137041744 Assessing Leadership Styles and Organisational Context Dulewicz and Higgs

Assessing leadership styles andorganisational context

Victor Dulewicz and Malcolm HiggsHenley Management College, Greenlands, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, UK

Abstract

Purpose – To investigate the new leadership dimensions questionnaire (LDQ) and a relatedframework for assessing an individual’s leadership style in relation to the context in which the leaderworks; the three new LDQ sub-scales designed to measure organisational context, followercommitment and leader performance; and the relationship between personality and leadership.

Design/methodology/approach – Research is reported on LDQ data from a large sample of leadersand managers (n 222) from a range of public and private organisations. A style score wascalculated and then related to data on respondents’ biographical – job function, gender, sector andnationality – and FFM personality data.

Findings – Results show a reasonably even allocation across all three leadership styles and that thestyles are independent of the four important biographical variables. They also show that the five FFMpersonality factors do not account for any additional variance on any of the styles at a significant level.Results on the factor structure of the organisational context, follower commitment and leaderperformance scales show them to be reliable scales.

Research limitations/implications – A majority of the sample were from the UK, from the privatesector and were male. This study did not incorporate measures of job performance or investigate thestyle and context link. The self-assessed, not the 3608 version of LDQ was used.

Practical implications – Some support is provided for the LDQ’s use for leadership assessment anddevelopment, and for identifying potential, in both public and private sector organisations, with astandardisation sample of more than 1,000 now available. Results also show that the LDQ can be usedwithout losing significant personality-related variance.

Originality/value – LDQ provides a unique opportunity for managers to relate leadershipdimensions to three different leadership styles – engaging, goal-oriented and involving – and, in turn,to the degree of organisational volatility faced by the leader, thus enabling respondents to identify themost appropriate style. Leader performance and follower commitment sub-scales should facilitatefurther research by academics into leadership performance.

Keywords Leadership, Job commitment

Paper type General review

IntroductionOrganisations and researchers have been obsessed over the last four decades withleadership, and attempts to deconstruct the phenomenon into a universal set ofmeasures (Kets De Vries, 1993; Goffee and Jones, 2000; Higgs, 2003; Conger and Toegel,2002). More recently a dominant approach to studying leadership has emerged. This isbased around the model of Transformational and Transactional leadership developedby Bass (1985) and operationalised by Bass and Avolio (1995). A strength of the modelhas been the distinction between sets of leadership behaviours required in two distinctcontexts.

This paper builds on the literature on Transformational leadership and explores anextended range of contexts. It presents a new framework for assessing leadership

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Assessingleadership styles

105

Received March 2004Revised September 2004

Accepted September 2004

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 20 No. 2, 2005

pp. 105-123q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683940510579759

competencies from which style profiles are drawn and then linked to the context inwhich the leader operates. Sub-scales are also incorporated which enable the user toreview leader performance and commitment of the followers.

A new model of leadershipHaving reviewed the development in thinking on the nature of effective leadership and,in particular, having looked at the literature from a “sense making” rather thandiscovery perspective (Weick, 1995), a pattern is beginning to emerge. From thisemerging literature it is proposed that effective leaders are differentiated from otherleaders through the exercise of a relatively small range of skill or competence areas(Kouznes and Posner, 1998; Goffee and Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2001; Hoganand Hogan, 2001). The way in which these skills and competencies are exercised is notprescribed, but is the function of the underlying personality of the leader (Hogan, 2002;Hogan and Hogan, 2001). Indeed, this combination is implied by Goffee and Jones(2000) in their statement that effective leadership requires “being yourself, with skill”.This relatively simple statement has significant implications for the way in which weview leadership, although it does challenge the view of some (Hogan and Hogan, 2001;Collins, 2001). As Collingwood (2001) points out, it is becoming evident that leadershipis personal. The personality of the leader plays an important part in the exercise ofleadership. The areas of effectiveness (the “skills”) need to be exercised in a way whichis congruent with the underlying personality of the leader. Building on this view, it ispossible to suggest a model (Higgs, 2003) that reflects the research and thinking onleadership emerging from a “sense making” paradigm. The elements in this model areexplored briefly below:

(1) Competence areas:. Envision – the ability to identify a clear future picture, which will inform the

way in which people direct their efforts and utilise their skills.. Engage – finding the appropriate way for each individual to understand the

vision and, hence, the way in which they can contribute.. Enable – acting on a belief in the talent and potential of individuals, and

creating the environment in which these can be released.. Inquire – being open to real dialogue with those involved in the organisation

and encouraging free and frank debate of all issues.. Develop – working with people to build their capability and help them to

make the envisioned contribution.

(2) Personal characteristics. Authenticity – being genuine and not attempting to “play a role”; not acting

in manipulative way.. Integrity – being consistent in what you say and do.. Will – a drive to lead, and persistence in working towards a goal.. Self-belief – a realistic evaluation of your capabilities and belief that you can

achieve required goals.. Self-awareness – a realistic understanding of “who you are”; how you feel

and how others see you.

JMP20,2

106

This model allows for the exercise of leadership in different ways and thus, for theimpact of organisational context on the way in which leadership is observed. Althoughthe model is not prescriptive, it does appear to miss an important element of leadership.The literature on leadership has consistently ignored cognitive elements for the lastfew decades. This is due in part to the dominance of quantitative studies and theassociated tendency not to measure cognitive elements in such studies. However,recently Kets de Vries and Florent-Treacy (2002) in a qualitative study of globalleaders proposed that effective leadership required a combination of behavioural,cognitive and personality factors. This suggestion does not make explicit where theleader’s ability to learn sits (or indeed if it is significant). Higgs and Rowland (2001) in astudy of change leaders identified the significance of leader learning. These two sets offindings may suggest that a leadership framework combining cognitive, behavioural,personality and learning factors may be a useful one within which to study leadership.However, as stated earlier it is clear that there is a dynamic relationship between theleaders and the organisational context. It may be reasonable to see the organisationalfactors which impact on leadership comprise its strategy, culture, policies and practicesand its ability to learn as an organisation (Senge et al., 2000). The relationship betweenleader and organisation is potentially a dynamic one. For example, differentorganisational strategies may require changes in leadership behaviours. However, it isalso feasible that a change in leadership behaviour may lead to a different strategicapproach being adopted by the organisation. This dynamic relationship is described indetail by Higgs and Dulewicz (2002). The essence is that changes in context requirechanges in the way in which leaders operate in the organisation.

