Leadership for a Sustainable Future: Insights from Civil Engineering and Architectural Professionals

Abstract

This study explores the extent to which civil engineers and architects in Spain perceive sustainable leadership practices in their organizations. The main aim is to understand how leadership approaches in the built environment sector can be aligned with long-term, ethical, and stakeholder-focused principles. A total of 200 middle and senior managers participated in a survey that used a Likert-scale questionnaire that was designed to assess key elements of sustainable leadership; the various responses were analyzed in order to determine the prevalence of Honeybee-type (sustainable) versus Locust-type (short-term, exploitative) leadership traits. The findings showed that while participants generally endorse sustainable leadership values, especially regarding environmental responsibility and employee well-being, many organizations still exhibit practices associated with short-term priorities, fragmented communication, and resistance to innovation. A hybrid leadership approach seems to be quite common, considering that it combines sustainable intentions with structural or cultural barriers that limit full implementation. This study contributes to the sustainable leadership literature by providing sector-specific insights from civil engineering and architecture; it also suggests the need for organizational strategies that might strengthen internal communication, prioritize workforce development and facilitate a cultural shift toward sustainability. All the findings have serious practical implications for leadership development and for human resource practices in high-pressure technical fields.

1. Introduction

Among accelerating environmental degradation and the demands of fast urban expansion, there are many disciplines in civil engineering and architecture that are undergoing significant transformation. As the principal designers of the built environment and infrastructure, professionals in these fields tend to bear an extremely important responsibility in addressing the urgent challenges related to sustainability; in fact, their choices can extend well beyond structural form and function and profoundly affect societal well-being, economic sustainability, and environmental integrity. In response to these emerging pressures, the concept of sustainable leadership has become extremely important, and is becoming an essential quality for the professionals navigating this evolving landscape (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011).

1.1. Sustainable Leadership

Sustainable leadership in architecture and in civil engineering is widely regarded as an extremely important key strategy to combat environmental depletion and inefficient resource use. This kind of leadership model tends to emphasize the integration of sustainability principles into each and every phase of the built environment’s lifecycle, starting from design and construction to long-term management, ensuring that present-day needs are fulfilled without undermining the prospects of future generations. The following sections of this study will explore the historical development of this concept, the role of education in cultivating sustainability-focused leaders, and the various ethical and professional obligations that underpin leadership in these complex domains.

More than technical expertise or the ability to effectively complete projects, sustainable leadership opens up a comprehensive, systems-oriented perspective, considering that it promotes a balance between environmental responsibility, ethical governance, social inclusivity and economic resilience (Bragança et al., 2010). In fact, leaders in this space must navigate the intricacies of stakeholder expectations while taking care of policy regulations, financial limitations, and ecological impacts—and also advocating for forward-thinking and adaptive solutions (Fellows & Liu, 2020).

Sustainable leadership is strongly grounded in values such as innovation, collaboration and accountability. Civil engineers and architects who embody these principles are more prone to advocate for environmentally friendly materials and low-impact construction methods and also for cultural and organizational changes that can prioritize sustainability (Doppelt, 2017). Their approaches tend to include lifecycle thinking; inclusive and equitable design; strategies for climate adaptation; and pursuing reductions in emissions and improvements in everyone’s quality of life. In doing so, they attempt to establish a new norm of leadership that aligns societal advancement with environmental thresholds (Rockström et al., 2009).

In today’s professional context, embedding sustainability into leadership is no longer discretionary—it is a necessity. Increasingly, academic institutions, regulatory bodies, and industry leaders are defining sustainability as a standard measure of success. The demand for innovative, resilient, and environmentally conscious infrastructure from clients and communities alike is compelling professionals to adopt more progressive leadership practices (Jones, 2014). With this in mind, architects and engineers must cultivate a leadership mindset that not only meets these expectations but also influences broader transformation within the sector. It is a paradigm shift that reflects a growing awareness of the interconnectedness between people, ecosystems, and the built environment; as a result, civil engineers and architects are being called upon to serve as visionary leaders—able to steer interdisciplinary teams, inform policy, and remain rooted in the realities of design and construction. Through long-term thinking, ethical commitment, and ongoing education, they are positioned to lead the transition toward a built environment that is both sustainable and equitable.

1.2. Sustainable Leadership in the Sectors of Civil Engineering and Architecture

While the theoretical foundations of sustainable leadership have been extensively explored across various sectors, empirical research focused specifically on its application within civil engineering and architecture remains comparatively limited. Nevertheless, a growing body of studies has begun to highlight the critical role of leadership in advancing sustainability outcomes throughout the lifecycle of construction and design projects. The literature increasingly underscores that leadership in these sectors is not only a managerial function but a strategic enabler of long-term environmental, social, and organizational performance.

For example, Zuo et al. (2012), in a case-based investigation of sustainable construction practices in Australia, found that leadership commitment significantly enhanced resource efficiency, stakeholder engagement, and environmental performance. Their findings underscore the importance of integrating leadership values into the early phases of project development to ensure that sustainability is embedded not only in design but also in execution. These insights are particularly relevant in civil engineering, where the interplay of technical, economic, and environmental factors requires leadership approaches that are systemic, adaptive, and ethically grounded.

Pereira and Barros (2018), while studying Portuguese architectural firms, demonstrated that sustainable leadership in architecture goes beyond the endorsement of green technologies; it also entails cultivating innovation, ethical accountability, and participatory decision-making cultures. The roles of the leaders in these contexts were perceived both as technical authorities and as facilitators of transformation who are responsible for shaping organizational cultures aligned with environmental and social responsibility. Their findings strongly resonate with the Honeybee leadership principles proposed by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011), particularly regarding trust, team orientation, and long-term thinking. Similarly, Bodenschatz et al. (2021), in a comparative study of firms in Germany and the UK, discovered that sustainable leadership is more evident in areas such as project procurement, firm governance and interdisciplinary collaboration; its effectiveness is strongly conditioned by local regulatory and cultural settings. It is an insight that underscores the need for geographic specificity when studying sustainability-oriented leadership, specifically in underrepresented contexts such as southern Europe.

Beyond academic studies, it should be noted that professional organizations and industry bodies have also emphasized the necessity of sustainable leadership within engineering and architecture. Reports by the (World Green Building Council (WGBC), n.d.) emphasize the importance of project leaders in achieving climate-resilient infrastructure and minimizing environmental footprints. WGBC’s “Leadership in Green Building” initiatives advocate for leadership frameworks that integrate systems thinking, ethical foresight, and long-term stakeholder engagement. Likewise, the (Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), n.d.) has incorporated sustainability into its code of conduct and educational accreditation standards going forward, institutionalizing leadership expectations that extend beyond technical competence including environmental ethics, collaboration, and visionary thinking.

