Search results

The study’s aim was to design and test a leadership development approach using blended learning, to equip leaders for strengthening their own resilience and that of their teams.

A contextualised leadership development intervention was produced and evaluated following the principles of design-based research. Participants were from three organisations that work internationally to address the impact of economic disadvantage. Initial research used the behavioural event interview technique. Online assessment incorporated measures of situational judgement, emotion recognition and attributional style. Validity measures were multi-rater feedback (criterion), and NEO-PI 3 (construct). Individual feedback and a simulation-based peer workshop were followed by a four-to-six month period of experience-driven development and a final peer workshop for consolidating and evaluating learning outcomes.

The online assessment was a valid measure of leaders’ personal resilience resources and their resilience-building capability. Overall, the intervention improved participants’ understanding of, and engagement with, the processes of strengthening individual and collective (team) resilience.

The target sample size for the study was relatively small, to ensure it would be practical to replicate the approach when designing similar interventions for a senior leadership population in other contexts. Significant results provided robust evidence for the validity of the assessment approach. Findings for the workshops and experience-driven development phase were more tentative, but the value of the design iterations was clearly demonstrated.

The leadership development approach is suitable for application in other organisations, if similar principles are followed to produce and evaluate materials relevant to each broad sector context. Roll-out is cost-effective, with relatively few hours of blended or virtual delivery supporting experience-driven learning.

The impact leaders have on the wellbeing of those who report to them is well established, but less has been done to develop and formally evaluate practical, cost-effective interventions to improve this impact. The approach validated in this study can be applied more widely to benefit employee wellbeing as well as performance.

The study developed and evaluated a new approach to preparing leaders for the challenge of building team resilience, an aspect of leadership capability that has been given relatively little attention to date.

The purpose of this paper is to explore relationships between leader personality traits (neuroticism and conscientiousness) and four specific workplace stressors (control; work overload; work-life balance and managerial relationships) experienced by work group members.

The authors accessed personality data from N=84 leaders and surveyed members of their respective work groups (N=928) to measure established workplace stressors. Multi-level modelling analyses were conducted to explore relationships between leader neuroticism and conscientiousness and work group members’ perceptions of sources of pressure.

The results relate to the general problem of how, and to what extent leaders have an impact on the well-being of members of their workgroups. Although previous research has generally associated conscientiousness with effective leadership, the results suggest that some facets of conscientiousness may be less useful for leadership effectiveness than others. In particular, the results show that leaders’ levels of achievement striving are linked to poor work life balance scores for their workgroups. The results also show that leader neuroticism is not related to work group members’ perceptions of sources of pressure.

The findings showed that leader personality influences three out of the four employee stressors hypothesized. The idea that the influence of leader personality may be relatively indirect via employee working conditions is potentially important and suggests implications for practice. To the extent that the negative effects of leader personality are mediated via working conditions, it may be feasible to counter, or at least assuage such effects by implementing appropriate regulations or working practices that mitigate leaders’ ability to influence the specific conditions in question.

Most studies have focused on how employee well-being outcomes are influenced through the direct impacts of leadership styles and behaviours, or contagious emotions. The authors explore an alternative and untested proposition that the leaders’ personality influences the working conditions that are afforded to subordinates. No empirical research to date have examined the relationships between leader personality and workplace stressors. The research also demonstrates the importance of using facet-level personality measures, compared with measures at the broad domain level.