Leadership styles and contextFrom the leadership literature there is an emerging consensus that there is no singleprescription for effective performance (Goffee and Jones, 2000; Gill, 2001; Higgs, 2003;Higgs and Rowland, 2003). The relationship between the approach of leaders (or theirleadership style) and the context in which they operate is seen to be important. Thisis by no means a new thought and is rooted in contingency theory (Fiedler, 1964;Hersey and Blanchard, 1969, 1993). However, more recently the contextualisationimplied by the Transformational school (Bass and Avolio, 1996) has moved from alargely internal leader: follower focus to a broader, and often external one (Higgs andRowland, 2003). In particular, there is an increasing focus on the efficacy of differentleadership behaviours in differing contexts of change (Wheatley, 2000; Jaworski,2001; Senge, 1997; Higgs and Rowland, 2003). Whilst a diverse range of behaviours isdescribed within this literature, it is feasible to group them into three broadcategories.

(1) Goal-oriented. A set of behaviours in which the leader sets direction andbehaves in a way in which he/she plays a significant role in directing others toachieve the key goals required to attain the performance required. This is notto suggest an authoritarian approach but rather behaviours which are stronglyleader-centric.

(2) Involving. A somewhat less leader-centric set of behaviours. In this category theleader’s focus remains on providing a strong sense of direction. However,there is a more significant focus on involving others in both setting directionand, to a larger extent, in determining how goals will be achieved.


107

(3) Engaging. Leader behaviours in this category are focused on facilitating othersin achieving both nature of the direction and means of achieving the necessarygoals. The leader is more concerned with developing the capability of others toachieve than with the close direction of the enterprise.

Table I illustrates the way in which the research and writing of some of the authorsworking with this contextualised view of leadership may be mapped onto these threecategories.

Turning to context, and in particular the context of change, the Transformationalschool (Bass and Avolio, 1996; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001) posit twodistinct contexts: transformational change and “steady-state”. However, within thechange literature it is evident that there is a diverse range of change contexts (Buchananet al., 1999; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2003). Reviewing this range it isfeasible to identify the following key contextual variables (Higgs and Rowland, 2003):

(1) magnitude and scale of change;

(2) source of change (i.e. internal or external);

(3) impact of the change on those in the business; and

(4) timescales and speed of change

Overall, it is perhaps useful to consider the change context in terms of volatilityand complexity and to see it as a continuum rather than, as is done bythe “Transformational school”, a bipolar variable.

The relationship between leadership behaviours and change context is evident in the“Transformational school”. However, until recently little empirical work had beenconducted which related leadership behaviours to a more elaborate operationalisationof change context. Higgs and Rowland (2003) report the results of a study of overseventy change stories from ten organisations in which leadership behaviourcategories were examined for effectiveness in a broad range of change contexts.They found that as complexity of the context increased, a more facilitative style ofleadership became necessary for success. A leader-centric or directive style was foundto be inappropriate and ineffective in such context. However, such a style was found tobe more common (and indeed dominant) in relatively simple and straightforwardcontexts. From the above it is feasible to suggest a relationship between leadershipstyle and context along the lines presented in Table II.

Follower commitment and leader performanceThe term organisational commitment (OC) covers a range of affective factorsconcerning followers’ attachment, loyalty, involvement and identification with theirorganisation and also some cognitive factors relating to, for example, understanding

StyleGoffee andJones (2000)

Bass andAvolio (1996)

Higgs andRowland (2003)

Hersey andBlanchard(1969; 1993)

Wheatley(2000)

Jaworski(2001)

Fiedler(1964)

Goal Oriented _ _ _ _ – – _Involving _ _ _ _ _ _ _Engaging – – _ – _ _ –

Table I.Mapping the three styleson the relevant literature

JMP20,2

108

change and calculating benefits to self. Indeed, research studies have found there to betwo important and fairly independent aspects of OC, an attitudinal/affective and arational/calculative type (Cook and Wall, 1980; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Cacioppe(1997) found that quality of work experience is related to the attitudinal/affectivetype and so interacting with effective leaders is likely to contribute to followers’ OC.Mathieu and Zajac (1990), from a meta-analysis, showed that various leader relationswith followers such as “leader consideration, communication and participativebehaviour” were antecedents of OC.

Bass and Avolio’s (1995) MLQ questionnaire includes three scales designed tomeasure outcomes, specifically followers’:

. extra effort;

. leader satisfaction; and

. leader effectiveness.

Since MLQ is a 3608 instrument, data collected includes not only self-assessments butalso assessments by others, especially subordinates.

Research on these has shown that transformational leadership is more highlycorrelated with these outcome variables than transactional. Furthermore, managementby exception and Laissez-Faire behaviour has been found to be negatively related ornot related (Bass, 1985). Kaipiainen’s (2004) results confirmed that transformationalleadership produces significantly greater OC amongst followers than transactional andalso leads to significantly higher job performance of leaders.

Next, this paper will describe how research findings into emotional intelligence andsenior management (leaders’) competencies has been developed into a framework forassessing an individual’s leadership style within the organisational context, which concurswith the conclusions drawn from the brief review of the leadership literature above.

Links between the leadership literature and “EQ, IQ and MQ” competenciesIn looking more broadly at leadership and, in particular, the future nature ofleadership, a number of authors have identified the growing significance of emotionalintelligence (Cacioppe, 1997; Sosik and Magerian, 1999; Chaudry, 2001). In part, thisshift in focus from the rational to emotional aspects of leadership represents thecontinuation of a trend encountered more broadly in thinking on organisationalbehaviour and leadership (Fineman, 1997; Goffee and Jones, 2000). Indeed, although notexplicitly surfaced, much of the literature on transformational leadership implies thatleaders require emotional intelligence (Higgs and Rowland, 2001).

