Journal of Managerial Psychology

Assessing leadership styles and organisational context

Victor Dulewicz, Malcolm Higgs,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Victor Dulewicz, Malcolm Higgs, (2005) "Assessing leadership styles and organisational context", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 Issue: 2, pp.105-123, https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579759
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579759
Downloaded on: 25 April 2018, At: 06:31 (PT)
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 20410 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Leadership styles used by senior medical leaders: Patterns, influences and implications for
leadership development", Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 283-298 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/LHS-03-2014-0022">https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-03-2014-0022</a>
(2004),"Differences in leadership styles and behaviour across hierarchical levels in UK organisations",
Leadership &amp; Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 Iss 1 pp. 93-106 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437730410512796">https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410512796</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:332610 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)
 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

Assessing
Assessing leadership styles and leadership styles
organisational context
Victor Dulewicz and Malcolm Higgs
Henley Management College, Greenlands, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, UK 105
Received March 2004
Abstract Revised September 2004
Purpose – To investigate the new leadership dimensions questionnaire (LDQ) and a related Accepted September 2004
framework for assessing an individual’s leadership style in relation to the context in which the leader
works; the three new LDQ sub-scales designed to measure organisational context, follower
commitment and leader performance; and the relationship between personality and leadership.
Design/methodology/approach – Research is reported on LDQ data from a large sample of leaders
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

and managers (n 222) from a range of public and private organisations. A style score was
calculated and then related to data on respondents’ biographical – job function, gender, sector and
nationality – and FFM personality data.
Findings – Results show a reasonably even allocation across all three leadership styles and that the
styles are independent of the four important biographical variables. They also show that the five FFM
personality 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 leader
performance scales show them to be reliable scales.
Research limitations/implications – A majority of the sample were from the UK, from the private
sector and were male. This study did not incorporate measures of job performance or investigate the
style 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 and
development, and for identifying potential, in both public and private sector organisations, with a
standardisation sample of more than 1,000 now available. Results also show that the LDQ can be used
without losing significant personality-related variance.
Originality/value – LDQ provides a unique opportunity for managers to relate leadership
dimensions 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 the
most appropriate style. Leader performance and follower commitment sub-scales should facilitate
further research by academics into leadership performance.
Keywords Leadership, Job commitment
Paper type General review

Introduction
Organisations and researchers have been obsessed over the last four decades with
leadership, and attempts to deconstruct the phenomenon into a universal set of
measures (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 is
based around the model of Transformational and Transactional leadership developed
by Bass (1985) and operationalised by Bass and Avolio (1995). A strength of the model
has been the distinction between sets of leadership behaviours required in two distinct Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 20 No. 2, 2005
contexts. pp. 105-123
This paper builds on the literature on Transformational leadership and explores an q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
extended range of contexts. It presents a new framework for assessing leadership DOI 10.1108/02683940510579759
 JMP competencies from which style profiles are drawn and then linked to the context in
20,2 which the leader operates. Sub-scales are also incorporated which enable the user to
review leader performance and commitment of the followers.

A new model of leadership

Having reviewed the development in thinking on the nature of effective leadership and,
106 in particular, having looked at the literature from a “sense making” rather than
discovery perspective (Weick, 1995), a pattern is beginning to emerge. From this
emerging literature it is proposed that effective leaders are differentiated from other
leaders 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; Hogan
and Hogan, 2001). The way in which these skills and competencies are exercised is not
prescribed, 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
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

(2000) in their statement that effective leadership requires “being yourself, with skill”.
This relatively simple statement has significant implications for the way in which we
view 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 leadership
is personal. The personality of the leader plays an important part in the exercise of
leadership. The areas of effectiveness (the “skills”) need to be exercised in a way which
is congruent with the underlying personality of the leader. Building on this view, it is
possible to suggest a model (Higgs, 2003) that reflects the research and thinking on
leadership emerging from a “sense making” paradigm. The elements in this model are
explored 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.
 This model allows for the exercise of leadership in different ways and thus, for the Assessing
impact of organisational context on the way in which leadership is observed. Although leadership styles
the 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 last
few decades. This is due in part to the dominance of quantitative studies and the
associated tendency not to measure cognitive elements in such studies. However,
recently Kets de Vries and Florent-Treacy (2002) in a qualitative study of global 107
leaders proposed that effective leadership required a combination of behavioural,
cognitive and personality factors. This suggestion does not make explicit where the
leader’s ability to learn sits (or indeed if it is significant). Higgs and Rowland (2001) in a
study of change leaders identified the significance of leader learning. These two sets of
findings 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 the
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

leaders and the organisational context. It may be reasonable to see the organisational
factors which impact on leadership comprise its strategy, culture, policies and practices
and its ability to learn as an organisation (Senge et al., 2000). The relationship between
leader and organisation is potentially a dynamic one. For example, different
organisational strategies may require changes in leadership behaviours. However, it is
also feasible that a change in leadership behaviour may lead to a different strategic
approach being adopted by the organisation. This dynamic relationship is described in
detail by Higgs and Dulewicz (2002). The essence is that changes in context require
changes in the way in which leaders operate in the organisation.

Leadership styles and context

From the leadership literature there is an emerging consensus that there is no single
prescription for effective performance (Goffee and Jones, 2000; Gill, 2001; Higgs, 2003;
Higgs and Rowland, 2003). The relationship between the approach of leaders (or their
leadership style) and the context in which they operate is seen to be important. This
is by no means a new thought and is rooted in contingency theory (Fiedler, 1964;
Hersey and Blanchard, 1969, 1993). However, more recently the contextualisation
implied by the Transformational school (Bass and Avolio, 1996) has moved from a
largely internal leader: follower focus to a broader, and often external one (Higgs and
Rowland, 2003). In particular, there is an increasing focus on the efficacy of different
leadership behaviours in differing contexts of change (Wheatley, 2000; Jaworski,
2001; Senge, 1997; Higgs and Rowland, 2003). Whilst a diverse range of behaviours is
described within this literature, it is feasible to group them into three broad
categories.
(1) Goal-oriented. A set of behaviours in which the leader sets direction and
behaves in a way in which he/she plays a significant role in directing others to
achieve the key goals required to attain the performance required. This is not
to suggest an authoritarian approach but rather behaviours which are strongly
leader-centric.
(2) Involving. A somewhat less leader-centric set of behaviours. In this category the
leader’s focus remains on providing a strong sense of direction. However,
there is a more significant focus on involving others in both setting direction
and, to a larger extent, in determining how goals will be achieved.
 JMP (3) Engaging. Leader behaviours in this category are focused on facilitating others
20,2 in achieving both nature of the direction and means of achieving the necessary
goals. The leader is more concerned with developing the capability of others to
achieve than with the close direction of the enterprise.
Table I illustrates the way in which the research and writing of some of the authors
working with this contextualised view of leadership may be mapped onto these three
108 categories.
Turning to context, and in particular the context of change, the Transformational
school (Bass and Avolio, 1996; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001) posit two
distinct contexts: transformational change and “steady-state”. However, within the
change literature it is evident that there is a diverse range of change contexts (Buchanan
et al., 1999; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2003). Reviewing this range it is
feasible to identify the following key contextual variables (Higgs and Rowland, 2003):
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