Despite these advances, a notable research gap persists. There remains a lack of context-sensitive, empirically grounded analyses of how professionals in civil engineering and architecture understand and implement sustainable leadership practices in Spain. Much of the existing research has been concentrated in Anglo-Saxon or northern European countries, where institutional, cultural, and regulatory frameworks differ considerably. As Pereira and Barros (2018) suggested in their study of the Portuguese context, southern European professional cultures may require tailored leadership models that are responsive to their distinct socio-economic and institutional landscapes. Given the project-based, interdisciplinary nature of architectural and engineering work, and the often fragmented nature of Spanish construction firms, a deeper understanding of how leadership for sustainability is interpreted and applied in this context is both timely and necessary.

This study tries to address this gap by empirically applying Avery and Bergsteiner’s Honeybee and Locust leadership framework (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011) to a sample of Spanish civil engineers and architects. In doing so, it aims to generate evidence-based insights into the ways in which sustainable leadership principles are operationalized, challenged, and transformed within Spanish professional practice. By situating this analysis within a localized cultural and regulatory context, the study is able to contribute to the ongoing refinement of sustainable leadership theory while offering practical implications for leadership development in Spain’s architecture and engineering sectors. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that leadership development in the built environment remains an evolving challenge. As Rubin (2002) noted, cultivating effective leadership is a long-term process, often at odds with the immediate demands of project delivery. A common pattern, often referred to as the “halo effect,” involves the promotion of technically skilled professionals into leadership roles for which they may not be adequately prepared in terms of people management, strategic visioning, or ethical decision-making. It is a misalignment that underscores the pressing need for more intentional leadership development pathways, including formal training, mentoring, and succession planning that explicitly incorporate sustainability competencies. Addressing these gaps will be incredibly important for advancing the profession and also ensuring that the built environment responds effectively to the broader challenges of climate change, social equity, and economic resilience.

1.3. Avery and Bergsteiner’s Sustainable Leadership Model

Avery and Bergsteiner (2011) conceptualize sustainable leadership through the organizational alignment of values, practices, and processes (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011). Their model emphasizes how leadership can embed sustainability into the culture and structure of an organization. Although their research spans various industries, much of the foundational work on sustainable leadership has emerged from the education sector. For instance, the framework developed by Hargreaves and Fink (2006) in educational leadership has been influential, highlighting how sustainable leadership supports the long-term development of learning organizations (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Davies (2007) and Lambert (2011) further built on this model, proposing organizational strategies for nurturing sustainable leadership in schools across the United Kingdom and the United States (Lambert, 2011; Davies, 2007).

Lambert (2011) argues that effective sustainable leadership requires commitment from all levels of an organization to cultivate a culture that supports the growth and development of future leaders. It is a perspective that aligns closely with contemporary thinking in professional fields, such as engineering and architecture, where succession planning and institutional learning are increasingly recognized as the main components of sustainable practice (Lambert, 2011).

Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) sustainability framework introduces two archetypal models of organizational leadership: Locust leadership and Honeybee leadership. The former is driven by short-term profit maximization, often at the expense of environmental and social wellbeing. In contrast, the Honeybee leadership model aims to generate value for a wide range of stakeholders, encompassing environmental considerations and community interests. It is a model that advocates for a long-term vision and the integration of sustainability into the organization’s core mission and operations (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011).

According to Avery and Bergsteiner (2011), organizations that adopt a Honeybee-style leadership approach are more resilient in the face of economic crises, global competition, and unforeseen disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the demonstrated long-term benefits of the Honeybee model, many companies continue to adhere to the traditional, profit-driven Locust model, or employ a hybrid approach that incorporates elements of both (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011).

Figure 1 presents the Sustainable Leadership Model conceptualized by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011), which serves as a theoretical construct delineating how organizations may attain enduring sustainability through leadership paradigms that emphasize human capital, procedural integrity, and core values rather than short-term profitability. The framework is hierarchically organized into three principal strata: foundational practices, advanced leadership practices, and key performance enablers. Each contribute to the overarching goal of sustainable organizational performance.

At the base of the model are the 14 foundation practices, which represent essential organizational actions and cultural elements that support higher-order leadership behaviors. These practices—such as long-term orientation, staff development, stakeholder focus, and ethical behavior—form the groundwork for creating a sustainable and resilient organization. Although the specific practices are not labeled in the figure, they are crucial for embedding sustainable values throughout the organization.

Above these, the high-level practices encompass six key leadership domains: intrinsic motivation; self-management; team orientation; enabling culture; knowledge sharing and retention; and trust. These elements describe the human and relational capabilities that sustainable leaders foster within their teams and organizations. They emphasize empowering employees, cultivating a collaborative and transparent environment, and building internal systems that support learning and engagement. The key performance drivers—innovation, self-engagement, and quality—are the outcomes of an effective foundation and high-level practices. They are essential capabilities that drive superior and sustainable organizational performance. These drivers are not ends in themselves but mechanisms through which sustainability is achieved.

Together, these categories offered a comprehensive lens through which to evaluate how sustainability principles are integrated into leadership practices within engineering and architectural firms. The responses collected provide valuable insights into the extent to which sustainable leadership is being internalized and operationalized by professionals working in the Spanish built environment sector. The full list of the 46 questions from Part II of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.

2. Purpose of Study

The primary objective of this study is to assess how sustainable leadership practices are perceived and enacted by civil engineers and architects in Spain. Guided by Avery and Bergsteiner’s Honeybee and Locust sustainable leadership model (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011), which serves as the conceptual framework, the research seeks to explore the applicability of this model within the Spanish context of the built environment professions. While the Honeybee approach to leadership has gained growing attention in recent years for its emphasis on long-term value creation, stakeholder inclusion, and sustainability, its relevance to the architectural and engineering sectors in Spain remains underexplored. Accordingly, the central research question driving this study is: “To what extent do civil engineers and architects in Spain perceive sustainable leadership practices in their organizations as aligned with the principles of the Honeybee model?”

More specifically, two research sub-questions were analyzed:

• What specific organizational practices do civil engineers and architects in Spain identify as reflecting the core principles of the Honeybee leadership model (e.g., long-term thinking, stakeholder engagement, ethical decision-making)?
• What barriers do professionals in the architecture and civil engineering sectors perceive as hindering the implementation of Honeybee-aligned sustainable leadership practices in their organizations?

To address these questions, the study employs a quantitative research design, drawing on data collected from a sample of 200 professionals. Civil engineers and architects were selected as the focal professional group in this study due to the distinctive characteristics of their work, which make them particularly relevant for investigating sustainable leadership through the lens of Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) Honeybee model. These professionals operate within project-based, interdisciplinary environments characterized by temporal discontinuity, fluid team structures, and evolving stakeholder dynamics. Unlike managerial roles in more bureaucratic or standardized sectors, leadership in the architecture and civil engineering fields is typically enacted through professional expertise, collaboration, and adaptive problem-solving, rather than fixed hierarchical authority.

In addition, these professionals exercise a high level of decision-making autonomy and are directly responsible for the environmental and social impacts of the projects they oversee. Their decisions often involve complex trade-offs between technical feasibility, regulatory compliance, cost-efficiency, and sustainability objectives. As such, civil engineers and architects function as critical gatekeepers of sustainable development; their leadership practices have far-reaching implications for both organizational performance and societal well-being.

