) organisations were evaluated using the ‘Voyant tools’ 2.6.9. software. The results show that there is a significant difference between the Hungarian and Polish leadership mindsets, with both samples only partially meeting the expectations of what can be considered a sustainable leadership style in the spirit of the ‘Honeybee’ approach. Out of the 14 basic elements of the pyramid, the leaders of both nations reach the desired level in five cases. This study provides useful lessons for SME managers in developing sustainability management practices.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is one of the most commonly used terms in relation to the way organisations operate. It encompasses the environmental consciousness of management, the expected behaviour of managers and staff, values, and mindset. Depending on the economic sector, industry or organisational activity, the term of sustainability has been defined by many [1,2]. In the 1987 UN report Our Common Future, the UN stated that ‘Sustainability is the meeting of the present needs of humankind while preserving the environment and natural resources for future generations’ [3]. This definition outlines the characteristics of sustainability in general terms, thinking at the societal level. The most serious problems identified are poverty, hunger, climate change, social and economic inequalities, water depletion, the burgeoning energy demand, and environmental pollution. For these, 17 so-called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been identified, along with 169 additional sub-goals. This means that the countries of the world want to act on global problems on the basis of a common set of principles. In the set of objectives to be achieved by 2030, points 8 and 9 summarise the expectations of economic operators. Within this, the key actions that will trigger reflection and action are presented in a non-exhaustive manner:

• Economic activities that favour human well-being while respecting general ethical principles.
• New models and indicators to support economic growth (alternative economic models).
• Rethinking financial systems.
• Focus on labour (tackling inequalities (gender, wage, sectoral, etc.), work–life balance, labour law issues).
• New technologies and innovative solutions.
• Infrastructural solutions (ICT, waste, water, electricity, renewable resources, etc.)

As our study is concerned with research on organisations, the rest of our findings should be interpreted at the organisational level. The most important factors that qualify organisational performance and why it is necessary to address this issue are business efficiency, customer satisfaction, financial stability, reputation, legal obligations, etc. [4].

The characteristics of organisational functioning that follow sustainability principles have become increasingly clear in recent years, both in theoretical and practical research [5,6]. Research shows that sustainable organisations often perform better than their peers, e.g., in terms of social responsibility, employee satisfaction, and financial performance. They often rank among the best employers and succeed in recruiting the most talented employees by often being among the best employers [7]. A prerequisite for sustainable organisational functioning is the implementation of the characteristics of management according to the principles of sustainability. This condition has a fundamental impact on the performance of the organisation. The expectation is that more and more businesses and economic actors will operate according to the principles of sustainability. To do this, however, they need to understand the following interlinkages.

The survival of the Earth is threatened by the irresponsible use of natural resources and the pollution of the planet. A rethink of organisational functioning and governance is needed to address the resulting environmental problems [8]. Sustainable business management, or sustainable management, is a new field of research. The main functions of managers in this approach are sustainable planning, sustainable organisation, sustainable leadership, and sustainable control. An eternal debate in management science is the relationship between the terms management and leadership. In their study, Pabian and Pabian [9] provide evidence that the functions of sustainable management cover a broader range of activities than just sustainable leadership. Business and society have a role to play in this process. If business organisations do not operate in a sustainable way, their impact on local communities can be a problem. The question is: what can leaders of organisations do to create and manage businesses that are more sustainable, both in terms of their internal operations and their external impacts and relationships? Possible solutions have been formulated in different approaches in the literature [4,5,6]. These include Avery and Bergstein’s [10] Honeybee Pyramid, which contrasts the traditional exploitative (locust) style of management thinking and decision making in the Rhine area with a management style based on the principles of sustainability. Sustainable leadership is about helping organisations to stay at the forefront of their industry, regardless of what is happening in their environment, by focusing on the requirements of sustainability [11,12].

We need organisations that create value for themselves, their environment, and society. The aim of this research study is to explore the extent to which managers of Hungarian and Polish SMEs are prepared to manage sustainable organisational operations and meet the criteria for sustainable management.

SMEs are of particular economic importance in Hungary. They also play a key role in employment, and their contribution to GDP is also key. Provisions to support them are laid down by law [13]. The aim of the law is to support SMEs at national and EU level, thereby promoting the balanced development of the economy and society. The Act takes a multi-pronged approach to the range of support possibilities, but does not set out specific expectations or rules on sustainability. In many cases, professional studies in the domestic context report a lack of preparedness and strategic thinking on the part of SME managers.

The Ministry of Innovation and Technology has developed a strategy for strengthening SMEs for 2019–2030 [14]. The seven pillars of the SME Strategy aim to increase the added value, productivity, and export capacity of domestic SMEs. The measures cover areas such as cutting red tape and creating a business-friendly tax and regulatory environment, promoting technological change, digitalisation and innovation, access to adequate finance, helping SMEs to enter foreign markets, supporting knowledge transfer, and promoting generational change, taking into account the different needs of enterprises. However, this proposal does not include sustainability requirements for the operation or management of SMEs.

Poland is one of the largest consumer markets and one of the largest economies in the EU. Around 7 million workers are employed in small- and medium-sized enterprises, which form the backbone of the Polish economy. Their top managers believe they can compete with foreign firms. Around two thirds of them say that their products are more competitively priced than those of other EU firms and that the quality and innovation of their products are on a par with other products in EU markets. The question is: is this enough to ensure a sustainable future? According to research funded by Bank Zachodni WBK S.A. [15], the biggest problem is that they focus mainly on local markets, are risk-averse, and lack management preparedness.

Cooperation between the two countries has historical roots, and one of the pillars of economic relations is based on SMEs. A joint agreement reached in 2017 was based on the recognition that, for Eastern European economies to be competitive and sustainable, they need to work together at regional level on innovative joint projects that can ensure sustainable economic growth in the region [16]. This cooperation is primarily aimed at supporting and strengthening the SME sector, startups, and family businesses, enabling SMEs to catch up with requirements such as Industry 4.0, smart energy, energy security, ICT, aerospace, smart health, electromobility, and digital education. The requirement for sustainability is not directly expressed here either, but there is an underlying expression of this need.

As SMEs play a significant role in the economies of both countries, they are crucial in causing or eliminating global environmental problems. The preparedness, thinking, and decisions of SME managers have a major impact on whether national economies either cause or reduce damage. Thus, the implementation of sustainable management requirements should be a particular focus for both countries. The shortcomings are almost identical in both countries; therefore, a comparison of their sustainable management practices is justified.