The authors’ review of the leadership literature (above) from the“Transformational” period onwards focused on models that contain clearly defined,

Change contextLeadership styles Low change Moderate change High change

Goal oriented _ ( _ ) –Involving ( _ ) _ ( _ )Engaging – ( _ ) _

Notes: _ ¼ good fit; ( _ ) ¼ a degree of fit

Table II.Matching leadership style

and change context


109

behavioural constructs. On the basis of a content analysis of these constructs, thereappears to be strong indications of a linkage between leadership and emotionalintelligence. Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) provide a “map” of some of the key leadershipmodels and their potential relationship to the elements of emotional intelligence asdefined by Higgs and Dulewicz (2002). The key themes were propounded by eminentauthorities on the subject of leadership reviewed above (Bass and Avolio, 1995;Alimo-Metcalf and Alban-Metcalf, 2001; Goffee and Jones, 2000; Kouznes and Posner,1998; Kotter, 1990; Bennis, 1998; and Goleman et al., 2002). Their results show that thelarge majority of cells in the matrix are filled by at least one construct. The EQ elementself-awareness appears to be least well covered, but still gains support from threeauthors.

Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) also conducted a similar mapping exercise on the keythemes propounded by same eminent authorities onto the IQ and MQ dimensionsrequired for effective leadership. Their results show that the large majority of cells inthe matrix are filled by at least one construct. The Bass and Avolio (1995) andAlimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalf (2001) models provide support for all eight IQ andMQ dimensions while the lowest support is provided by the Goffee and Jones (2000)model. However, the other five models have fewer constructs and so inevitably provideless wide coverage of the domain. Nevertheless, they all provide links with at least fiveof the eight IQ and MQ dimensions. Critical analysis and judgement appears to be leastwell covered but nevertheless gains support from three authors.

Finally, Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) linked the 15 dimensions measured by the LDQto the components of the emerging model of leadership, embracing both competenciesand personal characteristics. They found that each component was linked to at leastone LDQ dimension and that each dimension is linked to at least one component of theemerging model apart from critical analysis and judgement. The results of these threemapping exercises provide strong evidence to support the content validity of the LDQ.In the next section, the dimensions will be described and data on the reliability andcriterion, content and construct validity of the LDQ instrument will be presented.

The leadership dimensions questionnaireTwo pilot studies were conducted to refine the questionnaire using item analysis, asdescribed by Dulewicz and Higgs (2003). The final version of the LDQ contains 70 EQitems and 80 IQ and MQ items, 10 per scale, and was refined from the original 175 trialitems. The final version of the LDQ contains 15 scales, titles and short definitions ofwhich appear in Table III.

Scale scores and biographical dataDulewicz and Higgs (2003) analysed scores on the 15 dimensions in relation to anumber of respondents’ biographical variables: age; level of qualification, gender,function, sector and qualifications attained. Taking all of their results into account,they concluded that scores on most, if not all of the 15 LDQ dimensions appear to belargely independent of the gender, job function, qualification level and sector of theirrespondents. However, there were a few exceptions: males had higher scores on thecritical analysis and judgement scale; general managers had higher scores, and thosewith degrees or professional qualifications had lower scores, on self-awareness; andage was significantly negatively correlated with four dimensions out of 15.

JMP20,2

110

Intellectual dimensions (IQ)

(A) Critical analysis and judgement A critical faculty that probes the facts, identifies advantagesand disadvantages and discerns the shortcomings of ideasand proposals. Makes sound judgments and decisions basedon reasonable assumptions and factual information, awareof the impact of any assumptions made

(B) Vision and imagination Imaginative and innovative in all aspects of one’s work.Establishes sound priorities for future work. Clear vision ofthe future direction of the organisation to meet businessimperatives. Foresees the impact of changes on one’svision that reflect implementation issues and businessrealities

(C) Strategic perspective. Sees the wider issues and broader implications. Exploreswide range of relationships, balances short- and long-termconsiderations. Sensitive to the impact of one’s actions anddecisions across the organisation. Identifiesopportunities and threats. Sensitive to stakeholders’ needsand the implications of external factors on decisions andactions

Managerial dimensions (MQ)(D) Resource management Plans ahead, organises all resources and coordinates them

efficiently and effectively. Establishes clear objectives.Converts long-term goals into action plans. Monitors andevaluates staff’s work regularly and effectively, givessensitive, honest feedback

(K) Engaging communication A lively and enthusiastic communicator, engages othersand wins support. Clearly communicates instructions andvision to staff. Communications are tailored to theaudience’s interests and focused. Communication styleinspires staff and audiences, conveys approachability andaccessibility

(L) Empowering Gives staff autonomy, encourages them to take onpersonally challenging demanding tasks. Encourages themto solve problems, produce innovative ideas and proposalsand develop their vision and a broader vision. Encourages acritical faculty and a broad perspective, and encourages thechallenging of existing practices, assumptions and policies

(M) Developing Believes others have potential to take on evermore-demanding tasks and roles, encourages them to do so.Ensures direct reports have adequate support. Developstheir competencies, and invests time and effort in coachingthem so they contribute effectively and develop themselves.Identifies new tasks and roles to develop others. Believesthat critical feedback and challenge are important

(P) Achieving Willing to make decisions involving significant risk to gainan advantage. Decisions are based on core business issuesand their likely impact on success. Selects and exploitsactivities that result in the greatest benefits to theorganisation and its performance. Unwaveringdetermination to achieve objectives and implementdecisions

(continued )

Table III.Definitions of the scales

of the leadershipdimensions questionnaire


111

ReliabilityThe results of a reliability analysis conducted on the 15 dimensions of LDQ arepublished by Dulewicz and Higgs (2003, 2004). All 15 LDQ scale co-efficientreached an acceptable level, being above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), with vision andimagination, engaging communication, managing resources and developing beingparticularly highly reliable. The relatively weakest dimensions were criticalanalysis and judgement, empowering and achieving but they still reached anacceptable level.