These characteristics align closely with the core tenets of the Honeybee leadership model—particularly its emphasis on long-term thinking, stakeholder inclusion, systems orientation, and employee development. By applying a generalized conceptual framework, such as the Honeybee model, to a profession-specific context with high environmental stakes and complex decision-making structures, this study provides an opportunity to critically assess the model’s contextual validity and practical applicability. Importantly, this research makes an innovative contribution to the sustainable leadership literature in several ways. First, it introduces a theoretical framework that has rarely been applied in technical, project-driven professions, thereby addressing a significant gap in existing scholarship. Second, it extends sustainable leadership discourse into a sector where leadership is often informal, distributed, and embedded in expert-based authority, rather than in conventional managerial hierarchies. Third, by focusing on professions with direct and measurable environmental impacts, the study bridges the divide between abstract leadership ideals and tangible sustainability outcomes.

Furthermore, the study offers insights into prevailing leadership styles and examines whether these align with the Honeybee model, the Locust model, or a combination of both, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of sustainable leadership within the Spanish built environment sector. Moreover, civil engineers and architects represent a highly relevant and distinctive professional group to study sustainable leadership due to the complex and interdisciplinary nature of their roles. Unlike other white-collar sectors that may operate within more standardized and hierarchical frameworks, these professionals often work within dynamic, project-based environments that demand both technical precision and creative problem-solving. Their leadership is exercised across loosely structured teams, multi-stakeholder collaborations, and varying regulatory and cultural contexts, which makes their decision-making process inherently less codified and more context-dependent.

Despite the growing interest in sustainable leadership across various sectors, there remains a notable lack of empirical research examining how these leadership models are perceived and enacted within the fields of civil engineering and architecture in Spain. Many of the existing studies in the literature focus on educational, corporate, or public-sector contexts, often in Anglo-Saxon or globalized frameworks, with limited attention to the professional realities in southern European countries. Furthermore, while Avery and Bergsteiner’s Honeybee and Locust model (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011) has been widely cited as a conceptual benchmark, its direct application and relevance to the Spanish construction and design industries remain underexplored. This study addresses this gap by providing a contextualized analysis of sustainable leadership practices among Spanish architects and civil engineers, offering insights into how global models resonate—or fail to resonate—with local professional cultures. In doing so, the research contributes to both theoretical and practical knowledge by testing the applicability of a well-known model in a new geographic and sectoral context, and by highlighting specific patterns of leadership that may inform future education, policy, and organizational development within the built environment sector.

3. Materials and Methods

The methodological approach in this study is rooted in the conceptual framework developed by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011). Their model, which identifies 23 core practices of sustainable leadership, emphasizes a holistic and long-term perspective on organizational development. When implemented collectively and consistently, these practices are believed to enhance organizational performance, resilience, and stakeholder value over time. In order to empirically assess the applicability of this model within the civil engineering and architecture sectors, a mixed-methods research design was employed, integrating both qualitative insights and quantitative data analysis.

Empirical data were collected through a structured questionnaire, which was distributed to 200 civil engineers and architects located in Spain. The sampling method used was a non-probability purposive sampling technique. The invitations were sent to a targeted group of professionals across various organizations and regions in Spain, aiming to capture a diverse range of experiences and perspectives; however, due to the nature of the sampling method, the study does not claim to be fully representative of the broader professional community. The final response rate was approximately 13.3%, based on sending survey invitations to approximately 1500 professionals.

The sample, although valuable for exploring the perceptions of professionals working in the sector, may not fully reflect the entire diversity of the civil engineering and architecture fields, particularly in terms of organizational size, project type, and regional factors. While the sample is sufficient for exploratory analysis, it is important to acknowledge that generalizing the findings to all civil engineers and architects in Spain should be done with caution. The purposive sampling method was used due to its ability to focus on professionals with the most relevant experience. Future studies could benefit from expanding the sample size and considering alternative sampling strategies to improve generalizability.

The research comprised a 54-question survey adapted from Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) original sustainable leadership framework. Modifications were made to tailor the instrument to the specific context of this study, particularly with regard to the professional realities of the built environment sector. The survey was translated into Spanish to ensure clarity and accessibility for the target participants. The translation was carried out by a bilingual expert in both English and Spanish, ensuring that key terms and concepts were appropriately conveyed. To enhance the accuracy of the translation, the back-translation method was employed, in which a second bilingual individual translated the survey back into English, allowing for the identification and resolution of any discrepancies or misinterpretations in the translated version.

The questionnaire was divided into two main sections. Part I contained eight introductory questions aimed at gathering demographic and professional background information, including the participants’ years of experience, organizational role, and the types of projects typically undertaken. Part II of the questionnaire was composed of 46 items (included in Appendix A) specifically designed to assess the level of sustainable leadership exhibited within the organizations where respondents were employed. These items were systematically grouped into three overarching categories derived from Avery and Bergsteiner’s model, which is presented in the introduction of this article (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011).

This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design to explore perceptions of sustainable leadership among civil engineers and architects working in Spain. The design was chosen to allow for the collection of data at a single point in time, enabling the analysis of patterns and associations between professional roles and leadership perceptions grounded in the Honeybee and Locust model.

Data were collected between March 2023 and March 2024 using an online questionnaire developed through Google Forms. The survey link was distributed using multiple communication channels, including LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and professional associations. To be included in the study, participants were required to meet the following inclusion criteria:

• Be currently employed or actively working as a civil engineer or architect in Spain;
• Be willing to voluntarily participate and provide informed consent.

Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to completing the survey. At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were presented with a brief description of the study’s objectives, their rights as participants, and the voluntary nature of their involvement. Consent was given by checking an agreement box before proceeding to the survey questions. Participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time without consequences and that no identifying information would be collected. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, no names, email addresses, or identifying metadata were collected through the survey platform. Responses were recorded anonymously and stored securely on a password-protected drive accessible only to the principal investigators. All data were used exclusively for academic research purposes and were analyzed in aggregate form to avoid any individual identification. In compliance with the European Union GDPR, participants were also informed about how their data would be handled, stored, and protected, and that their information would be retained securely for a period of five years and then permanently deleted in accordance with institutional data management policies.

Each question was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, with the specific scale levels detailed in

Table 1. Survey question range level explanation.

Range Level	Explanation
1	I completely disagree
2	I disagree
3	I do not agree or disagree
4	I agree
5	I completely disagree

below. The use of a 5-point Likert scale in this study was justified by its widespread acceptance as a reliable and effective tool for measuring attitudes, perceptions, and self-reported behaviors in organizational and leadership research (Joshi et al., 2015); Likert scales are particularly well-suited for assessing complex constructs, such as sustainable leadership, as they enable respondents to express varying degrees of agreement or disagreement with specific practices aligned with theoretical frameworks like the Honeybee and Locust model. Previous studies exploring leadership models have successfully employed similar Likert-based instruments to capture nuanced insights across different contexts (e.g., Kalkavan, 2015), indicating their applicability and adaptability. While the scale itself does not validate the construct, it offers a consistent measurement format that can be complemented with internal consistency checks—such as Cronbach’s alpha—to assess reliability. In this study, careful attention was given to item formulation and alignment with Avery and Bergsteiner’s principles (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011), enhancing content validity. To assure content validity, the survey questions were adapted from the study by Kalkavan (2015), which already used Avery and Bergsteiner’s sustainable leadership framework (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011). This adaptation ensured that the content was relevant to the built environment sector and aligned with the constructs being assessed.