The research questions that the present study aims to explore are as follows:

Q1. Are the expectations of the sustainable management pyramid fulfilled in Hungarian and Polish organisational practice?

Q2. Is there a difference in the management practices of the two countries under study based on the logic of the pyramid?

Q3. Is there a difference between the characteristics of Hungarian and Polish management thinking and behaviour based on the key factors of the pyramid?

In the following sections, the concept of sustainable leadership, its foundations, the characteristics of the nations under study and the research model are presented with a view to answering the research questions. The methodology is then presented, followed by a discussion and presentation of the results. Finally, a short conclusion concludes the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Theoretical Overview

2.1.1. Sustainable Management

The new conditions of economic development and the social phenomena that accompany it are creating new challenges for managers. New thinking and integrative and holistic approaches are needed to integrate economic benefits, social responsibility, and environmental protection [17].

Although leadership and sustainable leadership are concepts without definitional consensus [18], we know that sustainable development is diverse and dynamic [19]. The process of introducing the concept of sustainable development into leadership helps build towards to establishing a sustainable organisation. The concept of sustainable development with leadership has been and continues to be of interest to many scholars. Sustainable leadership reveals the key role of leaders in balancing the goals of economy, environment, and society [20]. Sustainable leadership is necessary for creating sustainable organisation that includes economic, environmental, and social issues, which are solved through collaboration between enterprises with customers, suppliers, competitors, communities, and other stakeholders [21].

The definition of sustainable leadership is rooted in the business definitions of sustainability. Sustainable leadership creates current and future profits for an organisation and its shareholders and also improves the lives of all concerned [21,22]. In their definition of sustainable leadership, Avery and Bergsteiner [10] emphasise, among other things, lasting shared value, Hargreaves [23]—positive integrative influence, Casserley and Critchley [24]—the integration of components of intra- and inter-processes for personal sustainability, Davies [25]—stakeholder centricity, Lambert [26]—culture of leadership development, Draper [27]—systems thinking, Iqbal and Ahmad [28]—a variety of sustainable leadership practices, Nisha et al. [29]—a holistic and organisational long-term perspective.

A new paradigm for business leadership grows out from changes in economic and organisational theory connecting, in particular, the megatrend of sustainability [30,31], which is largely attributable to climate change and requires organisational leaders [32]. It must be emphasised that organisational learning is a very important process in the quest for sustainability [33].

Sustainable leadership is a new philosophy within the field of management that is focused on valuing people. Changes toward sustainability in organisations and societies require sustainable leadership [34]. Visser and Courtice [35] emphasise that sustainable leadership inspires and supports action towards a better world. The process of developing organisations to became sustainable is an arduous task. Personal and organisational values contribute to the development of a sustainable leadership [36]. According to the Sustainability Leadership Institute [37], sustainability leaders are ‘individuals who are compelled to make a difference by deepening their awareness of themselves in relation to the world around them. In doing so, they adopt new ways of seeing, thinking and interacting that result in innovative, sustainable solutions.’

The idea of sustainability and related human behaviour is based on attitudes and is manifested in all real human actions. The psychological theory applied to the study of expected and expressed human behaviour in relation to sustainability includes ‘The Theory of Planned Behavior, (TPB)’ [38]. This theory posits that three basic components—attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control—combine to shape an individual’s behavioural intentions. One of the basic tenets of TPB is that behavioural intention is the closest determinant of human social behaviour. It could even be used as a basis for judging managerial behaviour. However, leaders make decisions at the head of their organisations not only and not primarily based on individual beliefs. They think in terms of a number of other factors, as they need to ensure the success of their organisations and their sustainability objectives at the same time. Sustainability is the dominant goal, but many other external and internal organisational characteristics influence its feasibility. Thus, despite all the positives of TPB theory, the search for solutions to the sustainable management inquiry needs to be rolled out further.

Armani and colleagues [39] summarised research on sustainable management, focusing on the links with CSR. In their study, they identified 11 characteristics that summarise the expectations of sustainable leadership from the perspective of their research (see

Table 1. Characteristics of sustainable management and an explanation of their features.

Features	Explanation of Features
Alignment with organisational culture	Engagement with organisational culture.
Attention to stakeholders	Focus on and attention paid to meeting stakeholder expectations, involving different audiences.
Search for sustainability in strategy	Expansion of the business concept to the social and environmental perspective, introducing sustainability into organisational strategy.
Understanding cultural diversity	Understanding the cultural diversity of social groups and the community, promoting involvement with social matters.
Specific knowledge	Showing specific technical and conceptual skills related to the topic and rules related to sustainability.
Focus on sustainability	Personal commitment to sustainability, promoting healthy consumption and recognizing sustainable opportunities.
Interpersonal Skills	Ability to communicate and negotiate, facilitating employee participation and engagement.
Leadership	Playing the role of facilitator and disseminator, with coherence between discourse and practice.
Change-oriented	Commitment to organisational change with the ability to convert risks into opportunities.
Values and moral principles	Identification with sustainable values, concern for the wellbeing of people and their environment.
Business view	Ability to analyse short-term and long-term needs and impacts and looking to the future.

Source: Armani et al. [39] (p. 825).

).

Corbos and his colleagues [40] investigated the relationship between strategic sourcing 4.0 and competitiveness under the conditions of a circular economy. The relationship analysis revealed the importance of managerial attitudes, which depend on the implementation of sustainability and circular economy approach. Their results demonstrate that strategic sourcing 4.0, aligned with sustainability objectives and incorporating digital technologies, leads to increased competitiveness in the context of the circular economy. It can be seen that the idea of sustainable management has a significant relationship with several organisational functions, e.g., (indirectly and directly) with competitiveness, which induces the need for further studies.

Methods of maintaining sustainable leadership relate to leadership forces that react to organisational environments, which concerns economical, ecological, social, cultural, ethical, political, institutional environments, creating forces for sustainability. In this process, responsibility for individuals, groups, organisations and societies, and employees loyal to their organisation are very important. In addition, organisational values oriented towards sustainability are key, and clean and sustainability-oriented visions of organisations, which results in a self-control system, create a system change effort, competence development system, new environment organisational culture value systems that are friendly to society, good brand reputations, and sustainable relationships and lead to new organisational structures [41]. Being sustainable also requires enhancing customer satisfaction and long-term stakeholder value [42].