ValidityThree main types of validity of the LDQ – construct, content and criterion(concurrent) – will be summarised. Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) claim that Contentvalidity of LDQ was derived from the rigour with which all facets of leadership werereviewed and mapped onto the 15 dimensions. Furthermore, they reference the extensive

Emotional and social dimensions (EQ)(E) Self-awareness Awareness of one’s own feelings and the capability to

recognise and manage these in a way that one feels that onecan control. A degree of self-belief in one’s capability tomanage one’s emotions and to control their impact in a workenvironment

(F) Emotional resilience Performs consistently in a range of situations underpressure and adapts behaviour appropriately. Balances theneeds of the situation and task with the needs and concernsof the individuals involved. Retains focus on a course ofaction or need for results in the face of personal challenge orcriticism

(G) Intuitiveness Arrives at clear decisions and drives their implementationwhen presented with incomplete or ambiguous informationusing both rational and “emotional” or intuitive perceptionsof key issues and implications

(H) Interpersonal sensitivity Is aware of, and takes account of, the needs and perceptionsof others in arriving at decisions and proposing solutions toproblems and challenges. Builds from this awareness andachieves the commitment of others to decisions and action.A willingness to keep open one’s thoughts on possiblesolutions to problems and to actively listen to, and reflecton, the reactions and inputs from others

(J) Influence Persuades others to change views based on anunderstanding of their position and a recognition of the needto listen to this perspective and provide a rationalefor change

(N) Motivation Drive and energy to achieve clear results and make animpact. Balances short- and long-term goals with acapability to pursue demanding goals in the face of rejectionor questioning

(Q) Conscientiousness Displays clear commitment to a course of action in the faceof challenge and to match “words and deeds” inencouraging others to support the chosen direction.Shows personal commitment to pursuing an ethical solutionto a difficult business issue or problemTable III.

JMP20,2

112

literature on personal competences of senior managers in leadership roles. Clear linkswere drawn with items in manager and director personal competences surveys thatappeared to be related to leadership. This work enabled them to write LDQ items basedupon a comprehensive set of constructs considered by many leading authors in the fieldto relate to leadership requirements, and then in turn to link these to personalcompetences.

Construct validity deals with how well, or to what degree, the test measures thetarget trait or construct. Correlation co-efficients between LDQ dimensions and16PF (Cattell et al., 1970) personality factors are presented by Dulewicz and Higgs(2003). They state that one would expect some personality factors to be related tosome LDQ dimensions, specifically EQ and MQ dimensions, but not others (IQ),because they are closer to personality-type constructs. The authors tested out anumber of hypothesised relationships and found that most of the LDQ dimensionsrelated to interpersonal behaviour and emotional adjustment behaviours hadconstruct validity (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003). Young and Dulewicz (2003) presentcorrelations between the 15 LDQ dimensions and scores on the OPQ personalityquestionnaire (Saville et al., 1993). They hypothesised areas of convergence anddivergence between the two sets of scales and found a high proportion of theirpredictions were borne out. In a recent study of the convergent and divergentconstruct validity of the eight LDQ dimensions derived from the social andemotional (EQ) competencies, Kaipiainen (2004) found evidence of convergentvalidity against scales of social intelligence, empathy and leadership derived fromBass’s MLQ. She found divergent validity with Machiavellianism and TyrannicalLeadership scales.

Criterion (Concurrent) validity refers to the degree to which test scores can predictjob performance. Young and Dulewicz (2003) present correlations between the 15 LDQdimensions and job performance ratings on 261 Naval Officers from the formalappraisal system. They found that 11 of the 15 dimensions of LDQ (73 per cent) weresignificantly related to current job performance. Kaipiainen’s (2004) results alsoshowed significant correlations between the EQ dimensions of LDQ and jobperformance, particularly with EQ assessments from peers and subordinates.Furthermore, she showed that EQ dimensions added “incremental validity” overtransformational leadership from the MLQ, using hierarchical regression analysis withjob performance as the dependent variable.

Research into leadership styles and contextFurther analyses were conducted on leadership style and organisational context usingthe final version of LDQ, on data from the combined sample from the two pilot studieswhose biographical details are presented below.

SampleThe sample consisted of 222 managers and officers whose biographical details aresummarised here. The average age of the subjects was 38.3 years (SD 7.3); and timespent in current job was 31.3 months (SD 23.9). A large majority of the sample wasmale (70.2 per cent) and worked in the private sector (81.8 per cent). Looking at thefunctions in which they worked, 32 per cent were general managers, 18 per cent werein sales/marketing, 15 per cent in finance, 10 per cent in technical and the remainder in


113

other functions. As regards their highest qualifications, 37 per cent had a first degreeand a further 48 per cent had higher degrees and/or professional qualifications.Turning finally to the nationality of the respondents, 58 per cent were from the UK,22 per cent were from the rest of Europe and the remaining 20 per cent were from allother parts of the world.

The three leadership stylesThe authors contend that effective leadership is increasingly being seen in terms of acombination of:

. personal characteristics which are required to enable an individual to engage in aleadership role in an effective manner;

. a range of skills and behaviours which need to be in place to provide effectiveleadership;

. a range of styles related to the context in which leadership is exercised; and

. a range of ways in which the leadership behaviours may be exercised in a waythat matches the personal style of the individual leader.

In addition, it is quite widely accepted that leadership may be exhibited at many levelsin an organisation (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995).

Based on their review of the literature covering different leader behaviours indiffering contexts of change (see Introduction above), the authors’ identified threedistinct leadership styles.

. Engaging leadership. A style based on a high level of empowerment andinvolvement appropriate in a highly transformational context. Such a style isfocused on producing radical change with high levels of engagement andcommitment.

. Involving leadership. A style that is based on a transitional organisation whichfaces significant, but not necessarily radical changes in its business model or“modus operandi”.

. Goal leadership. A style that is focused on delivering results within a relativelystable context. This is a Leader-led style aligned to a stable organisationdelivering clearly understood results.

