Search results

Prior research and theory have shown that transformational leadership can be developed through leader development programs (LDPs). To explain how this happens, research suggests a strong connection between an individual’s leader self-concept and their leadership behavior that can be manipulated through LDPs. The purpose of this article is to delve deeper into this phenomenon to understand how development occurs and to better understand how an LDP can improve leadership behaviors by influencing one’s self-concept and ultimately reduce the training transfer gap. As a broader goal, this article contributes to the existing literature on the value proposition of investing in LDPs.

We conducted an explanatory sequential design mixed-methods study to measure the development of participants and the impact of the program. The quantitative phase of the study used self-report surveys to measure the LDP’s impact on participants’ transformational leader behavior (TLB) and concept of themselves regarding leadership, their leader self-views (LSVs). The study also measured the relationship between LSVs and later enactment of leadership behaviors as the second hypothesis. The subsequent qualitative study was designed to understand the mechanisms that might explain the quantitative results.

The study’s empirical findings indicate a positive relationship between LSVs (efficacy, self-awareness and identity) and distal leader development outcomes (TBLs). The study’s findings also provide support for the claim that LDPs convert knowledge and skills into TLB, expanding an individual’s capacity to be effective in leadership roles and processes (Day & Dragoni, 2015). Qualitative results also show LDPs improve leader behavior by influencing their self-efficacy via providing tools and knowledge as well as building experimental mindset.

By showing LDPs' long term impacts, this paper demonstrates why short-term leadership development programs are worth investing.

This paper aims to provide conceptual clarity on the different approaches of place branding in the literature. It discusses three main approaches and provides a new definition of place brands that acknowledges the full multi-sensory experience of place brands. This paper also elaborates brand management within the three approaches.

Conceptual paper

This study identifies three co-existing approaches of place branding and provides a definition of place brands for each of them. The first approach conceptualises place brands as symbolic constructs that identify and differentiate places from others. Brand symbols such as logos and slogans are central, assuming that brand meaning resides in them. The second approach views place brands as images and associations in the minds of target groups, whereby brands reside in individuals’ minds (the cognitive). This paper aligns with a third approach that views place brands as experiential, multi-sensory constructs. Brands invite not only mental representations in people’s minds but especially also multi-sensory embodied experiences. The authors thus define place brands as marketing systems that consist of dynamic performative assemblages of symbolic, discursive, institutional and material elements that selectively invite certain multi-sensory and embodied experiences of place by stakeholders and target groups.

This paper contributes to conceptual clarity by providing an analytical framework identifying three main approaches to place branding. The authors further reflect on the implications of each approach for brand management. This paper also builds on recent literatures to provide a new and contemporary definition of place brands as multi-sensory experiences that encompasses embodiment.