When we think about successful project managers, we often imagine people who are organised, collaborative, and inspiring leaders. Much of the research in project management has traditionally focused on these positive leadership qualities.

But what happens when leaders bring darker personality traits into projects?

A recent study by CBISS theme lead Maxwell Chipulu and colleagues explores this overlooked side of project leadership. Their research reviews over three decades of academic studies to understand how “dark personality traits” influence projects and the people working on them.

The findings suggest something important: while we often celebrate good leadership traits, negative personality traits may have an even stronger impact on project outcomes.

What Are “Dark Personality Traits”?

Psychologists often refer to the “Dark Triad” of personality traits:

• Machiavellianism – manipulative, strategic behaviour focused on personal gain

• Narcissism – excessive self-confidence, ego, and desire for admiration

• Psychopathy – impulsivity, lack of empathy, and disregard for rules

These traits are not necessarily clinical disorders. Instead, they exist on a spectrum and can appear in everyday workplace behaviour.

In project environments—where pressure, deadlines, and complex decisions are common—these traits can become especially visible.

Why Projects Are a Perfect Environment for Personality to Matter

Projects are very different from routine work.

They are often temporary, fast-paced, and involve teams from different backgrounds. This creates a high-pressure environment where leadership behaviour becomes highly visible.

Research shows that when negative behaviours appear in these situations, they can have a disproportionate impact. In fact, negative actions tend to have stronger psychological effects than positive ones.

That means one toxic leader can significantly affect team morale, decision-making, and ultimately project success.

Seven Ways Dark Traits Show Up in Projects

By analysing decades of research, the study identified seven major themes where dark personality traits influence projects:

1. Corruption and unethical behaviour

2. The overall impact of dark traits on projects

3. Biases in decision-making

4. Leadership style and employee wellbeing

5. Selective reporting of bad news

6. Authoritarian or toxic leadership

7. The relationship between personality traits and project outcomes

Many of these issues are familiar to anyone who has worked in complex organisations: leaders ignoring bad news, blaming teams for failures, or manipulating information.

The Cost of Ignoring the “Dark Side”

The consequences can be serious.

Studies suggest that most organisations have experienced harmful behaviours linked to dark personality traits, costing billions globally through lost productivity, conflict, and failed initiatives.

In projects specifically, these behaviours may lead to:

• poor decision-making

• hidden problems and delayed reporting

• toxic team environments

• budget overruns or failed projects

Understanding these risks is critical because project managers often hold significant authority over teams and resources.

Are Dark Traits Always Bad?

Interestingly, the research suggests the picture is more complex.

Certain traits sometimes associated with the “dark side” can occasionally produce positive outcomes. For example:

• Confidence and decisiveness, often linked to narcissism, can help leaders make bold decisions.

• Strategic thinking, associated with Machiavellianism, can help navigate complex stakeholder environments.

However, the same traits can easily cross a line and become destructive.

The challenge for organisations is not simply identifying these traits—but understanding when they become harmful.

What Organisations Can Do

The study suggests that organisations should pay more attention to personality when selecting and developing project leaders.

Some possible approaches include:

• incorporating personality assessment into leadership selection

• promoting ethical leadership and accountability

• encouraging open reporting cultures where bad news is not hidden

• building teams that balance different personality types

These steps can help reduce the risks associated with harmful leadership behaviours.

Why This Research Matters

Projects are the engines of modern organisations. They build infrastructure, develop technology, and drive innovation.

But projects are also deeply human systems.

Understanding the psychological side of leadership—including the darker aspects—can help organisations create healthier teams and more successful projects.

As this research shows, the question is not just “Who is the most capable project manager?”

It may also be “What kind of personality are we putting in charge?”

A full research article is here

What research from Mauritius and Zimbabwe tells us

A recent study published in Gender, Work & Organization explores an important question: Does financial independence automatically empower women?

The research, co-authored by Dr Melina Doargajudhur (a CBISS member) and an international team of scholars, examines how financial independence shapes the lives of married women in two Global South countries: Mauritius and Zimbabwe. The findings reveal that while earning an income is important, true empowerment is more complex than simply having money.