The profile for each style, based upon the range (high, medium, or low) of scoresobtained on the 15 LDQ dimensions, is presented in Table IV. These profiles weredeveloped from a content analysis of the literature on leadership. Initially, thisfocused on the transformational and transactional behaviours which werecontext-based (Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass and Avolio, 1995) and subsequentlyexpanded to encompass the change leadership and broader change literature. Theengaging style was informed by authors working in the transformational andchange leadership fields (Bass, 1995; Higgs and Rowland, 2003; Kouznes andPosner, 1998). The traditional and the transactional leadership literature informedthe development of the goal-oriented style (Bass, 1995; Kotter, 1990; Hersey andBlanchard, 1993). The involving style was again informed by both more traditionaland change leadership literature (Bennis, 1998; Chaudry, 2001; Gill, 2001; Herseyand Blanchard, 1993; Higgs and Rowland, 2003).

JMP20,2

114

Results of study 1 (styles)The difference measure (d)To assess the degree of fit between an individual’s profile and the designatedprofile for each leadership style, it was necessary to calculate difference scores.Wohlers and London’s (1989) d measure, widely used in this field for profilecomparisons, was computed for each individual for each of the three styles, using theirformula. To calculate each person’s d score, dimension scores were calculated, based onthe per centage of the maximum possible raw score (50). Three ranges were chosen, todenote high, medium and low scores. The benchmarks used for the style ranges werebased on a review of the frequency distributions for all 15 scales. In order to obtainmaximum separation, the benchmark selected for the low range was 60 per cent, andfor the high range, 80 per cent. The benchmark selected for the medium range was themidpoint between the other two, i.e. 70 per cent.

Descriptive statistics for the d measures appear in Table V. Although the means,SDs and ranges for all three scales are similar, the variables were all standardized so

Goal-oriented Involving Engaging

Mean 13.2 12.9 13.4Std. deviation 2.8 2.9 3.1Range 15.4 15.6 18.3Minimum 7.0 5.7 4.9Maximum 22.4 21.4 23.2

Missing TotalN 221 221 221 1 222N fitted to each style: (d z-score ,0.00, bottom 50 per cent)Lowest d z-score Sub-total Poor fit TotalFrequency 44 39 58 141 81 222Per cent 31 28 41 – 36 –

Table V.Descriptive statistics for

d scores for the threeleadership styles

LDQ dimension Low Medium High

Critical analysis and judgement – E I GVision and imagination – E G IStrategic perspective – E I GEngaging communication – G I EManaging resources E I GEmpowering G I EDeveloping – G I EAchieving – E I GSelf-awareness – G E IEmotional resilence – – G E IMotivation – – G E IInterpersonal sensitivity – G I EInfluencing – G E IIntuitiveness – G I EConscientiousness – – G E I

Note: Profiles of the three leadership styles showing their typical scores on the leadership dimensionsquestionnaire

Table IV.Three leadership style

profiles: goal oriented (G),engaging (E) and

involving (I)


115

that exactly comparable scores for each style could be used to assess the degree of fitfor each individual, and between individuals. Taking the individual’s lowest d z-scoreas their current style, would have meant that some individuals were not closely fittedto any of the styles and so the analysis focussed on individuals with d z-scores below0.00 (i.e. the lowest 50 per cent). Data on these individuals (n ¼ 141) are presented inTable V and show the following breakdown: 31 per cent are goal-oriented, 28 per centare involving; but the most common style is engaging with 41 per cent. The subsequentanalyses reported below are based on this sub-sample of individuals closely fitted to atleast one style.

Styles and biographical dataThe styles “best fit” results just mentioned were analysed to determine whether therewere any statistically significant differences on biographical variables, using theChi-square test. A comparison of current appropriate styles by gender showed nodifferences between males and females (Chi–square ¼ 2:05; df ¼ 2; Not sig.).Furthermore, no differences were found when comparing styles according to the sectorin which the manager works – Private and Public/Not for Profit which were combinedto ensure adequate cell-size (Chi–square ¼ 2:04; df ¼ 2; Not sig.). Turning to jobfunction and nationality, once again no differences were found between the threestyles. Chi-square analysis was also conducted across four job categories – GeneralManagement, Marketing, Finance and Technical (All others were combined to ensureadequate cell-size; Chi–square ¼ 5:96; df ¼ 2; Not sig.). A comparison betweenmanagers from the UK and from all other countries combined (the numbers from manyother countries was too small to treat them separately) produced a Chi–square ¼ 3:38;df ¼ 2; Not sig. So, overall, there were no differences between styles on these fourimportant biographical variables.

LDQ dimensions, styles and personalityAn important issue arising from the literature is the relationship between leadershipand personality. In order to explore this, the relationships between respondents’ LDQdimensions, three leadership styles and personality characteristics from the 16PFquestionnaire (Cattell et al., 1970) were investigated. The first-order factors weremapped onto the five-factor model (FFM) according to the classification frameworkdeveloped by Salgado (2003) for his meta-analysis of the FFM.

From a comparison of the respective definitions, the LDQ intellectual IQcompetencies and managerial MQ competencies do not appear to overlap with theFFM personality factors while; in contrast, some of the social and emotional EQcompetencies do. In order to explore this area, correlations were conducted betweenfour pairings for which relationships were hypothesised: emotional resilience andFFM emotional stability (r ¼ 0:62; n ¼ 107; sig. at 0.01 level); influence and FFMagreeableness (r ¼ 0:12; n ¼ 107; not sig.); interpersonal sensitivity andFFM agreeableness (r ¼ 20:09; n ¼ 107; not sig.) and conscientiousness and FFMconscientiousness (r ¼ 0:51; n ¼ 107; sig. at 0.01 level). Therefore, twoFFM personality factors are closely related to LDQ dimensions and two are not.