For the quantitative analysis, responses from the 46 items in Part II were processed. For each participant, a composite score for both leadership styles was calculated. It was achieved by summing the Likert-scale values (from 1 to 5) for all items corresponding to a specific leadership style and the total sum was then converted into a percentage of the maximum possible score for that style, allowing for standardized comparison. This study treats these percentage scores as continuous variables to explore the spectrum of leadership practices; rather than establishing definitive pre-set cut-off points for “high” or “low” values, the analysis focuses on the distribution and relationship between the two scores, as visualized in the scatter plot in the Results section. This approach allows for the identification of hybrid leadership profiles, where elements of both models coexist, which is a central theme of the analysis. Following data collection, responses were analyzed to determine the prevalence of Honeybee and Locust leadership characteristics among the participants; for each participant, the degree of Honeybee and Locust leadership was quantified as a percentage based on their responses to the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, which include histograms, were used to visualize the distribution of Honeybee and Locust leadership scores. Furthermore, a scatter plot was generated to explore the relationship between individual Honeybee and Locust leadership tendencies. The distribution of responses across the Likert scale for both leadership types was examined using stacked bar charts. Finally, boxplots were employed to compare Honeybee and Locust leadership scores by gender and by experience. The findings derived from this quantitative analysis are presented in detail in Section 4. To explore whether leadership perceptions differ by years of professional experience, a one-way ANOVA was conducted comparing Honeybee and Locust leadership scores across three experience categories: junior (0–4 years), middle (5–9 years), and senior (10+ years). Additionally, a two-way ANOVA analysis was performed to investigate the combined effect of gender and professional experience on leadership scores.

These analyses collectively aimed to identify the degree to which sustainable leadership, framed by the Honeybee and Locust models, is commonly practiced among civil engineers and architects in Spain and how their perceptions align with these distinct leadership archetypes. Statistical analyses were conducted using R (Version RStudio 2023.03.1).

A descriptive analytical approach was selected for this study due to its exploratory nature.

The primary aim was to map and visualize the prevalence of sustainable leadership perceptions in a professional context where empirical data are scarce. Accordingly, descriptive statistics—including histograms, scatter plots, stacked bar charts, and boxplots—were chosen as the most effective methods for illustrating the distribution, central tendencies, and coexistence of Honeybee and Locust leadership traits. This visual approach is particularly advantageous for addressing the research question, as it provides a clear, intuitive representation of how these two leadership models manifest and interact within the sample, revealing the hybrid patterns suggested by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011).

While inferential statistical analyses, such as correlation tests or t-tests, were considered, the descriptive focus was deemed more appropriate for a foundational study of this kind; the intention was not to test causal hypotheses but rather to provide a rich, contextualized snapshot of leadership styles. It is an approach that establishes a baseline understanding upon which future inferential research can be built. All statistical analyses and data visualizations were performed using R. Therefore, inferential statistics were not applied, as the study did not aim to generalize findings to a broader population or to test specific relationships between variables, but rather to explore the perceived prevalence and interaction of leadership models among a defined professional group. This choice aligns with the exploratory nature of the research and the goal of generating insights that can inform more targeted, hypothesis-driven studies in the future.

This study was conducted in accordance with established ethical guidelines for social science research and complied with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, particularly regarding voluntary participation, informed consent, and the protection of personal data.

4. Results

The main target of this study was to identify the degree of sustainable leadership commonly practiced among civil engineers and architects in Spain. Avery and Bergsteiner’s Honeybee and Locust sustainable leadership was used as a framework to describe the level of leadership among architects and civil engineers in Spain.

The results from the first part of the survey, which aimed to analyze the interviewees ‘profile’, demonstrated that among the 200 respondents, 66.3% identified as male and 33.7% as female, indicating a predominance of male participants. Furthermore, the civil engineers and architects interviewed had very varied professional experience, ranging from no experience to more than 40 years’ experience. However, most respondents had between 3 and 13 years of professional experience. The respondents work across a wide range of organizations, including architectural studios, construction companies, real estate developers, specialized consultancies (BIM, environmental, mobility, Lean, ESG), public entities (municipalities, ministries, ADIF), and multinational infrastructure and service firms. Their activities span from architectural design and site management to the development of energy projects, railway infrastructure, environmental certifications, and circular asset reuse strategies. The diversity of professional profiles and areas of focus reveal a highly multidisciplinary ecosystem characterized by cross-sector collaboration, technical innovation, and an increasing commitment to sustainability.

The results received from the second part of the survey focused on evaluating the extent and implementation of each component within Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) contextual model of sustainable leadership and represent the findings from the quantitative analysis of participants’ responses to the Honeybee and Locust leadership questionnaire. The results highlight patterns in leadership tendencies, the relationship between Honeybee and Locust traits, and differences across gender, providing insights into how sustainable leadership is perceived and practiced within the professions.

This scatter plot below (Figure 2) compares Honeybee leadership (%) and Locust leadership (%) for each of the 200 interviewees. It reveals that most data points are concentrated in the range of high Honeybee leadership (60–90%) and moderate Locust leadership (20–60%), indicating that many organizations tend to adopt sustainable leadership practices while still displaying certain elements of short-term, unsustainable behavior (i.e., demonstrating Locust behavior). The weak inverse correlation between the two leadership styles suggests that, rather than being mutually exclusive, some leaders incorporate aspects of both approaches to varying extents. This reflects what Avery and Bergsteiner (2011) describe as a hybrid leadership approach, where organizations operate along a continuum rather than strictly adhering to one model; in practice, many companies may strive toward the principles of the Honeybee models, such as long-term thinking, stakeholder focus, and employee development, while simultaneously relying on certain Locust-type behaviors in response to immediate operational pressures or market demands. This hybridization may represent a transitional phase for organizations moving toward sustainable leadership, or it may indicate a strategic blending of both philosophies depending on contextual constraints and organizational maturity.

The results illustrated in Figure 3 indicate a strong preference among civil engineers and architects for leadership practices that align with the Honeybee model of sustainable leadership, as conceptualized by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011). It is a model that emphasizes long-term thinking, ethical behavior, stakeholder engagement, and systemic responsibility—qualities that were consistently endorsed by most respondents through positive Likert-scale ratings. In contrast, statements associated with the Locust model, which reflect short-term profit maximization, hierarchical control, and limited stakeholder consideration, received substantially lower levels of agreement.

Moreover, the clear divergence in responses to the two models provides empirical support for the theoretical distinction between leadership styles. It aligns with previous research in other sectors showing that Honeybee-style leadership fosters stronger organizational culture, employee engagement, and long-term performance (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). In the context of civil engineering and architecture, these results are particularly relevant. The preference for Honeybee practices—such as collaboration, innovation, and inclusive decision-making—indicates that leadership in these sectors is not solely about technical or operational efficiency, but also about advancing sustainable values through leadership conduct reflecting an evolving professional identity where civil engineers and architects are increasingly seen as change agents responsible not just for designing structures, but for shaping ethical and sustainable futures.