The three pillars of sustainable management at an organisational level are: organisational culture, strategy, and human resource development. Sustainable leadership encompasses the shaping of organisational culture from the perspective of innovation, trust, and sustainability [10] while at the same time reinforcing the activities of sustainable leadership [43]. The strategic orientation focuses on the relationships between individuals, business communities, the natural environment, and market demand. To achieve this, strategic decisions also focus on social well-being and ecosystem protection [44]. Human resource development implies people-centred leadership. Employees are also stakeholders in the organisation, acting as a loyal and committed team [10]. Interaction is also at work here, as sustainable leaders develop employees, and in return, employees support leaders.

Al Danaf and Szilard [31] have taken a different approach to compiling a set of desirable characteristics of sustainable leadership.

Table 2. Elements of sustainable management.

Elements of Sustainable Leadership	Concepts Used in Economics and Business
Context	Recognising interdependence; complexity; ambiguity; interconnectedness; resource constraints; regulators; megatrends
Consciousness	Mindsets; world views; beliefs; mental models; attitudes
Continuity	Long-term horizons; courage; strength; common purpose; centrality; change processes
Connectedness	Serving the needs of all stakeholders; long- and short-term influences; cooperation; trust; fairness; altruism; kinship; needs rather than wants
Creativity	Innovation for sustainable shared value creation; sustainable business models; new value measurement models; flows
Collectiveness	Increasing collective impact; embedding sustainability in business; structure; sustainable consumption

Source: Al Danaf and Szilard [31].

summarises the desirable elements of sustainable leadership and their business terminology from this perspective.

According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, sustainable management makes organisations more competitive, flexible, responsive, and attractive to customers. It helps attract talented employees and makes businesses more attractive to investors. Examples of sustainable business leadership can be found around the world [45].

To sum up, sustainable leadership values include quality of life, human solidarity, and ecological sensibility [46] and deliver long-term benefits for employees, customers, investors, and the community [47]. According to Hargreaves and Fink [48], sustainable leadership creates and preserves sustained learning, secures success over time, sustains the leadership of others, addresses issues of social justice, develops rather than depletes human and material resources, develops environmental diversity and capacity, and involves undertaking activist engagement with the environment.

In this environment of shifting expectations, new leadership styles aimed toward sustainable organisational functioning have emerged. As can be seen from the above, in most cases, similar expectations are formulated, although the goals and points of focus of sustainable leadership are different [35]. All represent the values that are necessary for organisational sustainable functioning. However, the focus of each is limited to some extent. The Pyramid of Sustainable Leadership [10] and the Cambridge University model [35] are two trends that combine sustainable leadership and organisational learning. Both models are based on the belief that leaders should pay attention to social and environmental issues and encourage organisational learning and development.

The sustainable leadership pyramid details the three pillars of social, environmental, and economic sustainability. These pillars must be balanced to ensure sustainable leadership. Learning and development form the basis of the pyramid, and social and environmental responsibility and economic performance build on this.

The Cambridge University model favours three foundations for organisational learning: cognitive learning, social learning, and learning on an organisational scale. The model is based on the premise that organisational learning leads to growth and development, which is essential for sustainable development and leadership [35].

Both models consider organisational learning important for ensuring sustainable leadership. Although both models play an important role in promoting sustainable leadership, they have different ways of thinking about the process of sustainable leadership and the importance of organisational learning.

2.1.2. International Outlook

The topic of sustainable leadership has been theoretically explored in the literature with a focus on the characteristics of sustainable organisational functioning in combination with different theories. Few practical studies have been published in recent years. Mostly educational institutions have been studied, where teacher behaviour characteristics have been tested against sustainable leadership characteristics [49,50]. It is also interesting to note that the practical studies are from developing countries, mainly in Asia (Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.). Kantabutra and Thepha-Aphiraks [51] used case studies and interviews to test Avery’s [52] 19-element model. In an earlier study, Kantabutra [53] looked at Thai health institutions based on Avery’s model. Interestingly and surprisingly, they found a match for 15 out of 19 elements. This is surprising because even in more developed countries, such a similarity was not found in practice. The matches found were grouped into six categories: adopting a long-term perspective, staff development, organisational culture, innovation, social responsibility, and ethical behaviour. Their results provide a starting point and a suitable framework for studies on sustainable management in enterprises in Asian countries.

Knowledge sharing as a defining element of the Honeybee model was also examined in a study by Iqbal and Piwowar-Sulej [54], in which the mechanism of knowledge sharing for innovation in developing countries was tested. They found that the characteristics of sustainable leadership facilitate the process of external and internal knowledge sharing. In another study [33], they surveyed SME managers on the mediating role of psychological safety between sustainable leadership and performance. The results show that sustainable leadership has a positive indirect effect on sustainable performance. Lee [55] tested the relationship between sustainable leadership and organisational effectiveness. His results show that the strength of each element of sustainable leadership affects organisational effectiveness in different ways. Armani and colleagues [39] investigated the supporting role of sustainable leadership in change implementation. Managers from four organisations were interviewed. They concluded that the role of sustainable leadership is a function of organisational maturity. A significant positive effect of sustainable leadership on the relationship between organisational learning and sustainable performance was found by Rehman et al. [56] in a sample of SMEs in Pakistan. In another study, they examined organisational practices in the public sector based on theoretical studies [57]. Kalkavan [58] studied Turkish managers and found that although they possessed significant managerial competencies, their sustainable leadership skills fell far short of expectations. Suriyankietkaew and his colleagues [5] came to a similar conclusion when examining Thai SMEs. The only identifiable study that tested Avery and Bergsteiner’s model was conducted in a Spanish context. The study interviewed female managers working in the logistics sector based on the Honeybee and Locust sustainable leadership models [59]. The results showed that a mixture of Honeybee and Locust type leadership is prevalent in the Spanish logistics sector. Organisations are not very open to knowledge sharing, and significant improvements in this and in training in leadership practices are needed.

In the following, we present the logic of the model that we follow most closely, which formed the basis of our practical research, following a holistic approach.

2.1.3. The Pyramid of Sustainable Leadership

In the previous section, we thoroughly review the characteristics that, based on different theories, clarify the sustainability expectations of organisations and their management. What is needed is a management mindset and patterns of behaviour that can simultaneously address the criteria of competitiveness and the principles of sustainability. As mentioned, among the theoretical approaches reviewed, the pyramid of sustainable management [10] represents the thinking that meets the above criteria.