Initially, stepwise multiple regression was used to explore the relationships betweenpersonality and the three leadership styles. The model produced for the engaging styleshowed that only one FFM factor, extraversion, contributed to the variance (R ¼ 0:221;R2 ¼ 0:049; standardised b¼20.221; sig. at 0.02 level), only 4.9 per cent of which was

JMP20,2

116

explained. The relationships between the FFM factors and the other two styles were soweak that stepwise models could not be produced.

In order to determine whether the five FFM personality factors contributedsignificant additional variance over and above the 15 LDQ dimensions, hierarchicalregression analyses were conducted on each of the three styles. The results, whichappear in Table VI, show that the five FFM personality factors do not account for anyadditional variance on any of the styles at a significant level. Therefore, personalitydoes not seem to add significantly to the leadership competencies which define thethree LDQ styles.

Results of study 2As noted in the Introduction, the context within which leaders operate is a major factormediating their performance. From the literature review, the authors concluded thatthe different styles, matched to the degree of contextual volatility, would be importantin determining both appropriateness and effectiveness. Therefore, an organisationalcontext scale was designed (to become section II of the LDQ) to examine the degree andnature of change and volatility in their working environment that respondents perceivethey face in their role as a leader.

The pilot scale was developed from a review of the change literature (Higgs andRowland, 2003) and contained 27 items relating to a wide range of contextual variablesfaced by leaders within organisations. After item-analysis involving part-wholecorrelations, six items which did not correlate significantly with the overall scale scorewere dropped. The final context scale was thus reduced to 21 items, relating to variousaspects of change being faced by the respondent. In order to obtain a betterunderstanding of the nature and structure of this new scale, a factor analysis wasconducted. It showed (Table VII) that the scale is made up of five separate components:a general fundamental need to change, fundamental change of theorganisation/business, the need for followers to change, specific pressures from thebusiness environment; and an unstable context. Cronbach reliabilty analysis showedthat the overall scale has high reliability (a ¼ 0:9).

In order to enable users to relate scale scores to leadership style, a frequencydistribution was produced and score ranges identified for three equal-sized groups,reflecting the degree of change perceived. Scores of 58 or below were selected toreflect relative stability; 59-73 significant change; and 74 and above radical,transformational change.

Change statisticsModel R R2 R2 change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change

DV – goal oriented styleLDQ 0.645 0.416 0.416 4.330 15 91 0.00LDQ þ FFM 0.662 0.439 0.022 0.677 5 86 0.64DV – involving styleLDQ 0.721 0.519 0.519 6.556 15 91 0.00LDQ þ FFM 0.735 0.540 0.021 0.772 5 86 0.57DV – engaging styleLDQ 0.738 0.545 0.545 7.267 15 91 0.00LDQ þ FFM 0.762 0.580 0.035 1.443 5 86 0.22

Table VI.Hierarchical regression

on three LDQ styles(DVs) and LDQ

dimensions plus FFMpersonality scores as IVs


117

Leader performance and follower commitmentAs noted in the introduction above, some leadership questionnaires contain integralleader performance and follower commitment scales (Bass and Avolio, 1995). In orderto facilitate further research into LDQ, it was decided to include two such scales in thesecond part of the LDQ. The first scale provides a self-assessment of leadershipperformance. It contains six items, covering followers’ effort, capability and flexibilityand overall team performance and impact. A factor analysis revealed two components,broadly reflecting followers’ individual contributions and team output, respectively.Detailed results appear in Table VIII. Further analysis showed the overall scale to haveacceptable reliability (Nunnally, 1978), with a ¼ 0:7.It was stated in the Introduction that the term OC covers a range of “affective” factorsconcerning followers’ attachment, loyalty, involvement and identification with theirorganisation and also some “cognitive” factors relating to, for example, understanding

ComponentItem 1 2 3 4 5

C8 0.88 0.13 0.09 20.04 0.01C23 0.87 0.06 0.15 0.16 20.01C2 0.76 0.25 0.20 0.07 0.16C36 0.72 20.06 0.20 0.14 0.14C3 0.59 0.33 0.16 20.06 0.40C13 0.58 0.40 0.03 20.01 0.34C9 0.56 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.13C7 0.46 0.38 0.12 20.12 20.01C12 0.42 0.67 0.11 0.19 20.11C22 0.22 20.31 0.58 0.12 0.43C19 0.22 0.40 0.57 20.03 0.26C6 0.21 0.75 20.04 20.24 0.14C26 0.20 0.16 0.19 0.08 0.80C27 0.20 0.58 0.29 0.29 0.05C16 0.16 20.04 0.69 0.13 0.07C31 0.15 0.07 0.77 20.18 0.00C28 0.14 0.25 0.71 0.23 20.07C11 0.12 0.49 20.21 0.37 0.38C18 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.67 20.36C14 0.11 0.00 20.04 0.61 0.21C1 20.27 0.63 0.17 0.47 0.12

Table VII.Rotated componentmatrix on LDQ changescale (21 items)

Performance items (Rotated component matrix) Commitment itemsComponent (Component matrix)

Item 1 2 Item Component 1

P1 0.415 0.186 Com 1 0.761P2 0.020 0.862 Com 2 0.612P3 0.283 0.510 Com 3 0.696P5 0.124 0.743 Com 4 0.644P6 0.882 0.114 Com 5 0.654P4 0.895 0.053

Table VIII.Component matrices forperformance andcommitment scales

JMP20,2

118

change and calculating benefits to self. Indeed, research studies have found there to betwo important and fairly independent aspects of OC, an attitudinal/affective and arational/calculative type (Cook and Wall, 1980; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Therefore, anOC scale was designed to assess the degree of commitment that followers show to theorganisation and to the team in which they work, covering job satisfaction, realism,commitment to requisite change and to the organisation and understanding the needfor change. It contains five items and only one component emerged from a factoranalysis (Table VIII). The overall scale also shows acceptable reliability (a ¼ 0:7).