(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 volatility
and complexity and to see it as a continuum rather than, as is done by
the “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 been
conducted which related leadership behaviours to a more elaborate operationalisation
of change context. Higgs and Rowland (2003) report the results of a study of over
seventy change stories from ten organisations in which leadership behaviour
categories were examined for effectiveness in a broad range of change contexts.
They found that as complexity of the context increased, a more facilitative style of
leadership became necessary for success. A leader-centric or directive style was found
to be inappropriate and ineffective in such context. However, such a style was found to
be more common (and indeed dominant) in relatively simple and straightforward
contexts. From the above it is feasible to suggest a relationship between leadership
style and context along the lines presented in Table II.

Follower commitment and leader performance

The term organisational commitment (OC) covers a range of affective factors
concerning followers’ attachment, loyalty, involvement and identification with their
organisation and also some cognitive factors relating to, for example, understanding

Hersey and
Goffee and Bass and Higgs and Blanchard Wheatley Jaworski Fiedler
Style Jones (2000) Avolio (1996) Rowland (2003) (1969; 1993) (2000) (2001) (1964)

Table I. Goal Oriented _ _ _ _ – – _

Mapping the three styles Involving _ _ _ _ _ _ _
on the relevant literature Engaging – – _ – _ _ –
 change and calculating benefits to self. Indeed, research studies have found there to be Assessing
two important and fairly independent aspects of OC, an attitudinal/affective and a leadership styles
rational/calculative type (Cook and Wall, 1980; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Cacioppe
(1997) found that quality of work experience is related to the attitudinal/affective
type 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 relations
with followers such as “leader consideration, communication and participative 109
behaviour” were antecedents of OC.
Bass and Avolio’s (1995) MLQ questionnaire includes three scales designed to
measure outcomes, specifically followers’:
.
extra effort;
.
leader satisfaction; and
. leader effectiveness.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

Since MLQ is a 3608 instrument, data collected includes not only self-assessments but
also assessments by others, especially subordinates.
Research on these has shown that transformational leadership is more highly
correlated with these outcome variables than transactional. Furthermore, management
by exception and Laissez-Faire behaviour has been found to be negatively related or
not related (Bass, 1985). Kaipiainen’s (2004) results confirmed that transformational
leadership produces significantly greater OC amongst followers than transactional and
also leads to significantly higher job performance of leaders.
Next, this paper will describe how research findings into emotional intelligence and
senior management (leaders’) competencies has been developed into a framework for
assessing an individual’s leadership style within the organisational context, which concurs
with the conclusions drawn from the brief review of the leadership literature above.

Links between the leadership literature and “EQ, IQ and MQ” competencies
In looking more broadly at leadership and, in particular, the future nature of
leadership, a number of authors have identified the growing significance of emotional
intelligence (Cacioppe, 1997; Sosik and Magerian, 1999; Chaudry, 2001). In part, this
shift in focus from the rational to emotional aspects of leadership represents the
continuation of a trend encountered more broadly in thinking on organisational
behaviour and leadership (Fineman, 1997; Goffee and Jones, 2000). Indeed, although not
explicitly surfaced, much of the literature on transformational leadership implies that
leaders 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 context
Leadership styles Low change Moderate change High change

Goal oriented _ (_) –

Involving (_) _ (_) Table II.
Engaging – (_) _ Matching leadership style
Notes: _ ¼ good fit; ( _ ) ¼ a degree of fit and change context
 JMP behavioural constructs. On the basis of a content analysis of these constructs, there
20,2 appears to be strong indications of a linkage between leadership and emotional
intelligence. Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) provide a “map” of some of the key leadership
models and their potential relationship to the elements of emotional intelligence as
defined by Higgs and Dulewicz (2002). The key themes were propounded by eminent
authorities on the subject of leadership reviewed above (Bass and Avolio, 1995;
110 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 the
large majority of cells in the matrix are filled by at least one construct. The EQ element
self-awareness appears to be least well covered, but still gains support from three
authors.
Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) also conducted a similar mapping exercise on the key
themes propounded by same eminent authorities onto the IQ and MQ dimensions
required for effective leadership. Their results show that the large majority of cells in
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

the matrix are filled by at least one construct. The Bass and Avolio (1995) and
Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalf (2001) models provide support for all eight IQ and
MQ 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 provide
less wide coverage of the domain. Nevertheless, they all provide links with at least five
of the eight IQ and MQ dimensions. Critical analysis and judgement appears to be least
well covered but nevertheless gains support from three authors.
Finally, Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) linked the 15 dimensions measured by the LDQ
to the components of the emerging model of leadership, embracing both competencies
and personal characteristics. They found that each component was linked to at least
one LDQ dimension and that each dimension is linked to at least one component of the
emerging model apart from critical analysis and judgement. The results of these three
mapping 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 and
criterion, content and construct validity of the LDQ instrument will be presented.

The leadership dimensions questionnaire

Two pilot studies were conducted to refine the questionnaire using item analysis, as
described by Dulewicz and Higgs (2003). The final version of the LDQ contains 70 EQ
items and 80 IQ and MQ items, 10 per scale, and was refined from the original 175 trial
items. The final version of the LDQ contains 15 scales, titles and short definitions of
which appear in Table III.