Why Financial Independence Matters

Across many societies, women have historically faced barriers to education, employment, and financial decision-making. In many Global South contexts, deeply rooted social norms and patriarchal structures still influence how women participate in economic and family life. Financial independence—earning and managing one’s own income—can provide women with greater security and autonomy. It can allow them to contribute to household expenses, invest in their future, and support their families.

However, the research suggests that income alone does not guarantee empowerment.

Listening to Women’s Experiences

The study draws on 55 in-depth interviews with married women in Mauritius and Zimbabwe. These conversations explored how women experience financial independence in their daily lives, at home and in their communities.

From these interviews, three key themes emerged:

1. Societal and institutional factors

2. Financial independence and autonomy

3. Relational empowerment

Together, these themes help explain how financial independence interacts with social structures and relationships.

1. The Power of Social and Cultural Norms

In many cases, women reported that societal expectations still shape their opportunities.

Traditional gender roles often place women in caregiving positions and expect men to be the primary breadwinners. Even when women work and earn income, their contributions may still be viewed as secondary.

Some participants described ongoing barriers, including:

• unequal access to education in certain communities

• limited career advancement opportunities

• social pressure to prioritize marriage and family responsibilities

Despite these challenges, many women noted that attitudes are gradually changing, with communities increasingly recognizing women’s achievements.

2. Financial Independence Brings New Opportunities

Many of the women interviewed described financial independence as a source of security and self-reliance.

Being able to earn and manage their own income allowed them to:

• support their families

• invest in education or housing

• plan for the future

• make personal spending decisions

For these women, financial independence provided not only economic benefits but also a sense of dignity and confidence.

However, the study also highlights that some women remain financially dependent due to factors such as unpaid domestic work or limited employment opportunities.

3. Empowerment Happens in Relationships

One of the most important insights from the research is the concept of “relational empowerment.”

Rather than being purely individual, empowerment often develops through relationships—especially within families and marriages.

For example, women reported greater empowerment when:

• they could participate in household decision-making

• their opinions were valued by their spouses

• financial responsibilities were shared

• partners supported their careers

In contrast, women who faced controlling or traditional household dynamics often experienced limited decision-making power, even if they had an income.

Why This Research Matters

The study shows that financial independence is necessary but not sufficient for empowerment. Structural factors such as social norms, legal systems, and family dynamics also shape women’s ability to exercise agency. In other words, empowerment is not just about earning money—it is about having the ability to make meaningful choices in one’s life.

Looking Ahead: Supporting Women’s Empowerment

The authors suggest several ways to strengthen women’s empowerment:

• improving enforcement of gender equality laws

• promoting financial literacy and entrepreneurship programs

• addressing unequal domestic responsibilities

• challenging cultural norms that restrict women’s agency

• creating supportive workplace policies

These changes require collaboration between governments, organizations, communities, and families.

Final Thoughts

This research reminds us that empowerment is a multi-dimensional and relational process. Financial independence can open doors, but true empowerment happens when women are able to participate fully in decisions that shape their lives.

Through studies like this, researchers—including CBISS member Melina Doargajudhur—are helping to deepen our understanding of how gender, work, and power interact in different global contexts.

Founders love the word pivot.

It signals agility. Adaptability. Strategic intelligence. In startup culture, changing your business model isn’t a red flag — it’s often a badge of honor.

But what if frequent reinvention is quietly slowing your growth?

A research by CBISS member Professor Sukanlaya Sawang and her colleagues suggests exactly that. In a three-year longitudinal study tracking nearly 600 young firms, they examined how business model renewal affects performance over time — and how a founder’s mindset shapes the outcome.

Their findings complicate one of entrepreneurship’s most celebrated narratives: while high-performing firms do tend to change more, repeated business model renewal can actually decelerate growth.

In other words, adaptation helps — until it doesn’t.

The Paradox of Renewal

At first glance, the data confirms what we expect. Companies that perform well early on are more likely to tweak and refine their business models. Success creates confidence. Momentum fuels experimentation.

But over time, a different pattern emerges.

Firms that repeatedly altered their business models experienced slower growth trajectories — both in perceived performance and in actual profit growth.

Why would that happen?

Because change is expensive. Not just financially, but cognitively and organizationally.

