This article presents a review of the recent literature on change management in public organizations and sets out to explore the extent to which this literature has responded to earlier critiques regarding the lack of (public) contextual factors. The review includes 133 articles published on this topic in the period from 2000 to 2010. The articles are analysed based on the themes of the context, content, process, outcome, and leadership of change. We identified whether the articles referred to different orders of change, as well as their methods and theory employed. Our findings concentrate on the lack of detail on change processes and outcomes and the gap between the common theories used to study change. We propose an agenda for the study of change management in public organizations that focuses on its complex nature by building theoretical bridges and performing more in‐depth empirical and comparative studies on change processes.

No abstract

Purpose -To investigate the new leadership dimensions questionnaire (LDQ) and a related 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 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.

This article reviews the literature on the subject of``emotional intelligence'' (EQ) and attempts to pin-down and define this nebulous construct, using competency-based and personality factor scales. In an exploratory study, the reliability and construct and predictive validity of three scales were investigated. An EQ scale based on 16 relevant competencies showed highly promising reliability and validity. The results also showed the relevance of two other competency-based scales ± intellectual intelligence (IQ) and managerial intelligence (MQ) ± which both predicted organisational advancement. Taken together, however, the three scales had even higher validity. The overall results supported the view that EQ constructs can be measured more effectively bỳ`p erformance analysis'' than``classic paper and pencil tests''. In addition they provide support for the proposition that the combination of EQ and IQ is a more powerful predictor of``success'' than either measure alone. IntroductionThe current widespread interest in the topic of emotional intelligence has undoubtedly been fuelled by Daniel Goleman's book (Goleman, 1996) and its associated publicity. The popularity of the topic has led to a range of predominantly popular books and articles examining its applications and its development in the context both of individuals and of corporations. Corporate interest appears to be strongly related to the continuing search for a way of securing sustainable competitive advantage which can be developed through attention to``people issues'research has been conducted in an organisational context and existing research has been largely drawn from physiological research developments, educational-based research and developments in the therapy field (e.g. Goleman, 1996;Steiner, 1997;Damasio, 1994). The organisational applications of emotional intelligence tend to be based on derivative arguments and largely anecdotal case descriptions. This raises one of the core questions which the research reported in this paper sets out to examine:

This article seeks to explore the impact of leaders' behaviors on the successful implementation of change. A qualitative empirical study of change leader behaviors based on interviews with leaders from 33 organizations is presented. Analyses of the data indicated that leader-centric behaviors have an adverse impact on change implementation. In contrast, behaviors that may be described as being more facilitating and engaging are positively related to change success. Four critical behavior sets are identified. It was evident that leaders who experienced the highest levels of success deployed all four of the behavior sets and minimal presence of leader-centric behaviors. The study findings provide support for some of the recent research into change leadership. However, they provide a more detailed picture of the nature of behaviors associated with successful change implementation. The article concludes with a brief discussion of limitations and areas for further research.

No abstract

The importance of context has been well established in studies of leadership (Bryman, A. and Stephens, M. (1996). The importance of context: qualitative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7, pp. 353–371; Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1991). Managing Change for Competitive Success. Oxford: Blackwell). However, recent reviews of shared leadership have tended to merge findings across commercial and non‐commercial settings, disregarding contextual differences in these distinctive domains. Acknowledging that the challenges of leadership may vary in different organizational contexts, this paper argues that a focused review of shared leadership in commercial organizations (COs) is needed. The authors thus systematically review findings from over twenty years of empirical research on the practice of shared leadership in commercial organizations, critically reviewing definitions, theoretical dispositions and measurement approaches adopted in the field, before evaluating the impact of shared leadership on performance in this context. Findings from commercial and non‐ commercial organizations are then compared, highlighting significant differences in the conceptualization of shared leadership in these distinct settings. Contributing to theory in this field, a framework is developed, mapping the landscape of current research in commercial contexts, revealing critical gaps in our present understanding of shared leadership processes. Consequently, a model summarizing a proposed research agenda for future studies is provided, highlighting the need for such research to focus on the interactions of individuals as they share in the leadership of their team.

Many authors claim there is a paucity of evidence for the validity of measures of emotional intelligence (EI). This paper summarises existing information on the reliability and validity of two measures of EI, the Dulewicz and Higgs EIQ and the Bar‐on EQ‐i. It also reports the results of a study on middle managers which investigated the degree to which these two EI instruments measure the same constructs: their concurrent/criterion‐related validity; and the relationship between EI and morale and stress at work. Correlations between the two instruments showed content and construct validity, with 16 out of the 20 hypothesised relationships between scales being significant. Correlations between various measures of morale and stress at work and EIQ demonstrated construct validity. Significant relationships were also found between EIQ and current job performance, thus providing further evidence of concurrent/criterion‐related validity.