Scale scores and biographical data

Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) analysed scores on the 15 dimensions in relation to a
number 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 be
largely independent of the gender, job function, qualification level and sector of their
respondents. However, there were a few exceptions: males had higher scores on the
critical analysis and judgement scale; general managers had higher scores, and those
with degrees or professional qualifications had lower scores, on self-awareness; and
age was significantly negatively correlated with four dimensions out of 15.
 Intellectual dimensions (IQ)
(A) Critical analysis and judgement
(B) Vision and imagination
(C) Strategic perspective.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)
Managerial dimensions (MQ)
(D) Resource management
(K) Engaging communication
(L) Empowering
(M) Developing
(P) Achieving
Assessing
A critical faculty that probes the facts, identifies advantages leadership styles
and disadvantages and discerns the shortcomings of ideas
and proposals. Makes sound judgments and decisions based
on reasonable assumptions and factual information, aware
of the impact of any assumptions made
Imaginative and innovative in all aspects of one’s work. 111
Establishes sound priorities for future work. Clear vision of
the future direction of the organisation to meet business
imperatives. Foresees the impact of changes on one’s
vision that reflect implementation issues and business
realities
Sees the wider issues and broader implications. Explores
wide range of relationships, balances short- and long-term
considerations. Sensitive to the impact of one’s actions and
decisions across the organisation. Identifies
opportunities and threats. Sensitive to stakeholders’ needs
and the implications of external factors on decisions and
actions
Plans ahead, organises all resources and coordinates them
efficiently and effectively. Establishes clear objectives.
Converts long-term goals into action plans. Monitors and
evaluates staff’s work regularly and effectively, gives
sensitive, honest feedback
A lively and enthusiastic communicator, engages others
and wins support. Clearly communicates instructions and
vision to staff. Communications are tailored to the
audience’s interests and focused. Communication style
inspires staff and audiences, conveys approachability and
accessibility
Gives staff autonomy, encourages them to take on
personally challenging demanding tasks. Encourages them
to solve problems, produce innovative ideas and proposals
and develop their vision and a broader vision. Encourages a
critical faculty and a broad perspective, and encourages the
challenging of existing practices, assumptions and policies
Believes others have potential to take on ever
more-demanding tasks and roles, encourages them to do so.
Ensures direct reports have adequate support. Develops
their competencies, and invests time and effort in coaching
them so they contribute effectively and develop themselves.
Identifies new tasks and roles to develop others. Believes
that critical feedback and challenge are important
Willing to make decisions involving significant risk to gain
an advantage. Decisions are based on core business issues
and their likely impact on success. Selects and exploits
activities that result in the greatest benefits to the
organisation and its performance. Unwavering
determination to achieve objectives and implement Table III.
decisions Definitions of the scales
of the leadership
(continued) dimensions questionnaire
 JMP Emotional and social dimensions (EQ)
20,2 (E) Self-awareness Awareness of one’s own feelings and the capability to
recognise and manage these in a way that one feels that one
can control. A degree of self-belief in one’s capability to
manage one’s emotions and to control their impact in a work
environment
(F) Emotional resilience Performs consistently in a range of situations under
112 pressure and adapts behaviour appropriately. Balances the
needs of the situation and task with the needs and concerns
of the individuals involved. Retains focus on a course of
action or need for results in the face of personal challenge or
criticism
(G) Intuitiveness Arrives at clear decisions and drives their implementation
when presented with incomplete or ambiguous information
using both rational and “emotional” or intuitive perceptions
of key issues and implications
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

(H) Interpersonal sensitivity Is aware of, and takes account of, the needs and perceptions
of others in arriving at decisions and proposing solutions to
problems and challenges. Builds from this awareness and
achieves the commitment of others to decisions and action.
A willingness to keep open one’s thoughts on possible
solutions to problems and to actively listen to, and reflect
on, the reactions and inputs from others
(J) Influence Persuades others to change views based on an
understanding of their position and a recognition of the need
to listen to this perspective and provide a rationale
for change
(N) Motivation Drive and energy to achieve clear results and make an
impact. Balances short- and long-term goals with a
capability to pursue demanding goals in the face of rejection
or questioning
(Q) Conscientiousness Displays clear commitment to a course of action in the face
of challenge and to match “words and deeds” in
encouraging others to support the chosen direction.
Shows personal commitment to pursuing an ethical solution
Table III. to a difficult business issue or problem

Reliability
The results of a reliability analysis conducted on the 15 dimensions of LDQ are
published by Dulewicz and Higgs (2003, 2004). All 15 LDQ scale co-efficient
reached an acceptable level, being above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), with vision and
imagination, engaging communication, managing resources and developing being
particularly highly reliable. The relatively weakest dimensions were critical
analysis and judgement, empowering and achieving but they still reached an
acceptable level.

Validity
Three main types of validity of the LDQ – construct, content and criterion
(concurrent) – will be summarised. Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) claim that Content
validity of LDQ was derived from the rigour with which all facets of leadership were
reviewed and mapped onto the 15 dimensions. Furthermore, they reference the extensive
 literature on personal competences of senior managers in leadership roles. Clear links Assessing
were drawn with items in manager and director personal competences surveys that leadership styles
appeared to be related to leadership. This work enabled them to write LDQ items based
upon a comprehensive set of constructs considered by many leading authors in the field
to relate to leadership requirements, and then in turn to link these to personal
competences.
Construct validity deals with how well, or to what degree, the test measures the 113
target trait or construct. Correlation co-efficients between LDQ dimensions and
16PF (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 to
some LDQ dimensions, specifically EQ and MQ dimensions, but not others (IQ),
because they are closer to personality-type constructs. The authors tested out a
number of hypothesised relationships and found that most of the LDQ dimensions
related to interpersonal behaviour and emotional adjustment behaviours had
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

construct validity (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003). Young and Dulewicz (2003) present
correlations between the 15 LDQ dimensions and scores on the OPQ personality
questionnaire (Saville et al., 1993). They hypothesised areas of convergence and
divergence between the two sets of scales and found a high proportion of their
predictions were borne out. In a recent study of the convergent and divergent
construct validity of the eight LDQ dimensions derived from the social and
emotional (EQ) competencies, Kaipiainen (2004) found evidence of convergent
validity against scales of social intelligence, empathy and leadership derived from
Bass’s MLQ. She found divergent validity with Machiavellianism and Tyrannical
Leadership scales.
Criterion (Concurrent) validity refers to the degree to which test scores can predict
job performance. Young and Dulewicz (2003) present correlations between the 15 LDQ
dimensions and job performance ratings on 261 Naval Officers from the formal
appraisal system. They found that 11 of the 15 dimensions of LDQ (73 per cent) were
significantly related to current job performance. Kaipiainen’s (2004) results also
showed significant correlations between the EQ dimensions of LDQ and job
performance, particularly with EQ assessments from peers and subordinates.
Furthermore, she showed that EQ dimensions added “incremental validity” over
transformational leadership from the MLQ, using hierarchical regression analysis with
job performance as the dependent variable.

Research into leadership styles and context

Further analyses were conducted on leadership style and organisational context using
the final version of LDQ, on data from the combined sample from the two pilot studies
whose biographical details are presented below.

Sample
The sample consisted of 222 managers and officers whose biographical details are
summarised here. The average age of the subjects was 38.3 years (SD 7.3); and time
spent in current job was 31.3 months (SD 23.9). A large majority of the sample was
male (70.2 per cent) and worked in the private sector (81.8 per cent). Looking at the
functions in which they worked, 32 per cent were general managers, 18 per cent were
in sales/marketing, 15 per cent in finance, 10 per cent in technical and the remainder in
 JMP other functions. As regards their highest qualifications, 37 per cent had a first degree
20,2 and 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 all
other parts of the world.