Every meaningful shift resets execution. Teams realign. Resources move. Customers adjust. Learning curves restart. Strategic focus diffuses. Even well-intentioned change can interrupt the compounding effect of steady execution.

The issue isn’t renewal itself. It’s recurrence.

As Sawang and her co-authors show, more change does not automatically mean faster growth.

The Psychological Variable No One Talks About

What makes this research especially compelling is its psychological lens.

Drawing on regulatory focus theory, the study distinguishes between two types of entrepreneurial mindsets:

• Promotion-focused founders, driven by growth, gains, and opportunity.

• Prevention-focused founders, driven by security, risk management, and loss avoidance.

Both groups engage in business model renewal. But the consequences differ.

The Promotion Trap

Promotion-oriented founders see stronger initial boosts from change. They move boldly, pursue opportunity, and aim high.

Yet over time, their growth rates slow more sharply.

Why?

Because bold change requires bold investment. Radical shifts demand capital, attention, and time. And promotion-focused leaders tend to set ambitious performance expectations — sometimes so ambitious that incremental gains feel disappointing.

The result: high effort, high ambition, slower perceived momentum.

Ironically, the very mindset associated with entrepreneurship — opportunity-seeking and risk-taking — may amplify the growth slowdown that follows repeated renewal.

The Prevention Buffer

Prevention-focused founders, by contrast, make more incremental changes. Their expectations are measured. Their adjustments are cautious.

They don’t see dramatic early spikes in performance. But they also avoid the steep slowdowns.

Their mindset appears to buffer them against overextension. By prioritizing stability and minimizing downside risk, they preserve execution continuity.

Rethinking the “Always Pivot” Narrative

Startup culture celebrates motion. Investors praise adaptability. Accelerators preach iteration.

But Sawang and her colleagues’ research invites a more nuanced view.

Yes, renewal can drive improvement. But too many shifts can interrupt compounding growth.

The most effective founders may not be the ones who pivot the most. They may be the ones who understand when to stabilize — and allow execution to mature.

A Better Set of Questions

Instead of asking, “Should we pivot?” leaders might ask:

• Are we solving a genuine strategic constraint — or reacting to impatience?

• Is this renewal building on momentum or resetting it?

• Are our expectations distorting how we interpret progress?

• Is our mindset driving disciplined adaptation — or restless reinvention?

Adaptability remains critical. Markets evolve. Technology shifts. Customers change.

But disciplined adaptation — anchored in psychological self-awareness — may outperform constant reinvention.

The takeaway is clear:

Growth is not just a function of strategy.

It is also a function of mindset.

And sometimes, the greatest threat to performance isn’t standing still.

It’s moving too often.

Access a full text article here

At CBISS (Centre for Business Innovation & Sustainable Solutions), we are interested in how innovation shapes real lives — not just markets. Our members explore how digital tools, entrepreneurship, and new ways of working affect people’s well-being, equality, and everyday experiences. This commitment is reflected in new research by CBISS member Dr Melina Doargajudhur, which looks at the hidden realities of digital entrepreneurship for women.

For many women running small businesses, a smartphone is more than just a device. It is their office, their diary, their marketing team, and their customer service desk — all rolled into one.  This is the everyday reality explored in a new study, recently published in the leading journal Gender, Work & Organization. The research looks at women entrepreneurs in Mauritius and asks a simple but powerful question: what really happens when personal technology becomes essential for running a business?

A story many women recognise

Imagine replying to customer messages while cooking dinner. Sending invoices while helping children with homework. Checking orders late at night because you don’t want to lose a client.

For the women interviewed in this study, this wasn’t unusual — it was normal.

Using personal phones and laptops allowed them to start and grow businesses with very limited resources. Buying separate work equipment was often too expensive, so their own devices became the practical solution. Technology offered flexibility, lower costs, and faster responses to customers. In many cases, it made entrepreneurship possible in the first place.

The upside: freedom and opportunity

The women in the study described clear benefits:

• They could work anytime and anywhere

• They saved money by using devices they already owned

• They responded more quickly to customers

• They felt more independent and confident as business owners

For many, technology was empowering. It helped them keep businesses running while managing family responsibilities — something especially important in contexts where women still carry most caregiving duties.