The trend showing a preference for Honeybee (sustainable) leadership over Locust (unsustainable) leadership is further substantiated by the results presented in Figure 3. Participants classified as Honeybees consistently exhibit higher response values across key leadership dimensions, indicating a more affirmative orientation toward stakeholder-centered, ethical, and collaborative values in line with Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) characterization of Honeybee leadership, which emphasizes long-term value creation, distributed decision-making, and organizational resilience through shared culture and stakeholder engagement. The divergence between leadership styles is particularly evident in items 17 and 33 (Figure 4). In item 17, which states, “I think that people should work with maximum independence from others to increase the profits from their work,” Locust-type respondents tended to agree more strongly. This response aligns with the Locust model’s association with short-termism, individualism, and profit maximization at the expense of collective goals and systemic well-being. In contrast, Honeybee participants disagreed with this sentiment and showed a more favorable response to item 33: “I think widely shared culture fosters and enables the meeting of business objectives.” This item directly reflects the Honeybee model’s core belief in the power of shared values and organizational culture to drive sustainable success.

These patterns reinforce Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) conceptual distinction between the two leadership paradigms and support the model’s applicability within the professional domains of civil engineering and architecture. In these fields—where project outcomes are highly interdependent and where long-term impacts on communities and ecosystems are at stake—adherence to Honeybee principles, such as collaboration, transparency, and ethical foresight, becomes especially critical (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Schein, 2007). The findings thus not only confirm the presence of sustainable leadership tendencies among professionals in the Spanish context but also highlight how specific leadership attitudes—such as fostering a shared culture versus promoting individual profit—map onto broader theoretical models and have concrete implications for organizational behavior and project outcomes.

Figure 5 presents a boxplot illustrating the percentage distribution of Honeybee-type leadership traits among male and female participants. The median values for both genders are located above 75%, suggesting a widespread internalization of Honeybee leadership characteristics—such as long-term thinking, collaboration, ethical responsibility, and stakeholder inclusivity—regardless of gender. It is a factor that aligns with Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) assertion that sustainable leadership is not inherently gendered but rooted in values and organizational priorities that transcend individual demographics. Although both groups demonstrate a strong orientation toward Honeybee principles, the male group exhibits slightly greater variability, with an outlier near 50%, indicating that some male participants may lean toward more individualistic or performance-driven approaches consistent with Locust-style leadership. This greater spread may reflect the ongoing tension in some professional cultures—particularly within engineering and architecture—between traditional hierarchical models and the evolving push for sustainability and inclusivity (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006).

The relatively narrow interquartile ranges for both groups reinforce the idea that sustainable leadership is becoming a normative expectation in these professions. Moreover, the absence of a marked gender gap supports emerging empirical studies in the literature that challenge earlier assumptions linking transformational or sustainable leadership more strongly with one gender over another (Eagly & Carli, 2003); instead, the data suggest that both men and women in civil engineering and architecture are adopting leadership practices in line with the Honeybee model, potentially due to shared professional challenges and the increasing institutional emphasis on ethical and sustainable project delivery.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of Locust leadership scores among male and female respondents. While the median values for both genders are relatively similar, the data show that male respondents exhibit a slightly higher median for Locust-style leadership—defined by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011) as short-termist, profit-maximizing, and often individualistic in orientation. This difference, although modest, may reflect subtle gendered variations in leadership socialization or organizational expectations within the professional contexts of civil engineering and architecture. More notably, the male group demonstrates a significantly wider distribution, with several outliers exceeding 70%, suggesting that a subset of male participants may align more strongly with Locust-type behaviors such as competitiveness, hierarchical control, and results-at-all-costs mentalities. This aligns with previous research indicating that male-dominated professional environments—particularly in engineering—may continue to reward or tolerate leadership patterns that prioritize output over long-term stakeholder value (Acker, 1990; Schein, 2007).

In contrast, female respondents’ Locust scores are more tightly clustered around the median, with fewer extreme values, suggesting a more homogeneous rejection—or at least moderated adoption—of unsustainable leadership traits. This consistency may reflect broader tendencies reported in the leadership literature, where women are often found to emphasize collaboration, inclusion, and shared governance—hallmarks of the Honeybee model (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). The narrower variance among female respondents might also signal a stronger alignment with evolving professional norms that increasingly prioritize sustainability, ethics, and community-oriented leadership.

Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of Locust leadership scores among male and female respondents. The data reveal that male and female respondents exhibit comparable median scores for Locust leadership, with males exhibiting a slightly higher median; however, the spread of values differs between genders. Male respondents show a wider distribution with a greater number of outliers, particularly in the upper range (above 70%), suggesting a higher variability in how Locust leadership is perceived or enacted by men. In contrast, female scores appear more concentrated around the median, with fewer extreme values. The relatively higher variance among male participants could point to a broader spectrum of leadership styles within that group.

As mentioned before, a one-way ANOVA was conducted comparing Honeybee and Locust leadership scores across three experience categories: junior (0–4 years); middle (5–9 years); and senior (10+ years).

The analysis revealed a statistically significant effect of experience on Honeybee leadership scores, F(2, 197) = 3.56, p = 0.030, indicating that leadership orientation toward sustainable practices varies modestly with professional tenure. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test showed that middle-level professionals scored significantly higher on Honeybee leadership than junior professionals (p = 0.022), while the differences between senior and junior (p = 0.183) and between senior and middle participants (p = 0.368) were not statistically significant. Group means suggest that middle-level respondents reported the highest alignment with sustainable leadership (M = 80.5), followed by senior (M = 78.5), and junior professionals (M = 75.5).

In contrast, no statistically significant differences were observed for Locust leadership scores across the three experience levels (F(2, 197) = 1.71, p = 0.183). Although the mean scores exhibited a declining trend—from Junior (M = 43.1) to Middle (M = 40.7) and Senior professionals (M = 39.4)—these differences were not sufficient to reach statistical significance. Levene’s tests confirmed the assumption of homogeneity of variances for both Honeybee (p = 0.12) and Locust (p = 0.063) leadership constructs.

These results suggest that professionals with intermediate experience (5–9 years) expressed the strongest sustainable leadership orientation, potentially reflecting a critical stage in professional development, where individuals begin to assume leadership responsibilities while retaining a strong commitment to value-based practices. The lack of significant variation in Locust scores implies a broadly consistent rejection of short-term, exploitative leadership approaches across experience levels.

A graphical analysis of leadership styles by years of professional experience revealed noteworthy trends (Figure 7 and Figure 8). As shown in the Honeybee leadership boxplot (Figure 7), all three groups—junior, middle, and senior—exhibited high alignment with sustainable leadership principles, with median scores consistently above 75%. Notably, middle and senior professionals displayed slightly higher median Honeybee scores compared to junior participants, suggesting that alignment with values, such as long-term thinking, collaboration, and ethical engagement, may deepen with professional maturity and organizational exposure. The interquartile range was slightly narrower in the middle and senior groups, indicating greater consistency in their responses.