114 The three leadership styles

The authors contend that effective leadership is increasingly being seen in terms of a
combination of:
.
personal characteristics which are required to enable an individual to engage in a
leadership role in an effective manner;
.
a range of skills and behaviours which need to be in place to provide effective
leadership;
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

.
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 way
that matches the personal style of the individual leader.
In addition, it is quite widely accepted that leadership may be exhibited at many levels
in an organisation (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995).
Based on their review of the literature covering different leader behaviours in
differing contexts of change (see Introduction above), the authors’ identified three
distinct leadership styles.
.
Engaging leadership. A style based on a high level of empowerment and
involvement appropriate in a highly transformational context. Such a style is
focused on producing radical change with high levels of engagement and
commitment.
.
Involving leadership. A style that is based on a transitional organisation which
faces 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 relatively
stable context. This is a Leader-led style aligned to a stable organisation
delivering clearly understood results.
The profile for each style, based upon the range (high, medium, or low) of scores
obtained on the 15 LDQ dimensions, is presented in Table IV. These profiles were
developed from a content analysis of the literature on leadership. Initially, this
focused on the transformational and transactional behaviours which were
context-based (Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass and Avolio, 1995) and subsequently
expanded to encompass the change leadership and broader change literature. The
engaging style was informed by authors working in the transformational and
change leadership fields (Bass, 1995; Higgs and Rowland, 2003; Kouznes and
Posner, 1998). The traditional and the transactional leadership literature informed
the development of the goal-oriented style (Bass, 1995; Kotter, 1990; Hersey and
Blanchard, 1993). The involving style was again informed by both more traditional
and change leadership literature (Bennis, 1998; Chaudry, 2001; Gill, 2001; Hersey
and Blanchard, 1993; Higgs and Rowland, 2003).
 LDQ dimension Low Medium High
Assessing
leadership styles
Critical analysis and judgement – EI G
Vision and imagination – E GI
Strategic perspective – EI G
Engaging communication – GI E
Managing resources E I G 115
Empowering G I E
Developing – GI E
Achieving – EI G
Self-awareness – G EI
Emotional resilence – – GEI
Motivation – – GEI
Interpersonal sensitivity – GI E
Influencing – G EI Table IV.
Intuitiveness – GI E
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

Three leadership style

Conscientiousness – – GEI profiles: goal oriented (G),
Note: Profiles of the three leadership styles showing their typical scores on the leadership dimensions engaging (E) and
questionnaire involving (I)

Results of study 1 (styles)

The difference measure (d)
To assess the degree of fit between an individual’s profile and the designated
profile for each leadership style, it was necessary to calculate difference scores.
Wohlers and London’s (1989) d measure, widely used in this field for profile
comparisons, was computed for each individual for each of the three styles, using their
formula. To calculate each person’s d score, dimension scores were calculated, based on
the per centage of the maximum possible raw score (50). Three ranges were chosen, to
denote high, medium and low scores. The benchmarks used for the style ranges were
based on a review of the frequency distributions for all 15 scales. In order to obtain
maximum separation, the benchmark selected for the low range was 60 per cent, and
for the high range, 80 per cent. The benchmark selected for the medium range was the
midpoint 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 13.4

Std. deviation 2.8 2.9 3.1
Range 15.4 15.6 18.3
Minimum 7.0 5.7 4.9
Maximum 22.4 21.4 23.2
Missing Total
N 221 221 221 1 222
N fitted to each style: (d z-score ,0.00, bottom 50 per cent) Table V.
Lowest d z-score Sub-total Poor fit Total Descriptive statistics for
Frequency 44 39 58 141 81 222 d scores for the three
Per cent 31 28 41 – 36 – leadership styles
 JMP that exactly comparable scores for each style could be used to assess the degree of fit
20,2 for each individual, and between individuals. Taking the individual’s lowest d z-score
as their current style, would have meant that some individuals were not closely fitted
to any of the styles and so the analysis focussed on individuals with d z-scores below
0.00 (i.e. the lowest 50 per cent). Data on these individuals (n ¼ 141) are presented in
Table V and show the following breakdown: 31 per cent are goal-oriented, 28 per cent
116 are involving; but the most common style is engaging with 41 per cent. The subsequent
analyses reported below are based on this sub-sample of individuals closely fitted to at
least one style.
Styles and biographical data
The styles “best fit” results just mentioned were analysed to determine whether there
were any statistically significant differences on biographical variables, using the
Chi-square test. A comparison of current appropriate styles by gender showed no
differences between males and females (Chi – square ¼ 2:05; df ¼ 2; Not sig.).
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

Furthermore, no differences were found when comparing styles according to the sector
in which the manager works – Private and Public/Not for Profit which were combined
to ensure adequate cell-size (Chi – square ¼ 2:04; df ¼ 2; Not sig.). Turning to job
function and nationality, once again no differences were found between the three
styles. Chi-square analysis was also conducted across four job categories – General
Management, Marketing, Finance and Technical (All others were combined to ensure
adequate cell-size; Chi – square ¼ 5:96; df ¼ 2; Not sig.). A comparison between
managers from the UK and from all other countries combined (the numbers from many
other 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 four
important biographical variables.
LDQ dimensions, styles and personality
An important issue arising from the literature is the relationship between leadership
and personality. In order to explore this, the relationships between respondents’ LDQ
dimensions, three leadership styles and personality characteristics from the 16PF
questionnaire (Cattell et al., 1970) were investigated. The first-order factors were
mapped onto the five-factor model (FFM) according to the classification framework
developed by Salgado (2003) for his meta-analysis of the FFM.
From a comparison of the respective definitions, the LDQ intellectual IQ
competencies and managerial MQ competencies do not appear to overlap with the
FFM personality factors while; in contrast, some of the social and emotional EQ
competencies do. In order to explore this area, correlations were conducted between
four pairings for which relationships were hypothesised: emotional resilience and
FFM emotional stability (r ¼ 0:62; n ¼ 107; sig. at 0.01 level); influence and FFM
agreeableness (r ¼ 0:12; n ¼ 107; not sig.); interpersonal sensitivity and
FFM agreeableness (r ¼ 20:09; n ¼ 107; not sig.) and conscientiousness and FFM
conscientiousness (r ¼ 0:51; n ¼ 107; sig. at 0.01 level). Therefore, two
FFM personality factors are closely related to LDQ dimensions and two are not.
Initially, stepwise multiple regression was used to explore the relationships between
personality and the three leadership styles. The model produced for the engaging style
showed that only one FFM factor, extraversion, contributed to the variance (R ¼ 0:221;
R2 ¼ 0:049; standardised b¼ 2 0.221; sig. at 0.02 level), only 4.9 per cent of which was
 explained. The relationships between the FFM factors and the other two styles were so Assessing
weak that stepwise models could not be produced. leadership styles
In order to determine whether the five FFM personality factors contributed
significant additional variance over and above the 15 LDQ dimensions, hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted on each of the three styles. The results, which
appear in Table VI, show that the five FFM personality factors do not account for any
additional variance on any of the styles at a significant level. Therefore, personality 117
does not seem to add significantly to the leadership competencies which define the
three LDQ styles.