DiscussionAccording to its authors (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003), the final version of the LDQ hasbenefited from rigorous trials involving two pilot studies. Their overall aim of having10 items per scale has given broad coverage of the complex dimensions measured bythe LDQ and has at the same time produced respectable a reliability coefficients.Its authors also demonstrated construct validity, finding a large number of significantcorrelations between LDQ and personality characteristics (from 16PF), with thegeneral finding that managers higher on relevant dimensions generally tend to be moreextraverted and emotionally well adjusted, and specifically to have greater strategicperspective and conscientiousness. In addition, Young and Dulewicz (2003) showedconstruct and criterion validity from their research based on personality data (from theOPQ) and job performance ratings of Naval officers.

One important feature of the LDQ is its ability to relate profiles of the scores acrossthe 15 dimensions to three different leadership styles. The relevance of each one isdependent on the context within which leadership is exercised. Analyses of leadershipstyles, using a reasonably close “fit” score (capturing 64 per cent of the total sample of222), showed a reasonably even allocation across all three styles. Furthermore, data inthis paper has shown that the styles are independent of four important biographicalvariables – the breakdown did not vary according to the gender, sector, function, ornationality of the respondent.

Turning to personality, the possible overlap between the social and emotional EQcompetencies from LDQ and the FFM personality factors were explored. Whilstcorrelations between influence and FFM agreeableness and between interpersonalsensitivity and FFM agreeableness were not significant, the relationships betweenemotional resilience and FFM emotional stability, and conscientiousness and FFMconscientiousness were highly statistically significant. However, Salgado (2003)reports in his review of meta-analyses of the FFM that only these two factors have beenshown to predict job performance in a large number of studies. Therefore, any suchoverlap should help to improve the criterion validity of the LDQ.

Of the three styles, only the extraversion FFM personality factor accounted foradditional style variance, and only to one style – engaging. Furthermore, the FFMpersonality characteristics did not add any incremental variance over and above theLDQ dimensions. Moreover, a concurrent study by Young (2004), which investigatedthe link between FFM personality factors and leadership performance, found thatpersonality does not explain any additional variance over the LDQ dimensionswhereas the latter do explain extra variance compared to personality factors alone.From these results it would appear that personality is not a moderator variablebetween leadership competencies on the one hand and leadership style and


119

performance on the other. This does tend to challenge the personality view put forwardby some authors (Hogan and Hogan, 2001). Leaders with different personality profilesappear to be able to adopt similar styles and perform at different levels. This lendscredence to the propositions presented in the emerging literature (Goffee and Jones,2000). Nevertheless, further research in this area would be desirable.

The literature strongly suggests that the situation or context is highly relevant toleadership style. In addition, many assert that leadership nowadays is largely aboutdealing with, and leading, change and that therefore, the efficacy of different leaderbehaviours in different change contexts needs to be assessed. The organisationalcontext scale has therefore been designed to cover these requirements and hasbeen shown to be a reliable scale, covering five different aspects of leadership.The five factors measured by the scale correspond to the relevant contextual changevariables – magnitude, sources, impact on followers, and timescale/speed – outlinedby Higgs and Rowland (2003) and noted above. Further work should focus oninteractions between style and context, and links to leader performance.

One way of measuring leader performance is by self-assessment. To facilitate this,the LDQ includes a six-item scale that, after item analysis, has been shown to haveacceptable reliability. The scale covers both the performance of individual followersand the overall output of the group being led. A 3608 version of LDQ has been designedwhich will also provide performance assessment of the leader by the followers.However, assessments of performance through the organisation’s appraisal system areto be encouraged and current work is underway to investigate the relationship betweenself, follower and formal (boss) appraisals.

Another angle for assessing leader performance is via the commitment and jobsatisfaction of the followers. Therefore, a commitment scale has also been built into theLDQ. This has been shown to be reliable and covers commitment to change and to theorganisation, as well as job satisfaction, realism and commitment to change. Furtherresearch should investigate the interactions between follower commitment and leaderperformance via self and 3608 appraisal, and also the dimensions of leadership whichare most closely linked to these various aspects of commitment.

Three recent studies have included research into the relationship between jobperformance and the seven “EQ” dimensions of LDQ. A study of team leaders(Dulewicz and Higgs, 2000) provided clear evidence of a link with measures of currentperformance on six of the dimensions – self-awareness, emotional resilience,motivation, influence, intuitiveness and conscientiousness, using both self and 3608appraisal. Dulewicz et al. (2003) reported the results of a study on middle-managerswhich investigated the degree to which “EQ” dimensions are related to performance.Significant relationships were found with current job performance on three dimensions– self-awareness, emotional resilience and motivation. Kaipiainen’s (2004) recent study,noted above, included the “EQ” dimensions and her results confirmed significantrelationships between these scales and commitment amongst followers, particularlyaspects of loyalty and identity; and scores on MLQ (Bass and Avolio, 1995) outcomescales relating to followers’ extra effort, leader satisfaction and leader effectiveness.Current research studies underway will show to what extent these two subscalesprovide support for the validity of LDQ and the extent to which style-context match isrelevant to both performance and follower commitment.

JMP20,2

120

Further studies are planned or underway on a wide variety of leaders from anumber of different countries. Correlations with other leadership questionnaires arealso planned, to produce further data on the construct validity of the LDQ, to broadenunderstanding of the 15 dimensions. Replication of other studies that haveincorporated measures of context, performance, commitment and job satisfaction ascriterion measures will also provide further relevant information on validity. Finally,work is currently underway to investigate the link between style and context byanalysing job performance of different style fits.

ConclusionIn this paper, the technical properties of the LDQ have been summarised. The results ofthis study provide some support for its use for leadership assessment and development,and for identifying potential, in both public and private sector organisations. Theseresults suggest that the selection of leaders could become more accurate and suggesteddevelopment actions contained in the LDQ report more focused and relevant.Furthermore, standardisation data are available, based on a sample of more than 1,000managers and senior officers, with 50 per cent from the public sector and 24 per centfemale. The norms produced constitute a comprehensive sample of middle and seniormanagers from around the world (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003). A unique feature of theLDQ is the opportunity it provides to relate profiles of the scores across the 15dimensions to three different leadership styles and in turn to the degree oforganisational volatility faced by the leader. The relevance of each style is dependent onthe context within which leadership is exercised. The context scale in part II of thequestionnaire provides a reliable measure to help respondents identify the style that ismost appropriate for their role in the current organisational context. New sub-scalesdesigned to measure leader performance and follower commitment have also beenproduced to facilitate further research into the LDQ questionnaire.