Conversely, the distribution of Locust leadership scores (Figure 8) reveals a subtle downward trend as experience increases. Junior professionals exhibited a higher median score for Locust traits (e.g., hierarchical control, short-term orientation), along with greater variability and more frequent outliers. In contrast, senior professionals had lower median Locust scores, with tighter clustering around the 35–40% range. These patterns suggest that with increasing professional experience, individuals may not only strengthen their alignment with sustainable leadership but also reduce reliance on the reactive, profit-driven behaviors characteristic of the Locust model.

Taken together, these findings indicate that perceptions and enactments of leadership evolve with tenure in the profession. While all groups show strong support for Honeybee principles, seniority appears to be associated with both greater consistency and a more pronounced departure from short-term leadership tendencies. This supports the hypothesis that experience contributes to a deeper internalization of sustainable leadership norms, perhaps due to accumulated exposure to strategic decision-making, stakeholder engagement, and long-term project outcomes.

To explore potential interaction effects between demographic variables, a two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the influence of gender, professional experience level, and their interaction on Honeybee leadership scores using the R (Version RStudio 2023.01.1). The analysis revealed a significant main effect of experience level, F(2, 194) = 3.89, p = 0.022, indicating that perceptions of sustainable leadership vary across career stages. However, the main effect of gender was not significant, F(1, 194) = 0.89, p = 0.348, nor was the interaction between gender and experience level, F(2, 194) = 0.39, p = 0.678. These findings suggest that experience level influences sustainable leadership orientation, while gender alone, or in combination with experience, does not exert a significant effect.

Assumptions for the ANOVA were met, including homogeneity of variances, as confirmed by Levene’s test (p = 0.254). The lack of interaction indicates that the influence of professional experience on Honeybee leadership perceptions is consistent across genders, reinforcing earlier findings from the one-way ANOVA and supporting the idea that sustainable leadership endorsement increases with experience regardless of gender.

In order to explore the relationship between demographic variables and unsustainable leadership tendencies, a two-way ANOVA was conducted with Locust leadership scores as the dependent variable and gender, experience level, and their interaction as predictors. The analysis revealed a statistically significant main effect of gender, F(1, 194) = 6.43, p = 0.012, indicating that perceptions of Locust-style leadership differ between male and female respondents. Specifically, male participants reported significantly higher agreement with statements aligned to short-termism, hierarchical control, and profit-driven behavior than female participants.

The main effect of professional experience was not statistically significant (F(2, 194) = 2.18, p = 0.116, nor was the interaction between gender and experience (F(2, 194) = 2.23, p = 0.110). This suggests that while gender differences exist independently, the influence of professional experience does not significantly moderate Locust leadership perceptions across genders. Levene’s test confirmed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (p = 0.296).

5. Discussion

The primary objective of this research was to assess how civil engineers and architects in Spain perceive the alignment of sustainable leadership practices in their organizations with the principles of the Honeybee leadership model, as conceptualized by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011). The study findings suggest that professionals in Spain’s architecture and civil engineering sectors are increasingly attuned to sustainability-driven leadership, which may reflect the growing awareness of environmental and societal responsibilities within the built environment industries. This supports Avery and Bergsteiner’s assertion that sustainable leadership is not only ethically sound but also more resilient and adaptive in complex and changing contexts (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011).

The qualitative analysis of responses from two hundred civil engineers and architects in Spain revealed a set of recurring challenges affecting the operability, cohesion, and long-term vision of their organizations. Central among these was the tension between traditional management models and emerging demands for sustainable, resilient, and innovative leadership. Respondents consistently identified obstacles in internal management structures such as fragmented communication, poor coordination across teams, and the absence of standardized systems. These features foster highly reactive organizational cultures, where leadership is oriented toward solving immediate issues rather than fostering long-term planning, innovation, or systemic change (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006).

In addressing the first secondary research question—What specific organizational practices do civil engineers and architects in Spain identify as reflecting the core principles of the Honeybee leadership model?—participants highlighted an increasing awareness and adoption of leadership practices that resonate with the model’s core tenets of long-term thinking, stakeholder engagement, and ethical decision-making. Respondents pointed to a shift in organizational priorities, with a growing emphasis on sustainable project planning, the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the design and implementation phases, and the pursuit of transparent and socially responsible procurement practices.

Among the most frequently cited practices were the adoption of sustainability certifications, such as LEED and BREEAM, which serve not only as environmental benchmarks but also as signals of a broader cultural commitment to responsible leadership. Additionally, many professionals noted the implementation of participatory design methodologies, where clients, users, and community members are actively engaged in shaping outcomes—an approach aligned with the Honeybee model’s focus on shared purpose and collaboration. Increased transparency in internal processes, particularly around budgeting and procurement, was also mentioned as a growing trend that reflects an organizational shift toward ethics-driven leadership. Collectively, these practices suggest a gradual move away from traditional top-down decision-making and toward a more inclusive, values-based leadership paradigm. This evolution indicates that Honeybee-aligned leadership principles are gaining traction, especially in firms that recognize sustainability not only as a regulatory or market requirement, but as a strategic asset that contributes to long-term organizational resilience.

Turning to the second secondary research question—What barriers do professionals perceive as hindering the implementation of Honeybee-aligned sustainable leadership practices?—the study revealed several persistent and systemic challenges. One of the most pressing concerns was related to human resources. Participants reported widespread issues such as a shortage of qualified professionals, particularly those trained in sustainability and digital tools, high turnover rates, and low employee engagement. These factors collectively undermine efforts to build cohesive, forward-looking organizational cultures and inhibit the long-term retention of institutional knowledge—both of which are critical for sustained leadership transformation. A further barrier identified was the resistance to technological innovation. Despite the availability of powerful digital tools, such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and advanced sustainable construction technologies, many organizations remain slow to adopt them; this resistance was often attributed to both a lack of technical training and a conservative organizational mindset that favors familiar, short-term approaches over innovative, long-term investments (Succar, 2009). Such inertia is particularly problematic in sectors that are under increasing pressure to adapt to complex environmental and economic challenges; moreover, participants emphasized structural barriers embedded within hierarchical decision-making models and profit-driven performance metrics, which tend to prioritize immediate financial outcomes over broader stakeholder values or environmental impacts. This short-termism directly conflicts with the Honeybee leadership model’s emphasis on long-term, sustainable value creation. Even in organizations that express a commitment to sustainability, these internal dynamics often make it difficult to translate principles into practice.

The qualitative analysis of responses from two hundred civil engineers and architects in Spain revealed a set of recurring challenges affecting the operability, cohesion, and long-term vision of their organizations. Central among these was the tension between traditional management models and emerging demands for sustainable, resilient and innovative leadership. Respondents consistently identified obstacles in internal management structures such as fragmented communication, poor coordination across teams, and the absence of standardized systems. All these features foster highly re-active organizational cultures, where leadership is oriented toward solving immediate issues rather than fostering long-term planning, innovation, or systemic change (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). A second critical challenge concerned human resources. Structural deficits—such as the shortage of skilled professionals, high staff turnover, and diminished employee engagement—undermine the creation of stable organizational cultures and hinder the transfer of institutional knowledge across generations; furthermore, resistance to technological innovation, particularly in relation to digital transformation tools like BIM, AI, and sustainable building technologies, reflects a broader organizational inertia and a shortage of technical competencies necessary for leading sustainable change (Succar, 2009).