Results of study 2
As noted in the Introduction, the context within which leaders operate is a major factor
mediating their performance. From the literature review, the authors concluded that
the different styles, matched to the degree of contextual volatility, would be important
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

in determining both appropriateness and effectiveness. Therefore, an organisational

context scale was designed (to become section II of the LDQ) to examine the degree and
nature of change and volatility in their working environment that respondents perceive
they face in their role as a leader.
The pilot scale was developed from a review of the change literature (Higgs and
Rowland, 2003) and contained 27 items relating to a wide range of contextual variables
faced by leaders within organisations. After item-analysis involving part-whole
correlations, six items which did not correlate significantly with the overall scale score
were dropped. The final context scale was thus reduced to 21 items, relating to various
aspects of change being faced by the respondent. In order to obtain a better
understanding of the nature and structure of this new scale, a factor analysis was
conducted. It showed (Table VII) that the scale is made up of five separate components:
a general fundamental need to change, fundamental change of the
organisation/business, the need for followers to change, specific pressures from the
business environment; and an unstable context. Cronbach reliabilty analysis showed
that the overall scale has high reliability (a ¼ 0:9).
In order to enable users to relate scale scores to leadership style, a frequency
distribution was produced and score ranges identified for three equal-sized groups,
reflecting the degree of change perceived. Scores of 58 or below were selected to
reflect relative stability; 59-73 significant change; and 74 and above radical,
transformational change.

Change statistics
Model R R2 R2 change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change

DV – goal oriented style

LDQ 0.645 0.416 0.416 4.330 15 91 0.00
LDQ þ FFM 0.662 0.439 0.022 0.677 5 86 0.64
DV – involving style Table VI.
LDQ 0.721 0.519 0.519 6.556 15 91 0.00 Hierarchical regression
LDQ þ FFM 0.735 0.540 0.021 0.772 5 86 0.57 on three LDQ styles
DV – engaging style (DVs) and LDQ
LDQ 0.738 0.545 0.545 7.267 15 91 0.00 dimensions plus FFM
LDQ þ FFM 0.762 0.580 0.035 1.443 5 86 0.22 personality scores as IVs
 JMP Component
20,2 Item 1 2 3 4 5

C8 0.88 0.13 0.09 2 0.04 0.01

C23 0.87 0.06 0.15 0.16 20.01
C2 0.76 0.25 0.20 0.07 0.16
118 C36 0.72 2 0.06 0.20 0.14 0.14
C3 0.59 0.33 0.16 2 0.06 0.40
C13 0.58 0.40 0.03 2 0.01 0.34
C9 0.56 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.13
C7 0.46 0.38 0.12 2 0.12 20.01
C12 0.42 0.67 0.11 0.19 20.11
C22 0.22 2 0.31 0.58 0.12 0.43
C19 0.22 0.40 0.57 2 0.03 0.26
C6 0.21 0.75 20.04 2 0.24 0.14
C26 0.20 0.16 0.19 0.08 0.80
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

C27 0.20 0.58 0.29 0.29 0.05

C16 0.16 2 0.04 0.69 0.13 0.07
C31 0.15 0.07 0.77 2 0.18 0.00
C28 0.14 0.25 0.71 0.23 20.07
Table VII. C11 0.12 0.49 20.21 0.37 0.38
Rotated component C18 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.67 20.36
matrix on LDQ change C14 0.11 0.00 20.04 0.61 0.21
scale (21 items) C1 20.27 0.63 0.17 0.47 0.12

Leader performance and follower commitment

As noted in the introduction above, some leadership questionnaires contain integral
leader performance and follower commitment scales (Bass and Avolio, 1995). In order
to facilitate further research into LDQ, it was decided to include two such scales in the
second part of the LDQ. The first scale provides a self-assessment of leadership
performance. It contains six items, covering followers’ effort, capability and flexibility
and 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 have
acceptable reliability (Nunnally, 1978), with a ¼ 0:7.
It was stated in the Introduction that the term OC covers a range of “affective” factors
concerning followers’ attachment, loyalty, involvement and identification with their
organisation and also some “cognitive” factors relating to, for example, understanding

Performance items (Rotated component matrix) Commitment items

Component (Component matrix)
Item 1 2 Item Component 1

P1 0.415 0.186 Com 1 0.761

P2 0.020 0.862 Com 2 0.612
Table VIII. P3 0.283 0.510 Com 3 0.696
Component matrices for P5 0.124 0.743 Com 4 0.644
performance and P6 0.882 0.114 Com 5 0.654
commitment scales P4 0.895 0.053
 change and calculating benefits to self. Indeed, research studies have found there to be Assessing
two important and fairly independent aspects of OC, an attitudinal/affective and a leadership styles
rational/calculative type (Cook and Wall, 1980; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Therefore, an
OC scale was designed to assess the degree of commitment that followers show to the
organisation and to the team in which they work, covering job satisfaction, realism,
commitment to requisite change and to the organisation and understanding the need
for change. It contains five items and only one component emerged from a factor 119
analysis (Table VIII). The overall scale also shows acceptable reliability (a ¼ 0:7).

Discussion
According to its authors (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003), the final version of the LDQ has
benefited from rigorous trials involving two pilot studies. Their overall aim of having
10 items per scale has given broad coverage of the complex dimensions measured by
the LDQ and has at the same time produced respectable a reliability coefficients.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

