Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the tendency of leaders to select their followers depending on their human capital factors such as age, education level, previous working experience and training.

The participants were 1,388 employees working in a randomly selected sample of 289 small-sized businesses operating in Yemen. A self-reported questionnaire was used to collect the data. The correspondence analysis method was used to explore the tendency of leaders to select their followers depending on their human capital factors.

We found significant corresponding relationships between leadership styles and the selection of the followers' human capital factors. The passive avoidant style was found to select middle-age, long-experience and fully-trained followers. Transactional style on the other hand was found to select young, middle-level experience and non-trained followers. The transformational leadership style was found to have no selection preferences towards any of the human capital factors except for working experience.

Although, some previous studies tried to understand the leaders–followers relationships, no one investigated the tendency of leaders to select their followers according to their preferences. This study contributes significantly to the leaders–followers theory by studying the selection process of the leadership style of their followers' human capital factors. Understanding this phenomenon could help explain why some leadership styles are more effective than others, especially in very limited resources contexts such as micro-sized businesses.

The purpose of this paper is to present empirical evidence about the roles of leaders and how those roles mesh with transformative leadership as a new theory of ethical stewardship.

Statistical methods are implemented to test the associations between specific leadership roles and six transformative leadership perspectives. Data are collected from Likert-type responses from a survey of 399 faculty, staff, and students of a Catholic University in South Florida.

Analysis results indicate that there are significantly positive associations between six leadership perspectives of transformative leadership and the five roles of leadership in the Kouzes and Posner (2012) model.

This paper contributes to empirically transformative leadership, a new theory that incorporates six highly regarded leadership perspectives. It provides a framework for understanding the ethical duties of leaders and affirms the importance of those duties as they correlate with Kouzes and Posner’s highly regarded five-role model.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the ethical perspectives of leadership humility. Jim Collins, in his seminal work, Good to Great, noted that all great organizations are led by “Level 5 leaders (L5Ls).” These leaders exhibit fierce resolve, but incredible humility. This paper examines the nature of humility and its assumptions associated with 12 frequently cited ethical perspectives. Humility builds high follower trust and commitment so often lacking in the modern organization. The paper identifies four practical contributions for scholars and leaders who seek to understand the role of humility in leadership effectiveness.

This paper is a conceptual paper which relies heavily on research from the current literature about leadership, trust, and humility.

This paper compares humility with 12 well-regarded ethical perspectives and presents humility as an ethically-relevant leadership construct that helps leaders to build trust, commitment, and followership.

Because this paper is not an empirical study, it does not present research information, propositions, or hypotheses.

This paper suggests that leaders can be more effective if they come to understand the implicit ethical nature of leadership and the importance of humility in building trust.

Although Collins’ research about great organizations identified the importance of Level 5 leadership 15 years ago, very little has been written about the nature of humility as a leadership virtue. More importantly, this paper is among the first to identify the relationship between ethics and humility for L5Ls.

The characteristics which differentiate transactional from transformational leadership are discussed, highlighting the differences between managers and leaders. Four distinct characteristics – the Fours I′s – associated with transformational leadership are described with respect to their evolution and influence on follower development, effort and performance. The advantages of combining transactional and transformational leadership styles into an overall framework of leadership development for leading in the 1990s are also discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual model describing potential relationships among transformational leadership, charisma, credibility and organizational performance.

This paper is conceptual, based on a review of current transformational leadership, charisma and credibility literature.

The authors present a model where credibility is an antecedent of transformational leadership; transformational leadership has a positive effect on organizational performance; and charisma positively moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance.

A model to integrate credibility into transformational leadership research is proposed.

This paper considers credibility as an important attribute of transformational leadership, and thus credibility may have significant implications for practitioners in leadership development strategies.

Currently, there is a lack of research on the role of credibility in leadership. The authors discuss the importance of measuring leader credibility and generating a credibility scale.