The downside: never switching off

But there was another side to the story.

Being constantly connected meant work never really ended. Messages arrived during family time, late at night, and even on weekends. Many women spoke about feeling always on, emotionally drained, and unable to fully disconnect.

Because business and family life happened on the same device, boundaries slowly disappeared. Work crept into home life, increasing stress and exhaustion. Several women also worried about data security, technical problems, and having no one to turn to when something went wrong.

In short, the same technology that created opportunity also created pressure.

Why gender matters

This study shows that these challenges are not just about technology — they are about gender.

Women entrepreneurs often carry expectations to be available at home while also being responsive at work. When technology enables constant access, those expectations intensify. The burden of juggling roles becomes heavier, not lighter.

The research reminds us that digital tools do not automatically create equality. Without the right support, they can quietly reinforce existing inequalities.

What needs to change?

The key message from this research is clear: access to technology is not enough.

Women entrepreneurs also need:

• Practical technical support

• Guidance on managing digital boundaries

• Training on security and device management

• Policies that recognise care responsibilities and well-being

When support systems are in place, technology can truly help women thrive — not just survive — as entrepreneurs.

Why this research matters

By listening directly to women’s lived experiences, this study sheds light on the human side of digital entrepreneurship. It challenges the idea that technology is always a simple solution and shows why well-being must be part of conversations about innovation, productivity, and growth.

As digital work becomes the norm worldwide, these insights matter far beyond Mauritius.

Sometimes, progress isn’t just about going faster — it’s about making sure people don’t burn out along the way.

Scotland is experiencing a notable shift: more women than ever before are starting businesses, with women now representing 54% of all start-ups. Yet beneath this encouraging headline lies a challenging reality: women-led businesses are not surviving or scaling at the rates needed to strengthen Scotland’s economy.

The new Study of Women in Enterprise 2025, funded by the Scottish Government and published by Women’s Enterprise Scotland (WES), shows that despite high start-up activity, the entrepreneurial pipeline is leaking badly. The economic cost is substantial. If Scotland matched the United States’ proportion of established women-led businesses, it would add £17 billion annually to the economy.

CBISS is proud to have played a role—Professor Sukanlaya Sawang contributed to this research, bringing academic expertise in innovation, entrepreneurship, wellbeing, and women’s economic participation.

What is Women’s Enterprise Scotland (WES)?

Women’s Enterprise Scotland (WES) is the national expert body dedicated to advancing women’s entrepreneurship across Scotland. It plays a pivotal role in shaping the business landscape by conducting specialist research, providing policy insight and advocacy, and offering training and tailored support designed specifically for women-led enterprises. Through its evidence-led approach, WES works to strengthen and reform Scotland’s business support ecosystem so that it better reflects the realities, needs, and ambitions of women in enterprise. The Study of Women in Enterprise 2025 is one of its most comprehensive and far-reaching assessments to date, offering a detailed picture of the conditions facing women-led businesses and the structural changes required to help them thrive.

Key Findings from the 2025 Study
1. Scotland Has a Start-up Boom—but a Sustainability Crisis

• 54% of start-ups are women-led
• Yet 61% drop out of the pipeline after start-up
• Only 20% of employer businesses are women-led (a declining trend)

This mismatch reveals a structural issue: women can start businesses, but the ecosystem makes it difficult to stay in business.

2. Structural Inequalities Continue to Undermine Progress

• Persistent barriers include:
• Rising costs:
• 78% could not recover increased business costs
• 41% recovered none of the increases

Funding inequality: women start with 53% less capital and receive minimal equity investment

Discrimination is worsening:

• 68% experienced discrimination in 2025 (double the 2016 figure)
• Unpaid care continues to be a major constraint, affecting time, wellbeing, and business growth

Health impacts:

• 74% report increased stress

Many start businesses because health conditions limit traditional employment options

3. Business Support Is Misaligned with Women’s Needs

The report shows a clear mismatch between what women expect and what they receive:

• 58% say mainstream business support does not meet their needs

Only:

• 17% received expected start-up support
• 10% received help to establish their business
• 19% received growth support

Digital and AI support is particularly limited—78% say digital investment would help, yet only 15% accessed such funding

Strong demand for women-centred support:

• 71% would use women-specific services
• 64% say a Women’s Business Centre would help

Why This Matters: The Economic Case

Women-led businesses contribute significantly to Scotland’s local and national economy. Yet their growth is restricted by:

• Undercapitalisation
• Lack of coordinated growth support
• Insufficient digital and net zero support
• Limited access to mentors, networks, and role models
• Persistent bias and discrimination
• Addressing these structural issues would unlock substantial economic, social, and community benefits.