Avery [52] introduced the concept of sustainable management to the field of corporate governance. He illustrates the concept of sustainable management through the examples of two development models that represent opposing values the British–American/Honeybee model and the Rhineland/Sasha model. The concept of sustainable leadership (Honeybee logic) summarises 19 elements that require the use of new leadership competencies (e.g., long-term decision making, building a team of employees, providing high-quality products and services, etc.). Based on this study, Avery and Bergsteiner [10] identified four additional competencies (self-management, trust, innovation, and workplace involvement) and framed them together with the initial 19 elements. This resulted in a 23-element concept of sustainable leadership. The sustainable leadership pyramid by Avery and Bergsteiner [10] provides a visual representation of the different aspects of sustainable leadership. The model forms a pyramid shape that expresses both interdependence and interdependence. Fleshing out lower-level practices facilitates and supports the implementation of higher-level practices, while higher-level practices rely on the core elements. The pyramid is a three-tiered model that combines sustainability tiers (life cycle, social, and economic) with leadership tiers (tactical, strategic, and systemic). The elements of the three tiers target five performance outcomes (brand and reputation, customer satisfaction, financial performance, short-term shareholder value, long-term stakeholder value) that create the apex of the pyramid—sustainable leadership [46]. The pyramid is a logical mapping of the criteria for sustainable leadership, the interconnectedness of which demonstrates how the British–American so-called Honeybee philosophy contributes to the competitive advantage of organisations. The logic of the model is illustrated in Figure 1.

The basic elements corresponding to the numbering shown at the bottom of the pyramid include the following:

• An appropriate leadership style.
• Attracting and retaining talent.
• Continuous development.
• Internal succession planning.
• Respect, diversity, and inclusion.
• Ethics and virtues.
• Good governance.
• Long-term thinking.
• Considered organisational change.
• Independence from external disruptions.
• Environmental responsibility.
• Social responsibility.
• Broad stakeholder focus.
• A strong shared vision and purpose.

In order for the expectations defined by each of the elements of the pyramid to be met, specific competency expectations, behaviours, and values can be formulated for leaders [10]. The competency expectations and the elements of the pyramid are paired together to show the interdependence and the leadership readiness required to meet the expectations (see

Table 3. Elements of a sustainable leadership pyramid and the required leadership competences.

Expected Competences, Leadership Attitude	Criteria for the Elements of a Sustainable Leadership Pyramid
Liability	Influencing decisions, CSR, environmental and voluntary programmes
Adapting to change	Frequency of changes, preparedness
Continuous improvement	Providing regular training and development opportunities
Cooperation, openness	Leadership and staff engagement
Sensitivity	Trust building features
Teamwork, cooperation	Teamwork, knowledge sharing in the organisation
Growth orientation	Talent management in the organisation, succession programme
Customer focus	Taking into account the interests of internal and external stakeholders
Value-based leadership	Ethical principles, ethical leadership
Transparency	Characterising your own leadership style
Innovation	Innovation in the organisation
Role model	Self-management, intrinsic motivation
Long-term thinking	Vision in everyday life, involvement, organisational vision

Source: own construction.

).

Based on the theory presented and our own experience, we formulated the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

There is a significant difference between Hungarian and Polish leaders in terms of the traits of sustainable leadership style (the core elements of the Honeybee pyramid).

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

The expectations of the pyramid of sustainable leadership are not fully met in either nation, and the emphasis differs.

In subsequent sections, we present our practical research and its results.

2.2. Research Methodology

2.2.1. Sampling Location of the Research

Our research was conducted via assessing the practices of two nations, focusing on Hungarian and Polish SME managers. The two nations were chosen because there have been several studies on Western European countries and Asia, but no studies on the practices of Central and Eastern European countries. The two countries under study have similar histories, but their geographic location and international embeddedness provide different conditions. They have also used different strategies for economic development after the regime change around 1990, although they share the same thinking on key economic and cultural values. Therefore, it may be interesting to look at their preparedness for sustainability and the management of sustainable organisations. Hofstede’s [60] research on national cultures identifies differences, as illustrated in Figure 2. As it is known, the characteristics of national culture are also reflected in the cultural characteristics of organisations; thus, a comparison of the two nations from an organisational point of view is justified.

2.2.2. Research Design and Methodology

We used a qualitative methodology for data collection, conducting structured in-depth interviews with CEOs or functional (HR, project) managers of Hungarian and Polish organisations. Interview subjects were selected via random sampling. As a first step, all 250 items of the Orbis database on European firms were selected, with a preference for the associates of the European firms. Based on the results of the screening, the managers of the SMEs were contacted via phone and/or email. A total of 32 Hungarian (20 manufacturers and 12 service providers) and 28 Polish (18 manufacturers and 10 service providers) managers partook in interviews that were conducted between September 2022 and July 2023. During the structured interviews, open and semi-open questions were asked. Respondents were informed about the topics in advance so that they could prepare for the interview. The interview questions were grouped into three main categories according to the levels of the sustainable management pyramid: (1) baseline expectations, (2) higher-level practices, and (3) key drivers of performance. The interviews lasted 50–70 min; all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for subsequent systematic analysis. The basis of the questionnaire, i.e., the focus of the questions, was the elements of the pyramid and their associated leadership competency expectations. The composition of our research sample is shown in

Table 4. The sample—number of interviewees.

SME	Hungarian (32)		Polish (28)
	Manufacturing (20)	Service (12)	Manufacturing (18)	Service (10)
number of employees
micro < 10 small < 50 medium < 250	5	3	6	4
	12	8	10	5
	3	1	2	1
economic sector	construction, manufacturing industry, production companies	hospitality, transport, education, IT	construction, manufacturing industry, production companies	hospitality, transport, education, IT
	agriculture	human health, social care		human health, social care
	trade	other services	trade	other services

Source: own construction.

.

2.2.3. Analysis

The primary data for our study were obtained from the structured interviews with managers. In the analysis phase, we used Voyant Tools [61] text analysis software to structure and analyse the qualitative data. Voyant Tools is a web-based text analysis, reading, and presentation application. It can handle documents in different formats (plain text, HTML, XML, PDF, RTF, MS Word, ODF, etc.). It uses a number of tools to study the frequency and distribution of terms within documents and within a collection (corpus) of documents. It allows one to code interview transcripts and categorise them according to different points of view, taking into account the research topic. The themes were analysed in terms of our hypotheses. Once the executive interviews were completed, the transcripts were read through several times, with reminders being added to the relevant content (memos). In the coding stage, the data were broken down into manageable segments (based on the questions) and labelled for identification. According to Schwandt [62], coding fundamentally requires the continuous comparison and categorisation of data segments; therefore, the final coding scheme was the result of an iterative process.