Strategy & Leadership contributing editors interviewed researcher Jim Collins. Collins is author of two influential books: Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies co‐authored with Jerry Porras, and Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don’t. Some key points Collins makes are: The transition from good to great all began with a Level 5 leader. The essence of Level 5 leadership is having an ambition for the cause of the work‐the outcome, the company, the organization‐above the self; also, at the same time, having the ferocious, frightening, terrifying willfulness to act upon that ambition. Most Level 5 leaders understand that their report card only comes in when their successor succeeds. In most cases, but not all, their successors were even more successful than they were. That’s different from the comparison cases, where a number of the executives defined their success in terms of their successor failing. All the good‐to‐great CEOs said “I am not going to answer the ‘What to do’ question until I’ve got the right people. And we will not determine where to drive this bus until we decide who should be on the bus, who should be off the bus, and who should be in what seat.” In the comparison companies, you have leaders who often came in with “the what” and then tried to get everybody to go there, whereas the good‐to‐great companies had leaders who began with the “who” and then figured it out from there. The idea that you first get the right team and only later figure out where to drive the bus is absolutely contrary to what everyone learned in business school. The great companies understood what they could absolutely be the best in the world at. And also, “If we can’t be the best in the world at it then we shouldn’t be doing it.” They wanted to have a profound understanding of their economics and how to fundamentally change them. And they put a high premium on things that they were very passionate about.

This paper seeks to argue that leadership is a purposive process, which is value‐transcendent, and to suggest that organizations, and leadership systems within organizations, are governed as much by beliefs as by rationality and outcomes.

The paper provides a model which incorporates three sets of value‐anchored antecedents as predictors of leader behavior is presented: work values including the Protestant work ethic and work involvement, leadership values including corporate stewardship, accountability and spiritual values including trust, humility, stewardship and community.

The paper is consistent with research that supports the role values play as personal and organizational phenomena as well as research that indicates that values and beliefs are instrumental determinants of organizational culture.

By including spiritual values as a domain of corporate values and predictors of leader behavior, the author is expanding existing value typologies and opening the discourse toward a values‐based, spiritually anchored paradigm of leadership.

This article sets out to examine what is different about top leadership and what is required beyond proven professional competence to be highly effective at this level.

The article is a masterclass – essentially a thematic review and synthesis of some of the most influential ideas on the topic from research and practice over the last two decades.

The main conclusions are that: the top job is different, not just a step up, and has its own unique tasks that top leaders need to keep their focus on; effectiveness at this level requires more than generic professional competencies, it also requires finding an individual leadership voice and sense of higher ambition; and effectiveness at the top also requires the development of contextual awareness and sensitivity to find and rise to the right leadership challenge in the right institution at the right time.

The practical implications flow directly from the findings above.

This paper examines the determinants of happiness index ratings in European countries over 8 time points using unique data from the Eurostat, World Bank and World Happiness Reports.

To examine the determinants of happiness index ratings for EU-27 countries over the period 2012–2019, panel ordinary least square and quantile regression model are used to data obtained from all sample.

Evidence from European data on happiness index generate some important key outcomes; economic outcomes levels with both current taxes and inflation rate have a positively relationship on happiness index ratings (HIR), while total employment rate has a significant negativity on HIR. Additionally, in a quantile panel regression of 27 countries, the impact of financial inclusion on happiness index looks to change with a country's level of income. On the macroeconomic level, gross domestic product (GDP) improves the happiness index for the individual under certain conditions. Thus, GDP on 0.25th quantile levels positively and significantly impacts the HIR for leader countries.

Empirical evidence suggests that macro-economic variables and the labor market proxies of the countries play a key role in determining HIR as well.

The study extends the literature on developed countries and suggestions a particular perspective on the relationship between economic outcomes and happiness index. This study offers two main originalities: it simultaneously examines the “happiness-macroeconomic level” and “happiness-employment status dimension”, and it uses a quantile regression approach, including financial inclusion variation.

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, to compare the self-rated leadership behaviors, leadership-related competencies and results of the leadership of younger, mid-aged and older leaders; and second to compare these aspects among younger leaders in different kinds of the work environment and between men and women.

Data was collected using the developmental leadership questionnaire from a sample of Swedish leadership course participants (N = 7,743).

The results showed that the younger group of leaders (29 years old or younger n = 539), rated themselves more negatively than the mid-aged (30–50 years, n = 5,208) and older (51 years or older, n = 1,996) leaders. Analysis of the group of younger leaders showed that those working in the private sector scored most favorably. The gender comparison revealed that young male leaders scored higher on negative conventional (transactional) and destructive leadership behaviors. A logistic regression analysis of the younger group showed that social competence, developmental leadership and destructive leadership (negative) influenced self-rated results of leadership.

The study is based on leaders’ self-ratings only.

The results can be used in leadership development contexts and in individualized coaching or mentoring programs.

The results have new implications for leadership theory related to self-confidence, stereotypes, selection and organizational culture.