Its authors also demonstrated construct validity, finding a large number of significant
correlations between LDQ and personality characteristics (from 16PF), with the
general finding that managers higher on relevant dimensions generally tend to be more
extraverted and emotionally well adjusted, and specifically to have greater strategic
perspective and conscientiousness. In addition, Young and Dulewicz (2003) showed
construct and criterion validity from their research based on personality data (from the
OPQ) and job performance ratings of Naval officers.
One important feature of the LDQ is its ability to relate profiles of the scores across
the 15 dimensions to three different leadership styles. The relevance of each one is
dependent on the context within which leadership is exercised. Analyses of leadership
styles, using a reasonably close “fit” score (capturing 64 per cent of the total sample of
222), showed a reasonably even allocation across all three styles. Furthermore, data in
this paper has shown that the styles are independent of four important biographical
variables – the breakdown did not vary according to the gender, sector, function, or
nationality of the respondent.
Turning to personality, the possible overlap between the social and emotional EQ
competencies from LDQ and the FFM personality factors were explored. Whilst
correlations between influence and FFM agreeableness and between interpersonal
sensitivity and FFM agreeableness were not significant, the relationships between
emotional resilience and FFM emotional stability, and conscientiousness and FFM
conscientiousness were highly statistically significant. However, Salgado (2003)
reports in his review of meta-analyses of the FFM that only these two factors have been
shown to predict job performance in a large number of studies. Therefore, any such
overlap should help to improve the criterion validity of the LDQ.
Of the three styles, only the extraversion FFM personality factor accounted for
additional style variance, and only to one style – engaging. Furthermore, the FFM
personality characteristics did not add any incremental variance over and above the
LDQ dimensions. Moreover, a concurrent study by Young (2004), which investigated
the link between FFM personality factors and leadership performance, found that
personality does not explain any additional variance over the LDQ dimensions
whereas the latter do explain extra variance compared to personality factors alone.
From these results it would appear that personality is not a moderator variable
between leadership competencies on the one hand and leadership style and
 JMP performance on the other. This does tend to challenge the personality view put forward
20,2 by some authors (Hogan and Hogan, 2001). Leaders with different personality profiles
appear to be able to adopt similar styles and perform at different levels. This lends
credence 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 to
120 leadership style. In addition, many assert that leadership nowadays is largely about
dealing with, and leading, change and that therefore, the efficacy of different leader
behaviours in different change contexts needs to be assessed. The organisational
context scale has therefore been designed to cover these requirements and has
been shown to be a reliable scale, covering five different aspects of leadership.
The five factors measured by the scale correspond to the relevant contextual change
variables – magnitude, sources, impact on followers, and timescale/speed – outlined
by Higgs and Rowland (2003) and noted above. Further work should focus on
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

interactions 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 have
acceptable reliability. The scale covers both the performance of individual followers
and the overall output of the group being led. A 3608 version of LDQ has been designed
which will also provide performance assessment of the leader by the followers.
However, assessments of performance through the organisation’s appraisal system are
to be encouraged and current work is underway to investigate the relationship between
self, follower and formal (boss) appraisals.
Another angle for assessing leader performance is via the commitment and job
satisfaction of the followers. Therefore, a commitment scale has also been built into the
LDQ. This has been shown to be reliable and covers commitment to change and to the
organisation, as well as job satisfaction, realism and commitment to change. Further
research should investigate the interactions between follower commitment and leader
performance via self and 3608 appraisal, and also the dimensions of leadership which
are most closely linked to these various aspects of commitment.
Three recent studies have included research into the relationship between job
performance 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 current
performance on six of the dimensions – self-awareness, emotional resilience,
motivation, influence, intuitiveness and conscientiousness, using both self and 3608
appraisal. Dulewicz et al. (2003) reported the results of a study on middle-managers
which 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 significant
relationships between these scales and commitment amongst followers, particularly
aspects of loyalty and identity; and scores on MLQ (Bass and Avolio, 1995) outcome
scales relating to followers’ extra effort, leader satisfaction and leader effectiveness.
Current research studies underway will show to what extent these two subscales
provide support for the validity of LDQ and the extent to which style-context match is
relevant to both performance and follower commitment.
 Further studies are planned or underway on a wide variety of leaders from a Assessing
number of different countries. Correlations with other leadership questionnaires are
also planned, to produce further data on the construct validity of the LDQ, to broaden
leadership styles
understanding of the 15 dimensions. Replication of other studies that have
incorporated measures of context, performance, commitment and job satisfaction as
criterion measures will also provide further relevant information on validity. Finally,
work is currently underway to investigate the link between style and context by 121
analysing job performance of different style fits.

Conclusion
In this paper, the technical properties of the LDQ have been summarised. The results of
this study provide some support for its use for leadership assessment and development,
and for identifying potential, in both public and private sector organisations. These
results suggest that the selection of leaders could become more accurate and suggested
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

development actions contained in the LDQ report more focused and relevant.
Furthermore, standardisation data are available, based on a sample of more than 1,000
managers and senior officers, with 50 per cent from the public sector and 24 per cent
female. The norms produced constitute a comprehensive sample of middle and senior
managers from around the world (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003). A unique feature of the
LDQ is the opportunity it provides to relate profiles of the scores across the 15
dimensions to three different leadership styles and in turn to the degree of
organisational volatility faced by the leader. The relevance of each style is dependent on
the context within which leadership is exercised. The context scale in part II of the
questionnaire provides a reliable measure to help respondents identify the style that is
most appropriate for their role in the current organisational context. New sub-scales
designed to measure leader performance and follower commitment have also been
produced 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 of
Occupational & 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 and
Applications, 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 Improving
Organisational 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: the
legacy of the nineties”, Human Resource Management Journal;, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 20-37.
Cacioppe, R. (1997), “Leadership moment by moment!”, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 335-46.
 JMP Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970), Handbook for the 16PF, IPAT, IL.
20,2 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”, Harvard
Business Review, pp. 67-76, January-February.
122 Conger, J. and Toegel, G. (2002), “A story of missed opportunities: qualitative methods for
leadership research and practice”, in Parry, K.W. and Meindl, J.R. (Eds), Grounding
Leadership Theory and Research, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 175-98.
Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitment
and 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 dimensions
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

and 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 and
styles”, Selection & Development Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 7-12.
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M.J. and Slaski, M. (2003), “Emotional intelligence: construct and concurrent
validity”, 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 EIASM
Leadership 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 School
Press, Boston, MA.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969), “Life cycle theory of leadership”, Training & Development
Journal, 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 & Organization
Development 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 a
development programme”, Change Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1.
Higgs, M.J. and Rowland, D. (2003), “Is change changing? An examination of approaches to
change 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 Development
Centre, Wellington.
 Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001), “Assessing leadership: a view from the dark side”, International Assessing
Journal of Selection and Development, Vol. 9 No. 1/2, pp. 40-51.
Jaworski, J. (2001), Synchronicity, Berrett-Koehler, New York, NY.
leadership styles
Kaipiainen, S. (2004), “The relationship of emotional intelligence with leadership and
self-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. 123
Kets De Vries, M. and Florent-Treacy, E. (2002), “Global leadership from A to Z: creating high
commitment 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, correlates
and consequences of organisational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108,
pp. 171-94.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