5.1. Practical Implications

The findings of this study offer valuable insights into the leadership perceptions of civil engineers and architects in Spain and how these align with Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) Honeybee/Locust sustainable leadership framework. Our data reveal a hybrid pattern of leadership values, with many participants indicating alignment with Honeybee-style practices—such as prioritizing long-term objectives, valuing employee well-being, and expressing concern for stakeholder and community impact. However, these values often coexist with Locust-style tendencies such as short-term profit prioritization, hierarchical decision-making, and instrumental views of human capital.

This duality is consistent with Avery and Bergsteiner’s assertion that many organizations operate in a hybrid mode, adopting sustainability-oriented practices superficially or inconsistently due to structural and cultural constraints (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011). Our study confirms this theoretical prediction in the context of architecture and civil engineering—sectors in which project-based work, cost pressures, and regulatory frameworks often dominate managerial decision-making (Dainty et al., 2007; Emuze & Smallwood, 2014). Moreover, the civil engineering and architectural sectors are characterized by interdisciplinary collaboration, decentralized leadership, and a strong dependency on client demands and public procurement policies. These factors create a complex environment for sustainable leadership to flourish. Studies such as those by Hill and Bowen (1997), emphasize the persistent gap between professionals’ sustainable values and the realities of project delivery, highlighting barriers such as budgetary constraints, short-termism, and limited institutional support.

In this context, the results of our study extend prior research by showing that although many professionals in these fields personally endorse Honeybee-style principles, organizational structures and industry norms frequently prevent their translation into practice; this tension supports findings by Toor and Ofori (2008), who argued that while ethical and transformational leadership are critical in the construction industry, such approaches are often undermined by the sector’s adversarial culture and transactional leadership traditions. The study findings also contribute to the growing body of work advocating for context-sensitive leadership models in technical professions; unlike generic corporate leadership models, sustainable leadership in civil engineering and architecture must contend with sector-specific challenges such as safety regulations, public accountability, and environmental consequences. As such, this study highlights the need for leadership development programs that integrate sustainability values with the specific operational realities of the built environment sector.

Moreover, the results offer several important practical implications for professional organizations and HR managers within the engineering and architectural sectors in Spain. First, the misalignment between strategic intent and operational reality, especially regarding sustainable leadership, highlights an urgent need to transition from reactive, task-driven management to more proactive, long-term leadership approaches. As outlined by Avery and Bergsteiner (2011), the Honeybee model emphasizes long-term thinking, stakeholder engagement, and internal cultural strength. To implement such practices, organizations should strengthen internal coordination, promote systems thinking, and move away from fragmented, siloed structures (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; D’Amato & Roome, 2009).

In particular, HR departments should play a central role in driving this transformation by prioritizing leadership development programs that embed sustainability principles. These programs can foster competencies, such as ethical decision-making, intergenerational knowledge transfer, and adaptive leadership, all of which are essential for navigating the increasing complexity of today’s business environments (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Metcalf & Benn, 2013). Organizations may also consider institutionalizing sustainability by creating dedicated leadership roles such as Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs), who can align sustainability objectives with broader organizational goals and stakeholder expectations (Strand, 2014; Gallo, 2012), and by developing strong internal cultures based on trust, learning, and purpose. These have been shown to increase employee commitment and innovation (Schein, 2007; Branson, 2008). Furthermore, better succession planning and structured mentoring programs can enhance in-organizational collaboration, preserve institutional knowledge, and support long-term organizational sustainability.

Another critical area of intervention involves the resistance to technological change. Digital tools, such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), AI-based design systems, and sustainable material technologies, are increasingly vital for achieving environmental goals; however, their adoption remains slow, often due to a lack of digital literacy, organizational inertia, or unclear strategic vision (Succar, 2009). Targeted upskilling initiatives and change management strategies are therefore essential. Training programs should be designed not only to develop technical competencies but also to cultivate a mindset of continuous improvement and innovation, in line with the adaptive and learning-oriented nature of Honeybee leadership. Engineering and architecture firms that invest in sustainable leadership development should therefore enhance internal collaboration and embrace digital transformation. They will then be more likely to achieve long-term resilience, innovation capacity, and stakeholder trust. These are not merely operational improvements, but strategic necessities in a sector increasingly influenced by global sustainability standards, regulatory shifts, and societal expectations for ethical and responsible business conduct (Elkington, 1997; Porter & Kramer, 2011).

5.2. Theoretical Implications

When interpreted through the lens of Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) Honeybee and Locust leadership models, these findings make a substantive contribution to the theoretical discourse on sustainable leadership. The Honeybee model emphasizes values such as stakeholder inclusion, long-term value creation, employee development, and holistic thinking. The high levels of agreement among the respondents with these principles suggest growing endorsement of the Honeybee philosophy among Spanish civil engineers and architects. In this sense, the study reinforces the relevance of the Honeybee model as a valid interpretive framework beyond its originally theorized contexts, expanding its applicability to the architecture and engineering sectors—fields that have historically leaned toward efficiency-driven, hierarchical, and reactive forms of leadership more typical of the Locust model (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; Metcalf & Benn, 2013).

However, the study also nuances this theoretical framework by revealing the prevalence of hybrid leadership configurations in practice. While participants demonstrated a strong normative alignment with the Honeybee model, they simultaneously described organizational behaviors—such as top-down decision-making, short-term firefighting, and resistance to innovation—that resonate more closely with the Locust paradigm. This duality echoes findings from other international studies (e.g., in the logistics sector in Spain, the insurance industry in Turkey, and marketing/project management fields in Spain) and supports the argument that sustainable leadership is often aspirational rather than fully realized (D’Amato & Roome, 2009).

This empirical insight contributes towards refining the Honeybee/Locust typology by suggesting that many real-world leadership environments operate in a transitional or hybrid state, shaped by both enabling and constraining forces; it also reinforces existing scholarship on the barriers to sustainable leadership implementation, including path dependency, ideological bias, and resistance to structural transformation (Metcalf & Benn, 2013; Branson, 2008). Similar results have been obtained in other studies carried out in other sectors such as the logistics (Bulmer et al., 2021) and the insurance sectors (Kalkavan, 2015). Moreover, the findings contribute to the broader literature on sustainable leadership by emphasizing the role of systemic barriers—such as outdated organizational norms, lack of sustainability literacy, and insufficient investment in leadership development—as critical impediments to change. They align with growing calls for a deeper organizational embedding of sustainability through leadership roles like Chief Sustainability Officers (Strand, 2014), cross-functional integration, and the redefinition of performance metrics to account for long-term and non-financial value (Porter & Kramer, 2011; Elkington, 1997).