Key Recommendations from the Report
1. Establish a National Network of Women’s Business Centres

• Five centres across Scotland by 2028, including rural/island provision, offering:
• Specialist women-centric advisers
• Tailored growth programmes
• Digital and hybrid support to widen access
• This model mirrors successful approaches in the US and Canada.

2. Launch a Dedicated £20 Million Equity Fund for Women

A women-focused equity fund to support up to 50 businesses in the first two years and reduce the severe gender gap in investment.

3. Mandatory Gender-Disaggregated Data

All public funding and business support programmes should report:

• Applications
• Approvals
• Outcomes

This transparency is essential for tracking progress.

4. Structured Mentorship and Role Model Programmes

• Train and match mentors to 300 women-led firms
• Support 100 women to act as visible role models each year
• Ensure representation across age, race, disability, rurality, and sector

5. Address the “Missing Middle” of Growth-Stage Firms

• Pilot programmes and grants for mid-stage businesses, including:
• £500k in growth programmes
• £2m in dedicated grants
• Flexible loan repayment aligned to revenue cycles

6. Care, Wellbeing, and Pension Support

• Childcare and eldercare subsidies for business owners
• Retirement planning and auto-enrolment options for the self-employed
• Wellbeing metrics embedded in all business support
• Programmes to address burnout, stress, and sustainable growth

7. Digital, AI, and Net Zero Support

• Targeted digital and AI literacy programmes
• Improved access to digital and innovation funding
• Increase net zero funding directed to women-led firms to 20% by 2027 and 50% by 2030

CBISS Reflection: Why This Matters for Scotland’s Future

At CBISS, we are committed to advancing inclusive innovation, sustainable enterprise, and a fairer economy. The findings of this report reinforce three truths:

• Women’s entrepreneurship is a national economic priority, not a niche issue.
• Long-term, women-centred support is essential for business survival and growth.
• Better data, wellbeing support, and equitable funding can drive systemic change.

CBISS Recommendations for Policymakers and Industry

Based on the study’s findings and our ongoing work supporting inclusive enterprise, we recommend:

1. Treat Women’s Business Centres as essential economic infrastructure

• Multi-year investment—not year-by-year funding—is vital.

2. Prioritise digital and AI readiness for women-led SMEs

• Ensure support is accessible, relevant, and linked to future industry demands.

3. Integrate care and wellbeing into entrepreneurship support

• A sustainable pipeline requires care-aware, health-aware policies.

4. Ensure accountability via transparent gender-disaggregated data

• This is a foundational requirement for equitable economic growth.

Final Thought

Women are starting businesses in record numbers. They bring innovation, resilience, and community impact. But without structural change, too many will continue to drop out of the entrepreneurial pipeline.

The Study of Women in Enterprise 2025 gives Scotland a clear roadmap.
CBISS stands ready to support its implementation and to help build a thriving, inclusive, and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem—one where women not only start businesses, but stay, grow, and lead.

A study published in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, by Centre for Business Innovations & Sustainable Solutions (CBISS) Director, Professor Sukanlaya Sawang and her colleagues at Queensland University of Technology, Australia (Dr Rebecca Langdon, Professor Lisa Bradley, Professor Cameron Newton),  explores the role of social capital and social support in the mental health of infrastructure workers. The research highlights a crucial opportunity for infrastructure organisations to play a more active role in supporting distressed workers. Infrastructure sectors such as construction, mining, and energy experience disproportionately high levels of psychological distress and suicide risk. The paper reports alarming figures: close to 30% of workers surveyed fell into the severe psychological distress category, and suicide rates in infrastructure remain significantly higher than national averages.