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

Salgado, J.F. (2003), “Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality
measures”, 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 Personality
Questionnaire Manual, SHL Group, Esher.
Senge, P.M. (1997), “Communities of leaders and learners”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75
No. 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 and
performance”, 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 superior
performance in the Royal Navy”, unpublished DBA thesis, Henley Management
College/Brunel University, London.
Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2003), “Command, leadership and management competencies
predicting superior performance in the Royal Navy”, Henley Working Paper 0317, Henley
Management 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 change
competence”, Change Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 116-31.
Kets de Vries, M. (1994), “The leadership mystique”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8
No. 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.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Taran Patel, Ahmad Salih, Robert G. Hamlin. 2018. Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness
if UAE and Egypt: A Comparison through the Combined Lenses of Islamic Work Ethics and Islamic
Leadership. European Management Review 70. . [Crossref]
2. Jingting Shao. 2018. The moderating effect of program context on the relationship between program
managers' leadership competences and program success. International Journal of Project Management 36:1,
108-120. [Crossref]
3. Ralf Müller, Shankar Sankaran, Nathalie Drouin, Anne-Live Vaagaasar, Michiel C. Bekker, Karuna Jain.
2018. A theory framework for balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects. International Journal
of Project Management 36:1, 83-94. [Crossref]
4. J. Rodney Turner. 2018. The management of the project-based organization: A personal reflection.
International Journal of Project Management 36:1, 231-240. [Crossref]
5. W. H. N. Wan Muda, F. Ab Halim, W. H. Libunao. 2017. Exploring Leadership Capability Team Leaders
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

for Construction Industry in Malaysia: Training and Experience. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering 226, 012201. [Crossref]
6. BelfantiCharmaine, Charmaine Belfanti. 2017. Emotional capacity in the public sector – an Australian
review. International Journal of Public Sector Management 30:5, 429-446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Riaz Ahmed, Vittal S. Anantatmula. 2017. Empirical Study of Project Managers Leadership Competence
and Project Performance. Engineering Management Journal 29:3, 189-205. [Crossref]
8. Jeffery S. McMullen, Alexander S. Kier. 2017. You don?t have to be an entrepreneur to be entrepreneurial:
The unique role of imaginativeness in new venture ideation. Business Horizons 60:4, 455-462. [Crossref]
9. . Developing Integration Competencies in People 191-216. [Crossref]
10. Lee, Seol-Bin. 2017. 프프프프 프프프프 프프프 프프, 프프프프프, 프프프프 프프 프프 프프프 프프 프프. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Venturing and Entrepreneurship 12:1, 87-99. [Crossref]
11. PopliSapna, Sapna Popli, RizviIrfan A., Irfan A. Rizvi. 2017. Leadership style and service orientation: the
catalytic role of employee engagement. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 27:1, 292-310. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
12. Javier Pajares, David Poza, Felix Villafañez, Adolfo López-Paredes. Project Management Methodologies
in the Fourth Technological Revolution 121-144. [Crossref]
13. Lee, Seol-Bin, Seung-Chul Kim, 프프프. 2016. A Study on the Effect of Project Managers' Leadership on
Participants' Individual Competency and Project Performance. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing
and Entrepreneurship 11:5, 175-188. [Crossref]
14. Meltem Ceri-Booms, Petru Lucian Curşeu, Leon A.G. Oerlemans. 2016. Task and person-focused
leadership behaviors and team performance: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review .
[Crossref]
15. Avi Turetsky. 2016. Competencies, Clusters, and Skews in Private Equity: Exploring the Investment
Professional Competencies that Distinguish Extreme Outperformance at One Leading PE Firm. The
Journal of Private Equity . [Crossref]
16. Avi Turetsky. 2016. Competencies, Clusters, and Star Performance at a Leading PE Firm. The Journal
of Private Equity 19:4, 19-34. [Crossref]
 17. Lee, Seol-Bin, Jung, Woon-Ho, 프프프. 2016. The Analysis of Structural Relationships between Project
Leader' Core Competencies and Project Success Factors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and
Entrepreneurship 11:2, 197-205. [Crossref]
18. Augusto Antunes, Mário Franco. 2016. How people in organizations make sense of responsible leadership
practices. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 37:1, 126-152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Malcolm Higgs, Victor Dulewicz. Does Emotional Intelligence Make a Difference? 33-42. [Crossref]
20. Amin Akhavan Tabassi, Maria Argyropoulou, Kamand M. Roufechaei, Rachel Argyropoulou. 2016.
Leadership Behavior of Project Managers in Sustainable Construction Projects. Procedia Computer Science
100, 724-730. [Crossref]
21. Dargahi Hossein, Rahmani Hojjat, Bigdeli Zeinab, Javadi Ghaleh Esmaeil, Yousefzadeh Negar. 2016.
Managerial Quotient: A Systematic Review among Managers of Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 06:04, 467-479. [Crossref]
22. Suhaiza Ismail. 2015. Influence of emotional intelligence, ethical climates, and corporate ethical values on
ethical judgment of Malaysian auditors. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 4:2, 147-162. [Crossref]
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

23. Junna Meng, Bin Xue, Bingsheng Liu, Ning Fang. 2015. Relationships between top managers’ leadership
and infrastructure sustainability. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 22:6, 692-714.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Johan Larsson, Per Erik Eriksson, Thomas Olofsson, Peter Simonsson. 2015. Leadership in Civil
Engineering: Effects of Project Managers’ Leadership Styles on Project Performance. Journal of
Management in Engineering 31:6, 04015011. [Crossref]
25. Pedro Serrador, Rodney Turner. 2015. What is Enough Planning? Results From a Global Quantitative
Study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 62:4, 462-474. [Crossref]
26. In-Hwan Yoon, Joo-Hyun Kim, Hee-Sang Lee. 2015. The Effects of Project Manager's Competencies on
the Performance of NPD Project in Project Matrix Organization: Focused on the Institute of Technology
of Company A. Journal of Digital Convergence 13:10, 295-303. [Crossref]
27. Carmen Camarero Izquierdo, M. José Garrido Samaniego, Rebeca San José Cabezudo. 2015. How Strategic
Purchasing Orientation and Transformational Leadership Impact Performance: The Mediating Role of
Information and Communication Technologies. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 22:4, 269-292.
[Crossref]
28. Dirk J. Pons. 2015. Changing importances of professional practice competencies over an engineering
career. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 38, 89-101. [Crossref]
29. Alicia Medina, Alison J. Francis. 2015. What Are the Characteristics That Software Development Project
Team Members Associate With a Good Project Manager?. Project Management Journal 46:5, 81-93.
[Crossref]
30. Stephen Pryke, Damir Lunic, Sulafa Badi. 2015. The effect of leader emotional intelligence on leader–
follower chemistry: a study of construction project managers. Construction Management and Economics
33:8, 603-624. [Crossref]
31. Sapna Popli, Irfan A Rizvi. 2015. Exploring the relationship between service orientation, employee
engagement and perceived leadership style: a study of managers in the private service sector organizations
in India. Journal of Services Marketing 29:1, 59-70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. . References 201-210. [Crossref]
33. Robert PhD. Addressing Portfolio Information Issues through the Use of Business Social Networks,
Stars, and Gatekeepers 219-260. [Crossref]
 34. Fahri Akdemir. 2014. Emotional Kindergarten: Cross-cultural Research about Leadership of Creative
Personalities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 119, 397-406. [Crossref]
35. Mike Young. 2014. Leadership that Develops other People: An Empirical Study into the Effect of
Humanist Principles and Therapeutic Common Factors on Subordinate Development. Journal of General
Management 39:3, 59-76. [Crossref]
36. Panagiotis Trivellas, Panagiotis Reklitis. 2014. Leadership Competencies Profiles and Managerial
Effectiveness in Greece. Procedia Economics and Finance 9, 380-390. [Crossref]
37. Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Tarcisio Abreu Saurin. 2013. Implementing lean production systems: research
areas and opportunities for future studies. International Journal of Production Research 51:22, 6663-6680.
[Crossref]
38. Joseph Natovich, Zeev Derzy, Rachel Natovich. 2013. Positive Psychology in Information Technology
Project Management. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management 4:4, 35-50.
[Crossref]
39. Valerie Lundy, Pierre-Paul Morin. 2013. Project Leadership Influences Resistance to Change: The Case
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