Voyant Tools can generate word clouds from given documents, display word frequency or collocation, and perform other text mining functions. The application offers a wide range of possibilities in a variety of professional fields, such as literature, language teaching, sociology, health, systems architecture, etc.

Of the analytical tools offered by the software, the ones used in our study were Word Clouds, Trends, StreamGraph, ScatterPlot (t-SNE analysis), Correlations, Significance, Collocation, WordTree, Context, and Document Terms.

We focused on three main aspects of qualitative analysis: representing managers’ opinions, analysing data, and interpreting results. The results of our detailed analyses are presented in the next section.

3. Results

The interview question sets were based on the elements of the Honeybee pyramid. The codes, assumptions, and research questions used for the analyses were consistent. To test the first hypothesis, we looked at the practical application of the basic elements of the sustainable leadership pyramid. To validate the second hypothesis, we looked for traits of a trust-based culture. To verify the third hypothesis, we sought to identify the links between innovation and attention to human resources. To prove the fourth hypothesis, it was necessary to examine the basic elements of the pyramid and compare opinions on sustainability. All of our hypotheses were based on a comparison of the two nations. The relationship between the codes, the questions, and our hypotheses is shown in

Table 5. Relationship between assumptions and interview questions.

Codes		Focus of Interview Questions	Hypotheses
Leadership style	Basic elements	Appropriate leadership style	There is a significant difference between Hungarian and Polish leaders in terms of the traits of sustainable leadership style (the core elements of the Honeybee pyramid).
Talent management		Attracting and retaining talent
Training		Continuous development
Succession		Internal succession planning
Concepts		Respect, diversity and inclusion
Ethical leadership		Ethics and virtues
Organisational practice		Good governance
Long-term goals		Long-term thinking
Changes		Considered organisational change
Decision-making mechanism		Independence from external disturbances
Environment		Environmental responsibility
CSR		Social responsibility
Stakeholders		Broad focus of involvement
Vision		Strong shared vision and purpose
Motivation	Higher level exercises	Internal motivation
		Self-management
Culture		Team orientation
		Appropriate culture
Knowledge retention		Knowledge sharing and retention
Values		Trust
Creativity	Key performance	Innovation
Team building		Employee engagement
Rules		Quality
Sustainability			The expectations of the pyramid of sustainable leadership are not fully met in either nation, and the emphasis differs.

Source: own construction.

.

To confirm our first hypothesis, we analysed the answers to the questions included in the core elements. For each basic element, the five most frequently mentioned concepts are listed (see

Table 6. Results of our analysis of the elements of the Honeybee pyramid (most frequent terms).

Basic Elements of Honeybee Pyramid	Key Features (Hungarian)	Key Features (Polish)	Basic Elements in Practice (Hungarian/Polish)
Appropriate leadership style	democratic, fair, goal-oriented, flexible, empowering	decision, responsibility, democracy, company, colleagues, situation	valid/valid
Attracting and retaining talent	necessary, difficult to recruit and retain, traineeship, challenging, motivational tools	necessary, loyal/creative colleagues, talent and responsibility together, attractive offers, career opportunities	partially valid/valid
Continuous development	serious training systems, self-training, in-house/external, mentor programme, talent pool	formal, informal, none, external/internal training, mentoring	valid/partially valid
Internal succession planning	succession education, mentoring schemes, ad hoc, contractual arrangements, no programme,	no programme, internal succession, family business, buy from outside, succession programme	no well thought-out succession programmes everywhere/typically not valid
Respect, diversity, and inclusion	core values to be developed/not in place, culture-dependent factors, leading by example	respect is key, inclusion is critical, cultural issues, different evaluations, outcome is important	important, but there are gaps/generally valid
Ethics and virtues	expectations, outwardly important core values, conditions for success, code of ethics	ethical behaviour towards clients, code of ethics, trust, internal operating conditions, professional ethics	with gaps/important everywhere
Good governance	autonomy, outward-looking thinking, shaping the future, satisfaction, trust-based decisions	effective leadership, positive external perception, use of resources, teamwork, motivation–satisfaction	strategic thinking is incomplete/existent
Long-term thinking	operational and long-term planning, awareness, condition for success, post-COVID difficulties, competence-dependent factors	thoughtful action, but flexible, no need, max 1 year, external influence	typically valid/rarely valid
Considered organisational change	too frequent, constant attention, flexibility, necessary for innovation, external support	stable operation not necessary, dynamism, daily routine—waste of time	continuous change/rarely valid
Independence from external disruptions	clear head, risk taking, goal-dependent factors, decision-independent factors, responsibility	flexible decisions, market disruption, continuous adaptation, decisions, management responsibility	typically valid/not valid to a large extent
Environmental responsibility	CSR, selective collection, no such programme, ad hoc programmes, role in shaping attitudes	no programme, propaganda, risk reduction, costly, sustainability	only fundamentally present/typically no programme
Social responsibility	no programme, charity programmes, voluntary work, support for education, CSR	none, not important, community programmes, staff care, sports club support	mostly absent/mostly absent
Broad stakeholder focus	attention, external/internal stakeholders, standard, sustainability, internal attention first	relationship building, important clients, internal-external needs, open communication, partnerships	more focus on internal stakeholders/valid with human focus
Strong shared vision and purpose	core operating principles, no vision, management responsibility, alignment with planning, translate to operational level	difficult, none, uncertainty, evolutionary change, business profile	not ubiquitous/mostly not fulfilled

Source: own construction.

).

Except for a few elements, most of the expectations are not at the same level. For illustrative purposes, some diagrams have been created to show the similarities and differences. The right leadership style is one of the most important factors. In this case, respondents from both nations consider it important that expectations are met. The word clouds illustrate the most commonly used terms, with the elements being decision, democracy, people, employees, responsibility, team, etc. The words used may not be the same, but there is a similarity in content and meaning (Figure 3).