What the Research Found

The study’s key insight is both surprising and deeply concerning:

Distressed workers actually reported having more social connections than non-distressed workers – yet they were receiving less meaningful support when they needed it.

In other words, having lots of contacts (social capital) does not guarantee access to real support. Many workers with high distress are not leveraging their networks to get emotional, practical, or informational help.

One finding particularly relevant to employers is that some distressed workers were more likely to turn to work colleagues than to partners or family members for support, especially for emotional or companionship needs. This opens a significant window for organisational intervention.

Why This Matters

The research reinforces that traditional approaches focusing only on individual coping skills or resilience training are insufficient. Prior studies have already shown that isolated resilience programmes do little to shift mental health outcomes in construction workers.

Instead, the authors argue for a multi-level intervention strategy that includes:

• workplace-level environmental changes,

• individual-level support, and

• access to treatment pathways.

This paper contributes to the second layer—building support through peer relationships.

Reflection

This research challenges common assumptions that “people just need to reach out more” or “bigger networks equals better support.” The evidence suggests that many distressed workers feel unable—or unwilling—to draw support from those closest to them, possibly due to:

• fear of burdening family,

• lack of emotional communication skills,

• stigma around vulnerability,

• long working hours and time spent away from home.

Workplaces where workers spend most of their time may therefore be one of the most viable environments to intervene. The construction site, depot, workshop, or engineering office could become a protective space rather than a risk environment.

What Can Industry Do? Practical Recommendations

Based on the evidence presented, there are several actionable steps organisations can take:

1. Invest in peer-support capability

Training programmes such as mental health first aid, connector training, or peer-listener models can equip workers with skills in empathy, active listening, and identifying risk. This doesn’t replace therapists—it opens the door to them.

2. Build structured social connection opportunities

Simple practices such as planned team check-ins, buddy systems, and safe spaces for discussion can break down barriers that stigma reinforces.

3. Recognise the role of supervisors

Supervisors and managers should be supported to develop psychologically safe communication skills—not just technical leadership.

4. Consider flexible policies supporting work-life balance

Many workers struggle because they are physically and emotionally distant from family support networks. Adjusting rostering and remote work patterns where possible may improve coping capacity.

5. Monitor outcomes, not participation

Tick-box wellbeing initiatives without cultural change risk worsening stigma. Evidence-based evaluation is key.

Looking Ahead

Industrial environments pride themselves on safety. Yet mental health safety is often treated differently from physical safety. This research makes clear that if workplaces develop stronger support mechanisms through colleague relationships, they could significantly reduce distress and ultimately save lives.

At CBISS, we believe this work offers an opportunity to rethink how organisational cultures nurture belonging, connection, and humanity—particularly in high-risk sectors. Social capital already exists in abundance. Now we need to ensure it is activated and accessible.

A new law in Greece now allows private-sector employees to work up to 13 hours a day, promoted as a modern model of flexibility and economic growth. In a recent article, Dr Eleni Papagiannaki, our CBISS Theme Lead for Business Innovation and Future Workforce, discusses how this reform risks dismantling the long-established eight-hour working day and highlights the broader implications for labour rights and wellbeing across Europe.

Although presented as voluntary and fairly compensated, the change threatens to normalise extreme working conditions. Greece already records the highest working hours in Europe — around 1,900 hours per year, significantly more than in the UK or Germany — yet wages and productivity remain low. Instead of addressing stagnant pay and weak bargaining power, the policy effectively stretches time rather than income, placing additional pressure on workers.

Survey findings show overwhelming resistance: 94% of workers support shorter working hours without pay cuts, and 60% oppose the 13-hour day outright, with many pointing out that “voluntary” becomes meaningless under economic hardship.

This trend extends beyond Greece. Rising unpaid overtime in healthcare, intense logistics and warehouse schedules, and calls from parts of the tech sector for 60-hour workweeks reflect a wider shift: the slow and quiet normalisation of overwork in the name of flexibility and productivity.

The key question becomes:
What kind of future of work do we want to build?
A future built on exhaustion — or a future rooted in dignity, wellbeing and meaningful time?