of the Canadian Public Service. Project Management Journal 44:4, 45-64. [Crossref]
40. Mohammed A. Hajeeh. 2013. Application of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making in R&D Project
Manager Selection. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management 4:2, 35-49.
[Crossref]
41. Panagiotis Trivellas, Christos Drimoussis. 2013. Investigating Leadership Styles, Behavioural and
Managerial Competency Profiles of Successful Project Managers in Greece. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 73, 692-700. [Crossref]
42. Maggie Pillay, Rian Viviers, Claude-Helene Mayer. 2013. The relationship between emotional intelligence
and leadership styles in the South African petrochemical industry. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology
39:1. . [Crossref]
43. Li‐Ren Yang, Hsiu‐Feng Yen, Yu‐Fu Chiang. 2012. A framework for assessing impacts of leadership
competency on police project performance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management 35:3, 528-550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Nathan S. Hartman, Thomas Conklin. 2012. A thematic analysis of a leadership speaker series. Journal
of Management Development 31:8, 826-844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Julia Thalmann, Malte Brettel. 2012. Antecedents of interaction orientation: the influence of
organizational and behavioral characteristics. Journal of Strategic Marketing 20:5, 425-445. [Crossref]
46. Denise Jackson, Elaine Chapman. 2012. Non‐technical skill gaps in Australian business graduates.
Education + Training 54:2/3, 95-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. R. Muller, J. Geraldi, J. R. Turner. 2012. Relationships Between Leadership and Success in Different
Types of Project Complexities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59:1, 77-90. [Crossref]
48. Phil Nixon, Megan Harrington, David Parker. 2012. Leadership performance is significant to project
success or failure: a critical analysis. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
61:2, 204-216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Jingting Shao, Ralf Müller. 2011. The development of constructs of program context and program success:
A qualitative study. International Journal of Project Management 29:8, 947-959. [Crossref]
50. Helen Silva Gonçalves, Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota. 2011. Liderança situacional em gestão de
projetos: uma revisão da literatura. Production 21:3, 404-416. [Crossref]
 51. Martina Kotz?, Ian Venter. 2011. Differences in emotional intelligence between effective and ineffective
leaders in the public sector: an empirical study. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77:2,
397-427. [Crossref]
52. P. Iles, Y. Feng. 2011. Distributed leadership, knowledge and information management and team
performance in Chinese and Western groups. Journal of Technology Management in China 6:1, 26-42.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Ralf Müller, J. Rodney Turner. 2010. Attitudes and leadership competences for project success. Baltic
Journal of Management 5:3, 307-329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Jesper Rosenberg Hansen, Anders R. Villadsen. 2010. Comparing Public and Private Managers'
Leadership Styles: Understanding the Role of Job Context. International Public Management Journal 13:3,
247-274. [Crossref]
55. Ralf Müller, Rodney Turner. 2010. Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers.
International Journal of Project Management 28:5, 437-448. [Crossref]
56. Malcolm Higgs, Victor Dulewicz, Chris Brewster. Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Top 307-316.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)

[Crossref]
57. Mike Young, Victor Dulewicz. 2009. A study into leadership and management competencies predicting
superior performance in the British Royal Navy. Journal of Management Development 28:9, 794-820.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. John Hawkins, Victor Dulewicz. 2009. Relationships between Leadership Style, the Degree of Change
Experienced, Performance and Follower Commitment in Policing. Journal of Change Management 9:3,
251-270. [Crossref]
59. J. Rodney Turner, Ralf Müller, Vic Dulewicz. 2009. Comparing the leadership styles of functional and
project managers. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 2:2, 198-216. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
60. Adam Lindgreen, Roger Palmer, Martin Wetzels, Michael Antioco. 2008. Do different marketing
practices require different leadership styles? An exploratory study. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 24:1, 14-26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Linda Geoghegan, Victor Dulewicz. 2008. Do project managers' leadership competencies contribute to
project success?. Project Management Journal 39:4, 58-67. [Crossref]
62. Kerry Wilson, Sheila Corrall. 2008. Developing public library managers as leaders. Library Management
29:6/7, 473-488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Isabel Cuadrado, J. Francisco Morales, Patricia Recio. 2008. Women's Access to Managerial Positions:
An Experimental Study of Leadership Styles and Gender. The Spanish journal of psychology 11:01, 55-65.
[Crossref]
64. Mike Young, Victor Dulewicz. 2008. Similarities and Differences between Leadership and Management:
High-Performance Competencies in the British Royal Navy. British Journal of Management 19:1, 17-32.
[Crossref]
65. John Hawkins, Victor Dulewicz. 2007. The Relationship between Performance as a Leader and Emotional
Intelligence, Intellectual and Managerial Competences. Journal of General Management 33:2, 57-78.
[Crossref]
66. Mike Young, Victor Dulewicz. 2007. Relationships between emotional and congruent self‐awareness and
performance in the British Royal Navy. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22:5, 465-478. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
 67. M. Young, V. Dulewicz. 2006. Leadership Styles, Change Context and Leader Performance in the Royal
Navy. Journal of Change Management 6:4, 383-396. [Crossref]
68. Mike Young, Victor Dulewicz. 2005. A model of command, leadership and management competency in
the British Royal Navy. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26:3, 228-241. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
69. Riaz Ahmed, Noor Azmi bin Mohamad. Differentiating between Leadership Competencies and Styles
1674-1688. [Crossref]
70. Tom Cockburn, Peter A. C. Smith. Leadership in the Digital Age 1-20. [Crossref]
71. Peter A. C. Smith, Tom Cockburn. Leadership in the Digital Age 1-18. [Crossref]
72. . Leadership 1-32. [Crossref]
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 06:31 25 April 2018 (PT)