Importantly, this study adds to the internationalization of sustainable leadership theory by applying and validating the Honeybee model within the Spanish context—specifically in sectors undergoing technological and generational transition. It is able to offer new empirical evidence that bridges a gap between strategic sustainability frameworks and sector-specific organizational realities, highlighting the importance of cultural, structural, and professional variables in determining leadership effectiveness. In doing so, it calls for a more context-sensitive application of sustainable leadership models, one that recognizes the importance of local sector dynamics, institutional maturity, and professional identity in shaping leadership practices (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006).

5.3. Limitations

While this study offers valuable insights into the perceptions of sustainable leadership among civil engineers and architects in Spain, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the research relies on a non-probability sampling method, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of professionals in the sector. Although the sample size (N = 200) provides a solid qualitative base, it may not capture the full diversity of organizational contexts across Spain. Second, the study is based entirely on self-reported perceptions, which are subject to social desirability bias and individual interpretation. Respondents may have overstated their organization’s alignment with sustainable leadership ideals, particularly if they view such an alignment as professionally or socially desirable. All these limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings and suggest avenues for future research, including longitudinal designs, mixed-methods approaches, and comparative analyses across countries or sectors.

One significant methodological limitation of this study is the absence of data distinguishing between architects and civil engineers within the respondent pool. although both professional groups operate within the built environment sector and share overlapping leadership challenges, they also exhibit distinct roles, responsibilities, and organizational cultures that could meaningfully influence their perceptions of sustainable leadership. By not disaggregating the data, the study forfeits the opportunity to conduct comparative analyses that could reveal profession-specific trends or barriers in the adoption of Honeybee-aligned practices. This limits the interpretability and depth of the findings, as it prevents us from understanding how sustainable leadership is perceived differently across these two key professional subgroups. Consequently, the generalizability of the results is constrained and the potential to generate more nuanced insights into sector-specific leadership dynamics is reduced. Future research should address this shortcoming by collecting and analyzing data separately for architects and civil engineers to enhance the precision and scientific contribution of such studies.

A final limitation is the absence of a formal expert review or pilot testing phase during the development of the survey instrument. While the questionnaire was adapted from an established study (Kalkavan, 2015), the lack of expert input may limit the direct assessment of content validity. We acknowledge this as a methodological constraint and recommend that future studies incorporate expert validation and pilot testing to strengthen instrument reliability and validity.

5.4. Future Research Directions

Building on the findings and limitations of this study, future research could pursue several concrete avenues to deepen understanding of sustainable leadership within the engineering and architecture sectors. First, comparative cross-national studies would be valuable for exploring whether the trends observed in Spain hold in other cultural or institutional contexts, particularly in countries with differing sustainability policies or leadership traditions. Second, the integration of advanced statistical techniques, such as Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), could enable researchers to test causal relationships between leadership perceptions, organizational outcomes, and sustainability performance. Third, longitudinal designs would help trace the evolution of leadership practices over time and better capture the transition from Locust- to Honeybee-style models. Additionally, future studies could benefit from a mixed-methods approach, combining large-scale surveys with in-depth qualitative interviews or ethno-graphic fieldwork to gain richer insights into the cultural and behavioral dimensions of leadership. Fourth, and in direct response to the limitations of this study, future research should prioritize the statistical validation of the measurement instrument. The application of advanced techniques, such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), is essential to formally test the factor structure of the Honeybee and Locust leadership constructs and confirm the model’s fit within this professional and cultural context. Such an analysis would strengthen the validity of the framework for future applications in the built environment sector and allow for the examination of causal relationships between specific leadership practices and organizational outcomes such as project success, innovation, and employee retention. Finally, there is a need to investigate how external pressures, such as regulatory frameworks, professional associations, and client demand, either enable or constrain the adoption of sustainable leadership practices in technical professions.

6. Conclusions

This study set out to assess how architects and civil engineers in Spain perceive the degree to which sustainable leadership practices are embedded in their organizations, using Avery and Bergsteiner’s (2011) Honeybee and Locust model as the theoretical lens. It is a model that distinguishes between long-term, stakeholder-oriented leadership (Honeybee) and short-term, profit-driven approaches (Locust), that has been applied to various sectors in the literature; however, its relevance and application within the professions of architecture and civil engineering remained largely unexplored until now.

Unlike earlier studies focused on corporate sectors such as insurance (Kalkavan, 2015), logistics (García-Muiña et al., 2020), or marketing and project management (Torres et al., 2021), this research brings new empirical evidence from the built environment professions—fields that are deeply intertwined with sustainability objectives due to their direct impact on land use, energy consumption, and social infrastructure. By applying a quantitative design based on a Likert-scale instrument—similar to the approach used by Kalkavan (2015)—and analyzing responses from 200 professionals, this study reveals distinct patterns of alignment with sustainable leadership values among Spanish practitioners.

A particularly notable and original finding is the strong endorsement of Honeybee principles by the majority of respondents: over 90% agreed or strongly agreed with statements promoting environmental responsibility, long-term value creation, and stakeholder inclusion—suggesting that sustainable leadership is not only relevant but increasingly internalized in professional identity and expectations. However, this endorsement was accompanied by persistent organizational challenges that reflect elements of the Locust model: reactive planning, fragmented internal communication, resistance to technological change, and difficulties in talent retention. These tensions suggest that many organizations operate under hybrid leadership systems—an insight that adds nuance to Avery and Bergsteiner’s framework by demonstrating how Honeybee and Locust traits may coexist within the same organizational setting (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011; Metcalf & Benn, 2013).

From a practical perspective, these findings suggest several pathways for intervention. First, leadership development programs in architecture and engineering should be tailored to address both technical expertise and leadership capacities—emphasizing systems thinking, collaboration, and long-term planning (Strand, 2014). Second, human resource strategies should focus on building stable, knowledge-sharing work environments by reducing turnover and fostering intergenerational mentorship (Stahl et al., 2020). Third, investment in digital and sustainable technologies should be paired with internal training and change management strategies to overcome institutional inertia (Lozano, 2015).

Theoretically, this study advances the literature by adapting and extending the Honeybee/Locust leadership framework to a new, highly impactful professional domain. It supports the view that sustainable leadership is not sector-specific but can be meaningfully applied in technical and design-oriented professions where leadership is often viewed as secondary to project delivery. The study also contributes to the growing understanding of hybrid leadership models—where leaders integrate both sustainable and traditional practices depending on organizational culture, external demands and available resources aligning with calls in sustainable leadership theory to move beyond binary classifications and embrace the complexity of real-world leadership behavior (Metcalf & Benn, 2013; Stahl et al., 2020).

Lastly, the research highlights several promising avenues for future inquiry.

Comparative studies across countries could illuminate how national contexts—such as regulatory frameworks or cultural values—influence the adoption of sustainable leadership in the built environment. Furthermore, incorporating qualitative methods (e.g., interviews or case studies) could enrich our understanding of how these leadership values are enacted in practice. Future research might also apply advanced statistical techniques such as structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the causal relationships between leadership perceptions and organizational outcomes).