CBISS: Building a Different Vision of Work

At the Centre for Business Innovation & Sustainable Solutions (CBISS) at Edinburgh Napier University, research focuses on shaping fair, ethical and sustainable work futures. CBISS works with partners across sectors to:

• rethink work and productivity beyond long-hours models

• explore responsible innovation and AI-enabled workforce transformation

• strengthen fair work, equity and wellbeing across communities

• turn evidence into practical frameworks and policies

The Greek case is a timely reminder of why these conversations matter — and why research, dialogue and public engagement are essential.

For readers interested in the full analysis of the legal, social and economic implications, the complete article can be read here.

At CBISS, we are proud to celebrate the recent contributions of our member and them lead Eleni Papagiannaki to the Good Work Monitor Time Series – an ambitious and impactful project led by the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW). This work sits at the intersection of policy, data, and human-centred innovation, offering vital insights into how good work—and access to it—shapes social and economic resilience across the UK.

Why Good Work Matters More Than Ever

Access to good work is not just about employment. It’s about dignity, fair pay, supportive conditions, personal autonomy, and opportunities for growth. As Eleni and the IFOW team highlight, good work offers a vital buffer against social, health, and economic shocks—and equips communities to adapt to disruptive forces like AI and automation.

While UK employment levels remain relatively steady according to the latest ONS data, the quality of work varies significantly across the country. Through longitudinal analysis from 2009 to 2024, the Good Work Monitor paints a clear picture: geographic inequalities are widening, and the polarising effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and technological change risk becoming entrenched.

Key Insights from the Monitor

Eleni’s work on this project has helped bring attention to some crucial findings:

• Regional Disparities Persist: Areas like London continue to show high professional job concentration and median pay—but also signs of work intensification and poor work-life balance. In contrast, Scotland appears to offer a more balanced picture, with weaker links between pay and unsatisfactory hours.

• Technology’s Uneven Impact: Rather than bridging gaps, accelerated tech adoption may have worsened regional inequalities, benefiting already high-performing areas and leaving others behind. This raises questions about how AI and automation can be harnessed to create—not destroy—equitable opportunities.

• Pay and Productivity Challenges: Real wages remain low across many regions when adjusted for cost of living. At the same time, productivity growth is highly concentrated in the South East, raising concerns about unequal innovation spillovers from the so-called “golden triangle”.

From Data to Action: Policy Recommendations

What sets this work apart is not just the diagnosis of the problem, but the practical pathways it suggests:

• Better Metrics for Better Policy: The Good Work Monitor and the Disruption Index should form the foundation of a more consistent, evidence-based approach to good work, productivity, and technological change—across all UK nations and regions.

• Place-Based Investment Strategies: Funding for skills and jobs must be targeted where they are most needed, and local authorities should be empowered with better data to design tailored responses.

• Recentring Growth on Human Capabilities: Rather than focusing solely on technological capability, the Industrial Strategy should place greater emphasis on human values, agency, and job quality—ensuring that innovation and inclusivity go hand-in-hand.

• Learning from Scotland and Beyond: The strong performance of Scotland in the Monitor offers lessons for how joined-up policy approaches can create more resilient regional economies. In contrast, policy in England and Wales should work towards more coherent skills and capabilities frameworks that prioritise long-term access to good work.

CBISS and the Future of Work

At CBISS, we believe in research that informs real-world change. Eleni’s work exemplifies our mission—connecting data, policy, and innovation to address urgent societal challenges. Her contribution to the Good Work Monitor supports a broader vision: one where future work is shaped by fairness, sustainability, and the active inclusion of all communities in technological progress.

We look forward to continuing this conversation—and to working with researchers, policymakers, and communities to shape a future of work that leaves no one behind.

Explore the Interactive Good Work Monitor: access here

Entrepreneurs are often seen as risk-takers, innovators, and leaders, but not all of them operate in the same way. A recent study by our CBISS members, Professor Sukanlaya Sawang, Safiya Mukhtar Alshibani, and Poh Yen Ng  reveals that entrepreneurs can be grouped into three key archetypes—Lions, Bees, and Chameleons—each with a unique approach to business, success, and personal well-being.

Understanding these entrepreneurial personalities can help business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs identify their strengths and potential challenges, ultimately leading to better decisions and improved performance.