Due to text cleaning, not all of the sentences in the corpus analysed are meaningful, coherent sets of phrases, but for Hungarian respondents, the environmental embeddedness of the leadership phrase illustrates the logic of their thinking. Autocratic styles and decision making only arise in crisis situations; otherwise, they tend to cooperate and agree (Figure 4).

The environmental embeddedness of the word ‘decision’ in Polish responses also confirms a democratic style (Figure 5).

When examining the correlation with decision making, both autocratic and consensus indicators show the same significant relationship for Hungarian leaders (see

Table 7. Hungarian leadership style.

Term 1	Term 2	Correlation	Significance
autocratic	decisions	0.74535596	0.013349064
consensus	decisions	0.74535596	0.013349064

Source: own construction.

). This supports the findings described above that leaders apply democratic or, when necessary, autocratic decision making according to the situation (p < 0.05).

For Polish respondents, no significant relationship was found with the term decision. The terms decision and democratic show an opposite correlation, but the relationship is not significant. Among the most frequently mentioned terms, the following two significant relationships were found (see

Table 8. Polish leadership style.

Term 1	Term 2	Correlation	Significance
person	responsible	0.91855866	0.0001742
activities	responsible	0.875	0.0009160

Source: own construction.

).

The characteristics of the democratic style are illustrated by the network of the relationships between the terms (Figure 6).

To prove the hypothesis, we looked at additional elements of the pyramid through correlation relationship analysis. The tables below (

Table 9. Significant relationships between the basic elements of the Honeybee pyramid based on Polish responses.

Term 1	Term 2	Correlation	Significance	Number of Basic Elements
person	responsible*	0.91855866	0.0001742	1
activities	responsible*	0.875	0.0009160
contribute	talent*	0.80178374	0.005276108	2
great	talent*	0.80178374	0.005276108
organisation	talent*	0.7581754	0.011042308
courses	training	0.67311823	0.032901112	3
external	training	0.67311823	0.032901112
planning	succession	0.7170016	0.019610265	4
preparation	succession	0.7170016	0.019610265
retirement	succession	0.7170016	0.019610265
atmosphere	inclusion	−0.80178374	0.005276108	5
employees	ethics	0.8728716	0.0009774
cheat	ethics	−0.80178374	0.005276108	6
effective	management	0.91287094	0.0002267
company	effective*	0.91287094	0.0002267	7
customers	effective*	0.91287094	0.0002267
future	plan*	0.6666667	0.035265204	8
business	change	−0.7581754	0.011042308	9
asset	decisions	0.7717436	0.0089223
business	decisions	0.7717436	0.0089223	10
clear	environment	0.86075336	0.0013856
disruption	environment	−0.636209	0.047983024	11
decision	environment	−0.6859943	0.028509213	12
corporate	CSR	0.7170016	0.019610265
activities	initiatives	0.8728716	0.0009774
clubs	initiatives	0.8728716	0.0009774
community	initiatives	0.8728716	0.0009774
communication	stakeholders	1	0	13
consultation	stakeholders	1	0
external	stakeholders	1	0
internal	stakeholders	1	0
clients	relations	1	0
customers	relations	1	0
change	vision	0.6666667	0.035265204	14
difficult	vision	0.6666667	0.035265204

Source: own construction.

and

Table 10. Significant relationships between the basic elements of the Honeybee pyramid based on Hungarian responses.

Term 1	Term 2	Correlation	Significance	Number of Basic Elements
autocratic	decision	0.74535596	0.013349064	1
consensus	decision	0.74535596	0.013349064
company	talent	0.8760376	0.0008872	2
needed	talent	0.8760376	0.0008872
managers	talent	0.83642834	0.002558084
retain	talent	0.6469966	0.04317673
management	training	0.720831	0.01866544	3
leader	training	0.68265617	0.029606856
leadership	training	0.6396443	0.04641559
outside	succession	0.81483537	0.0040860	4
plan	succession	0.81483537	0.013349064
students	succession	0.74535596	0.013349064
colleagues	succession	0.6741999	0.0325156
employees	respect	0.6446584	0.044189803	5
important	inclusion	0.6784005	0.0325156
code	ethics	0.8138853	0.044189803	6
behaviour	ethical	0.94216835	0.031047495
conduct	ethical	0.6621222	0.036997795
good	governance	0.81483537	0.0040860	7
development	plans	0.6882472	0.027784351	8
operational	plans	0.6882472	0.027784351
annual	plans	0.64491695	0.044077005
long	term	0.6803215	0.03039141
plans	term	0.6372472	0.04750565
changes	external	0.6517949	0.041146867	9
expert	external	0.64082843	0.045883335
course	environment	0.72374684	0.017967487	10
disturbances	environment	0.6741999	0.0325156
disturbances	external	0.7853137	0.007107138
depends	external	0.77222425	0.008853004
biological	programme*	0.80178374	0.005276108	11
plastic	programme*	0.80178374	0.005276108
donations	programme*	0.7581754	0.011042308
activity	social	1	0	12
positive	social	1	0
external	internal	0.77272725	0.008780832	13
customers	internal	0.7035265	0.02319784
environment	important	0.89553344	0.0004585
employees	goals	0.8797065	0.0007903
competitors	goals	0.7892052	0.006639188	14
customer	goals	0.7892052	0.006639188
responsibility	results	0.6666667	0.035265204
planning	responsible*	1	0
manager	responsible*	0.6666667	0.035265204

Source: own construction.

) show the significant relationships and the number of basic elements analysed (p < 0.05).

The results show that there are significant differences between the two nations in all basic elements. These significant relationships are associated with different terms. This shows that managers from the two nations think differently, attaching importance to different characteristics with respect to the requirements of the same coded core element. They have a different set of skills and competencies. Based on these results, we consider the first hypothesis to be confirmed.

The second hypothesis states that ‘The expectations of the sustainable leadership pyramid are not fully met in any nation, but the emphasis is different’.

To verify this hypothesis, the ‘topic’ unit of analysis of the programme was used. The responses to our questions that pertained to all of the elements of the pyramid were analysed first, followed by the responses to our questions that specifically related to sustainability.

During the analysis, the corpus text is segmented by the program. It forms text groups based on the content of the sentences that contain coherent opinions. In this way, it provides a clear overview of what the text is saying, i.e., the text’s substance, and compares the thinking of respondents in the two nations. Figure 7 and Figure 8 below show the results of the analysis of the full corpus, followed by the results of the responses to the sustainability questions. In both cases, the Hungarian and Polish responses are shown below each other on the basis of 10 characteristics, where the different colours represent the weight of the responses in relation to each other. The key terms have been named based on what the segments generated by the program say, which allows for a comparison of the responses from the managers representing the two nations under study.