References

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995), “An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership”,Women in Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 3-8.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. (2001), “Development of the TLQ”, Journal ofOccupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 1-24.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stodghill Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research andApplications, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B. (1995), The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden,Palo Alto, CA.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1996), Postscripts: Recent Developments for ImprovingOrganisational Effectiveness, Sage, London.

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), Breaking the Code of Change, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

Bennis, W. (1998), On Becoming a Leader, Hutchinson, London.

Buchanan, D., Claydon, T. and Doyle, M. (1999), “Organisation development and change: thelegacy of the nineties”, Human Resource Management Journal;, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 20-37.

Cacioppe, R. (1997), “Leadership moment by moment!”, Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 335-46.


121

Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970), Handbook for the 16PF, IPAT, IL.

Chaudry, S. (2001), Management 21C, Pearson Education, London.

Collingwood, H. (2001), “Personal histories”, Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 27-38.

Collins, J. (2001), “Level 5 leadership. the triumph of humility and fierce resolve”, HarvardBusiness Review, pp. 67-76, January-February.

Conger, J. and Toegel, G. (2002), “A story of missed opportunities: qualitative methods forleadership research and practice”, in Parry, K.W. and Meindl, J.R. (Eds), GroundingLeadership Theory and Research, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 175-98.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitmentand need non-fulfilment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M.J. (2000), “360-degree assessment of emotional intelligence: a study”,Selection & Development Review, Vol. 16 No. 3.

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M.J. (2003), Design of a new instrument to assess leadership dimensionsand styles. Henley Working Paper 0311, Henley Management College, Henley, available at:www:henleymc.ac.uk

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M.J. (2004), “A new instrument to assess leadership dimensions andstyles”, Selection & Development Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 7-12.

Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M.J. and Slaski, M. (2003), “Emotional intelligence: construct and concurrentvalidity”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 5, p. 18.

Fiedler, F. (1964), “A contingency model of leadership effectiveness”, in Berkowicz, L. (Ed.),Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Fineman, S. (1997), “Emotion and management learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 28 No. 1,pp. 13-25.

Gill, R. (2001), “Towards an integrated theory of leadership”, paper presented at the EIASMLeadership Conference, Oxford, December 2002.

Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2000), “Why should anyone be led by you?”, Harvard Business Review,September-October, pp. 63-70.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002), The New Leaders, Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, MA.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969), “Life cycle theory of leadership”, Training & DevelopmentJournal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 26-34.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1993), Management of Organisational Behaviour: Utilising HR,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Higgs, M.J. (2003), “Developments in leadership thinking”, Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 273-84.

Higgs, M.J. and Dulewicz, V. (2002), Making Sense of Emotional Intelligence, 2nd ed.,NFER-Nelson, Windsor.

Higgs, M.J. and Rowland, D. (2001), “Developing change leaders: assessing the impact of adevelopment programme”, Change Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1.

Higgs, M.J. and Rowland, D. (2003), “Is change changing? An examination of approaches tochange and its leadership”, Henley Working Paper 0313, Henley Management College,Henley, available at: www: henleymc.ac.uk

Hogan, R. (2002), “Leadership: what do we know?”, presentation for Leadership DevelopmentCentre, Wellington.

JMP20,2

122

Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001), “Assessing leadership: a view from the dark side”, InternationalJournal of Selection and Development, Vol. 9 No. 1/2, pp. 40-51.

Jaworski, J. (2001), Synchronicity, Berrett-Koehler, New York, NY.

Kaipiainen, S. (2004), “The relationship of emotional intelligence with leadership andself-awareness in predicting organisational outcomes”, unpublished PhD thesis,University of London, London.

Kets De Vries, M. (1993), Leaders, Fools, Imposters, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Kets De Vries, M. and Florent-Treacy, E. (2002), “Global leadership from A to Z: creating highcommitment organisations”, Organisation Dynamics, pp. 295-309.

Kotter, J.P. (1990), “What leaders really do”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 37-60.

Kouznes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1998), Encouraging the Heart, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlatesand consequences of organisational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108,pp. 171-94.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Salgado, J.F. (2003), “Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personalitymeasures”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 323-46.

Saville, P., Holdsworth, R., Nyfield, G., Cramp, L. and Mabey, W. (1993), Occupational PersonalityQuestionnaire Manual, SHL Group, Esher.

Senge, P.M. (1997), “Communities of leaders and learners”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75No. 5, pp. 30-1.

Senge, R., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (2000), The Dance of Change,Nicholas Brealey, New York, NY.

Sosik, J.J. and Magerian, L.E. (1999), “Understanding leader emotional intelligence andperformance”, Group and Organisation Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 367-91.

Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organisations, Sage, London.

Wheatley, M. (2000), Turing to One Another, Berret- Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Wohlers, A.J. and London, M. (1989), “Ratings of managerial characteristics-evaluation difficulty,co-worker agreement and self awareness”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 235-61.

Young, M. (2004), “Command, leadership and management competencies predicting superiorperformance in the Royal Navy”, unpublished DBA thesis, Henley ManagementCollege/Brunel University, London.

Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2003), “Command, leadership and management competenciespredicting superior performance in the Royal Navy”, Henley Working Paper 0317, HenleyManagement College, Henley, available at: www: henleymc.ac.uk

Further reading

Fiedler, F. (1967), Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Higgs, M.J. and Rowland, D. (2000), “Building change leadership capability: the quest for changecompetence”, Change Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 116-31.

Kets de Vries, M. (1994), “The leadership mystique”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8No. 3, pp. 73-5.

Kets de Vries, M. (1995), Life and Death in the Executive Fast Lane, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

Owen, H. (2000), In Search of Leaders, Wiley, New York, NY.


123

Documents

137041744 Assessing Leadership Styles and Organisational Context Dulewicz and Higgs