Search results

The purpose of the study is an in-depth exploration of the processes through which a leader develops their leader identity in strength, meaning and integration, with resulting enrichment outcomes.

Using multi-domain leader identity theory, this study provides an in-depth exploration of the processes through which a leader develops their leader identity. Set in a healthcare context, 26 participants took part in an 18-month multi-domain leadership development program.

Findings indicate a typology of leader identities, capturing the dynamic nature of leader identity based on combinations of strength and meaning. Our research also suggests that as the leader develops, their leader identity can change from a differentiated identity as a leader to a more integrated leader identity, with resulting enrichment outcomes.

The results suggested value in inherently multi-domain focus using event-based reflection and, as such, are useful in leader identity development programs. We recommend future research generalize to other settings and a larger population.

By taking a multi-domain approach to leader identity development, the leader has the opportunity to learn and develop in a more holistic way. They are encouraged to reflect on and learn from leadership experiences throughout their entire lives, adding breadth and depth that are often overlooked in development programs.

Developing leaders who understand who they are and are capable of critical self-reflection and learning is a fundamental requirement for the positive advancement of society.

The value of the study lies in the first longitudinal, work-based empirical study taking an explicitly multi-domain approach to leader identity development.

Bullying affects at least one-third of the workers through either direct exposure or witnessing, both of which lead to compromised health, and as a result, reduced organizational effectiveness or productivity. However, there is very little evidence that organisations provide effective protection from bullying, and in fact, the converse appears to the case. The purpose of this paper to explore the role of both individual and organisational power in the creation and maintenance of the problem. Such an approach moves away from the specific practice of identifying “bullying” that typically engages targets and perpetrators in a dance that is really just around the edges (Sullivan, 2008) of a larger problem; a culture that permits the abuse of power and ill-treatment of workers, in both practices and through organisational politics.

This paper elucidates key problems with organisational response as identified in the literature and critically examines weak organisational response to workplace bullying using the power theory, arguing that while overt approaches to addressing bullying appear to be underpinned by a simplistic, functionalist understanding of power, practices on the ground are better explained by more sophisticated “second-dimension” theorists.

There is a need for organisations to move beyond the current individualistic understanding of bullying towards a more nuanced understanding of how anti-bullying policies and procedures are themselves an exercise in institutional power protecting and reinforcing dominant power structures.

The literature from which this paper is drawn is limited to studies published in English.

The authors advocate a realistic assessment of the role of both individual and organisational power in the creation and maintenance of workplace bullying, as a way forward to plan appropriate intervention.

Workplace bullying is problematic for organisations at several levels, and therefore for society.

That power is relevant to workplace bullying has been apparent since the work of Brodsky in 1976 and Einarsen's early work, this paper builds on a the more nuanced work of McKay (2014), D'Cruz and Noronha (2009), Liefooghe and MacDavey's (2010) and Hutchinson et al. (2010), exploring the organisational response to the raising of bullying issues by individual employees as an exercise of power.