Although the key terms used in the two analyses are different (generated from the content of the responses), in some cases, identical terms have been assigned to content that bears similarities. These include development, motivation, and human environment.

In both cases, the Polish respondents’ opinion on ‘development’ is dominant. It was mentioned more often not only in relation to sustainability, but was also an important term for them in summarising all questions.

Polish leaders also considered the environment, especially the ‘human environment’, to be more important. This difference is reflected in both comparisons. This difference becomes even more pronounced when comparing the core elements of the Honeybee pyramid, because not only the human environment but also other issues related to the environment are brought to the fore. When comparing the issue of sustainability, the Poles highlighted the importance of communication and growth significantly more frequently in their responses. This is reflected in the comparison of the whole corpus, as business protection is also a priority for them. This thinking is also confirmed by their emphasis on ethics–CSR and their openness to change.

Regarding the Hungarian respondents, the articulation of one’s vision and value judgements focusing on human resources were found to be more important in relation to sustainability. This is evidenced by terms such as satisfaction, health, motivation, and training for development. The last two are also dominant in the comparison of the whole corpus. Overall, Hungarian managers mentioned sustainability more frequently in their responses. Regarding the corpus comparing the core elements of Honeybee, in addition to motivation and training, competitiveness and talent management are also more important for Hungarian managers. Looking at all of the differences, it appears that Hungarian managers’ preference for sustainability is associated with competitiveness and the emphasis on human resources that foster it. For Polish managers, development is ensured by changes in the context of environmental conditions, protection of the business, ethics, and appropriate communication.

Sustainability is of the utmost importance as the final step in the pyramid. Therefore, in addition to comparing the different elements, it is worth looking at the respondents’ views on the possibility of achieving the final step in the pyramid from several perspectives.

A diagram depicting the most common terms used by respondents and a network of their relationships can be seen in Figure 9.

Not only is there a difference between the terms used but there is also a difference in the relationships between the same words. The differences in the results are also reflected in the correlation between terms. The term sustainability shows a strong significant relationship with the terms development, company, and concept for Polish respondents (

Table 11. Terms with a significant relationships with the term sustainability (Polish sample).

Term 1	Term 2	Correlation	Significance
development	sustainability	0.72019315	0.018820578
company	sustainability	0.75817543	0.011042304
concept	sustainability	0.75817543	0.011042304

Source: own construction.

).

In the responses of Hungarian managers, the terms environment and activity have a strong significant relationship with the term sustainability (

Table 12. Terms with a significant relationship with the term sustainability (Hungarian sample).

Term 1	Term 2	Correlation	Significance
environment	sustainability	0.9263671	0.0001175
activity	sustainability	0.7579367	0.011082485

Source: own construction.

).

Figure 10 below illustrates the results of our t-SNE analysis; the results are presented based on the most frequently occurring terms for the two nations (the top chart pertains to the Polish sample, while the bottom chart pertains to the Hungarian sample).

In both cases, the t-SNE (t-distributed stochastic neighbour embedding) [62,64] statistical method was used to test the relatedness of the terms used in the responses. Several clustering algorithms, such as connectivity-, centroid-, graph-, distributional-, and density-based models, are known. All of them have a common denominator: the goal of clustering data based on the properties of the data. Most clustering techniques are not very successful in representing real, high-dimensional data. Most techniques fail to retain the local and global structure of the data in a single map. The t-SNE method is based on approximating the distribution of the pairwise spacing of words in a multidimensional space by placing them in a two- or three-dimensional space while maintaining the original ratio of the distances between elements. This makes it easy to see how the words are organised and follow and measure differences in meaning. During the visualisation process, the words in the different clusters were displayed in different colours. In the resulting diagram, the distances between the clusters are also clearly visible [65]. This statistical method is able to capture the nonlinear relationships underlying the structure. It is used when we want to gain an idea of the internal structuring of a set of words, which is important information in this case. The definition of parameters is important for the correct execution of the procedure. For the choice of the parameterization, we followed the recommendations of Wattenberg and colleagues [63], thus eliminating possible biases. Three ‘clusters’ were obtained. For Polish respondents, the first one includes the terms sustainability, maintenance, development, dominant, which form a close structure; the second one includes adjectives of negligible importance, although the most prominent adjective ‘important’ is also included; and the third includes terms reflecting less positive thinking, such as propaganda, understanding, regulation.

For Hungarian respondents, the first ‘cluster’ includes terms such as sustainable, organisation, people, expand; the second associates sustainability with elements that are necessary for its implementation, namely, programme, communication, motivation, satisfaction, training, balance, staff; and the third links measurement, use, and important terms (see colours). Figure 11 illustrates the frequency of the terms used.

The upper part of Figure 11 pertain to the Polish sample, and the lower part of the figure pertains to the Hungarian respondents. The difference in thinking can be seen not only in the pattern but also in the terms used. The term sustainability was used much more often by the Poles; for them, the achievement of this expected organisational characteristic is less of a future goal. The term important was used frequently in both cases, but while the Poles emphasised understanding in relation to development, the Hungarians associated it with measuring organisational performance and the use of human resources. From what was said, it seems that the Hungarians are a little further along this path. Polish leaders are still struggling with adoption, while Hungarian leaders are already thinking about the conditions for implementation. This result can be identified by following the basic elements of the Honeybee pyramid. The results summarised in Table 6 illustrate the level of implementation of each element, indicating the difference between the thinking and styles of the managers belonging to the two nations. The fourth hypothesis is supported by the finding that neither of the two nations fully meets the expectations set out in the elements of the pyramid. Following the results used in the verification of the previous three hypotheses and the diagrams presented here, the fourth hypothesis can also be considered valid.

4. Discussion

The results of this research study could have unique consequences for the literature and practice. In our review of previous research studies, we did not find any studies that have taken a similar approach to our study, i.e., following the logic of the Honeybee pyramid and/or analysing its elements. As mentioned in our literature review, many of the studies that have been carried out pertain to educational institutions and therefore have a different focus [49,50]. The analytical logic of the studies on SMEs was based on a different way of thinking and responses from managers of organisations that the researchers assumed were already operating according to sustainability principles regarding their own practices [54,59]. Like our results, these studies revealed a number of gaps.