The Three Entrepreneurial Archetypes

Lions: The Competitive Leaders

Lions are natural-born leaders. They are strategic, ambitious, and competitive, constantly seeking to outperform their rivals and take charge of their industries. Their approach is rooted in the belief that business success is about being the strongest, the fastest, or the most dominant in the market.

Strengths:

• High levels of ambition and strategic thinking
• Strong leadership and decision-making skills
• Competitive mindset that drives business growth

Challenges:

• Can experience high stress and burnout due to constant competition
• May struggle with collaboration if they focus too much on personal success
• Risk of prioritising profits over ethical or long-term considerations

Lions thrive in industries that require bold moves, strategic risk-taking, and aggressive market positioning. However, they need to balance their ambition with sustainable well-being strategies to avoid exhaustion.

Bees: The Collaborative Visionaries

Bees represent a very different type of entrepreneur. Instead of competition, they focus on teamwork, purpose, and creating value for their communities. These entrepreneurs are driven by a strong sense of responsibility, often building businesses with ethical and social goals in mind.

Strengths:

• Strong teamwork and collaboration skills
• Purpose-driven, often building businesses with lasting social impact
• Higher overall well-being due to meaningful work

Challenges:

• Can struggle with profitability if they prioritise social impact over financial sustainability
• May find it difficult to make tough decisions that require competition or assertiveness
• Risk of burnout from trying to satisfy multiple stakeholders

Bees are often found leading social enterprises, purpose-driven startups, and businesses that focus on sustainability and ethical impact. Their ability to create long-term value and trust makes them well-respected, but they must ensure they balance purpose with profit.

Chameleons: The Adaptable Strategists

Chameleons are the entrepreneurs who can adjust and pivot quickly in response to changing market conditions. They are highly strategic, opportunistic, and pragmatic, often using their ability to blend into different business environments to their advantage.

Strengths:

• Extremely adaptable and able to navigate uncertain or competitive markets
• Skilled in strategy, persuasion, and making the most of available opportunities
• Often successful in fast-changing industries such as tech and finance

Challenges:

• Can be perceived as manipulative or overly opportunistic
• May prioritise personal success over ethical considerations
• Risk of losing trust if their adaptability is seen as inconsistency

Chameleons thrive in industries that require constant evolution, such as technology, digital marketing, and investment. Their ability to adjust and seize opportunities is valuable, but they need to be mindful of ethical decision-making and long-term relationships.

How Entrepreneurial Identity Impacts Success and Well-Being

The study highlights that while all three types of entrepreneurs can be successful, they experience different levels of well-being and business performance.

• Bees generally report the highest well-being, as their work is aligned with personal values and social impact. However, they need to ensure financial sustainability to avoid burnout.
• Lions are highly successful but at risk of stress and burnout, as their relentless pursuit of competition can take a toll on personal life.
• Chameleons tend to achieve strong business outcomes but may face ethical dilemmas that impact their long-term reputation and trustworthiness.

This research suggests that knowing your entrepreneurial identity can help you make smarter decisions about leadership, strategy, and mental well-being.

Applying These Insights to Your Business

1. Identify Your Entrepreneurial Style: Are you a Lion, a Bee, or a Chameleon? Recognising your strengths and weaknesses can help you refine your approach to business.
2. Balance Your Strengths with Self-Awareness: If you’re a Lion, consider incorporating more collaboration into your strategy. If you’re a Bee, ensure your business model is financially sustainable. If you’re a Chameleon, focus on maintaining ethical and transparent business practices.
3. Leverage Your Natural Tendencies: Lions can use their drive for competition to innovate, Bees can strengthen brand loyalty through purpose-driven leadership, and Chameleons can adapt quickly to emerging trends.

Entrepreneurs are not one-size-fits-all. Whether you identify as a Lion, a Bee, or a Chameleon, understanding your entrepreneurial personality can help you navigate the challenges of business ownership more effectively. By playing to your strengths and addressing potential pitfalls, you can build a business that thrives while maintaining your well-being.

So, what’s your entrepreneurial spirit animal? 🦁🐝🦎

To read the full research, please visit: Lions, Bees, and Chameleons: Unravelling the Entrepreneurial Archetypes and Their Impact on Performance and Well-being.