In his comprehensive literature review, Liao [20] confirms our finding that most research on sustainable leadership is related to the field of education, mainly through qualitative studies. Fewer publications have appeared in the field of business management, which mainly consists of quantitative studies. A questionnaire survey by Suriyankietkaew and Avery [66] investigated the impact of SL practices on financial performance and other business outcomes in Thai SMEs. Their results showed that 16 out of 23 SL practices were significantly associated with firm financial performance. These results represent a higher level of performance than our results, and their results are markedly better in that social responsibility and a strong shared vision are significant drivers and positive predictors of long-term corporate performance. These elements were not prominent in our study on management practices.

Moursellas and colleagues [67] interviewed SME managers in four advanced European economies and presented case studies to illustrate the application of sustainability principles. Their study focused more on the sustainable functioning of the organisations. Leadership decisions were strongly driven by support for sustainability and translated into dynamic actions. In a similar vein, much of the previous research on sustainable management has looked at financial performance, efficiency, and performance in the context of sustainable management. Neither of these studies provide outstanding positive or negative results. Kalkavan [58] and Suriyankietkaew and colleagues [5] also concluded that the expectations of sustainable leadership were only partially met by the managers in their studies.

Overall, our results are in line with that of Bulmer et al. [59]. The majority of the managers surveyed show a serious failure to meet the requirements of sustainable leadership.

The present research sought to explore whether and to what extent managers are aware of and use the leadership competences required by the elements of the Honeybee pyramid. It can be seen that the thinking of Avery and Bergsteiner [10] is significantly ahead of common leadership practice. Neither Asian nor European practice can deliver the requirements to fully meet the expectations. There are elements (mainly requirements that are consistent with traditional management practice) that are naturally identifiable. However, in most cases, the subtleties that make sustainable management thinking different from all of its predecessors are mostly missing. The results of our study are summarised in

Table 13. Implementation of the leadership competences for sustainable leadership in practice.

Required Competences, Leadership Attitude	Criteria for the Elements of a Sustainable Leadership Pyramid	Elements of a Sustainable Leadership Pyramid in Practice
Responsibility	Influencing decisions, CSR, environmental and volunteering programmes	It is typically poor, especially in relation to environmental protection, voluntary programmes.
Adaptation to change	Frequency of changes, preparedness	Hungarian managers are more prepared; Poles are not flexible and open enough.
Continuous improvement	Provision of regular training, development opportunities	Hungarian managers are more supportive of their colleagues and their own development than Polish managers.
Collaboration, openness	Management and staff commitment	Management commitment is evident across the board, but there are gaps in staff areas.
Sensitivity	Characteristics of trust building	Everywhere seen as important, but problems exist in both nations, with reservations about thinking and behaviour.
Teamwork, cooperation	Teamwork, knowledge sharing in the organisation	This is the most widely accepted and practised expectation.
Growth orientation	Talent management in the organisation, succession programme	Gaps exist in both nations.
Customer focus	Consideration of the interests of internal and external stakeholders	Unbalanced with more focus on internal relevance and a strong human focus for Poles.
Value-based leadership	Ethical principles, ethical leadership	Considered important as a core value but lacking in practical implementation.
Transparency	Characterisation of own leadership style	In both cases, the managers are correct and come close to meeting the expectations.
Innovation	Innovation in the organisation at a higher level	Hungarian practice is ahead of Polish practice, where they tend to stick to tradition or good practice.
Role model	Self-management, intrinsic motivation	Intrinsic motivational factors include work, family, money, and career; self-management is not important.
Long-term thinking	Vision in everyday life, involvement, organisational vision	Often prevalent in Hungarians; Poles do not consider it important, and it is not typically implemented.

Source: own construction.

, taking into account the fulfilment of the leadership competences formulated in Table 3.

Overall, it is a major challenge for managers to move away from the traditional profit-oriented mindset, and in many cases, they would need training to fully understand the essence of this management style.

5. Conclusions

Meeting the requirements of sustainability is not an easy task for the managers of organisations. SMEs are in a particularly difficult situation as, in many cases, they have to make decisions that have an effect on the livelihoods of their own families or immediate environment and, at the same time, on their future survival. It must be accepted that the requirements must be met in both directions if we are to consider the survival of societies in a broader sense. There are many gaps that need to be closed worldwide in order to achieve small but significant changes in cooperation with market economy participants. The present research study offers a small glimpse into the management practices of two Central and Eastern European countries, though they fall far short of the requirements formulated years ago by forward-thinking researchers. In order to facilitate a shift in the right direction, much broader campaigns, more information, and greater education is needed to convey the message that is clearly set out in the logic of sustainable management. Our research is a small step along this path, as we have already, through the interviews, drawn the attention of managers to the need to rethink their management practices. The results of our research could serve as a mirror for all other practitioners to reassess their own beliefs and possible routines.

Our research makes a theoretical contribution to the existing literature regarding SMEs and complements the results of studies on leadership styles. No examples of the application of Honeybee logic were found in the literature in any of the fields. Thus, our research is novel in these areas.

On the practical side, the results are useful for current managers and future managers. They can review the requirements of sustainability leadership and evaluate their own practice. It is constructive for managers to identify their organisation and their own shortcomings and how to remedy them. They can draw conclusions and formulate training plans that can help them to catch up. Our results will hopefully help guide management decisions and support the implementation of the necessary initial or higher-level management initiatives. It is recommended that managers understand the theoretical background of the research in more detail and review the steps and elements of the pyramid and compare them with their own organisation’s practices. This will provide a basis for further decisions.

Limitations of the Research

As with all research, the most critical phase is sampling and access to data. Gathering a sufficient number of responses is always a challenge. This was the case here. In many cases, we received a negative response from the managers we approached, citing either a lack of time or busyness. Another problem is the relevance of the responses. This problem cannot be avoided in interviews. Subjectivity always plays a role. Honesty is risky, especially when it comes to judging one’s own values and behaviour. There may also be a problem of choosing the right methodology and ensuring that it is suitable for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. All evaluation methods, including the ‘Voyant Tools’ application we used, have limitations. For more in-depth studies, it may be necessary to use additional methods of analysis that provide a more accurate picture, both statistically and numerically.

Regarding future research directions, we will seek to recruit more interviewees and expand the current database. We also plan to include more Central and Eastern European countries in our research. Further levels of the Honeybee pyramid are being analysed on the basis of the current database.