See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252980826

Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire: Organisation Context, Leader

Performance and Follower Commitment

Article · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

10 8,767

2 authors:

Victor Dulewicz Malcolm Higgs

University of Reading University of Southampton
108 PUBLICATIONS 4,138 CITATIONS 266 PUBLICATIONS 5,548 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Victor Dulewicz on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire:
Organisation Context, Leader Performance
and Follower Commitment

by

Victor Dulewicz and Malcolm Higgs

HRN 2005/01

Henley Research Notes

Henley Management College

Greenlands
Henley-on-Thames
Oxon RG9 3AU

The opinions and ideas expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) alone. Henley
Management College does not necessarily concur with any of the opinions expressed
herein.

The author(s) invites both comments and discussion from anyone who may read a paper in
this series. If you have any suggestions which may be helpful to the author(s), then please
write to them, c/o The Editor, at the address shown above.

Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced without the
written permission of the author(s).

ISBN 1 86181 204 3

Henley is one of the world’s leading There are nearly 7000 managers on
business schools. Its mission is to Henley programmes in 90 countries
provide high quality, relevant each year. Henley currently works with
management development in more than 80 organisations worldwide
partnership with both industry and to provide customised management
organisations worldwide. Henley offers a development. Whether in Africa, Asia or
unique portfolio of management Scandinavia, Henley can bring its unique
development programmes for individual blend of individual tutorial style, new
executives and companies or consortia technology and international
of companies which are aimed at middle perspectives to enhance management
to top management levels. The and corporate development.
programmes range from short courses
to MBAs and DBAs. Complementing and underpinning
Henley’s management development
Henley’s approach is to stress three programmes are Henley’s Research
major facets of working together to Centres, which build on the strength of
meet corporate objectives. The Henley’s renowned faculty to pursue
management development of research and consultancy in wide areas
programmes the College offers are of general management interest.
flexible. They are related to the work place
and they address the personal development Henley’s scope is global but we never
needs of participants. lose sight of the individual course
member. Their needs drive our
From a solid foundation of excellence programmes, thus, the Henley
established 50 years ago in England, philosophy ‘Building People - Building
Henley has created an international Business’.
network of strategic alliances through
which to deliver its programmes Further information about Henley
globally. The College operates in over 30 Management College and its worldwide
countries. It delivers high quality activities can be obtained from Michael
relevant management development Pitfield, Director of Corporate Relations
programmes which incorporate leading- Michael.Pitfield@henleymc.ac.uk
edge international management or see our website
knowledge and innovative multi-media (http://www.henleymc.ac.uk)
delivery technology.

Henley Management College, Greenlands, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, RG9 3AU, UK

Tel +44 (0)1491 571454 Fax +44 (0)1491 571635
ABSTRACT

This research note provides further data and analyses that develop further the work on the
Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire (LDQ) reported by Dulewicz & Higgs (2003). The
note reports analyses of a mixed sample of over 1000 respondents to the self-report LDQ.
In particular it examines the relationship of the LDQ dimensions to three outcome scales:
Context, Leader Performance and Follower Commitment. The analyses demonstrated
clear linkages between LDQ dimensions and both Leader Performance and Follower
Commitment. Overall the data presented provides further support for the use of the LDQ
in a range of situations in both public and private sector organisations.
INTRODUCTION

This research note provides an update on the development of the Leadership Dimensions
Questionnaire (LDQ) originally reported by Dulewicz & Higgs (2003) in a Henley Working
Paper. It includes standardisation data and biographical analyses, based on a much larger
sample (n = 1009) than was available for the original studies (222 & 414) and also reports
additional information on a new section of the LDQ that was designed to measure:
• Leader Performance
• Follower Commitment
• and Organisational Context in relation to
• Leadership style
in order to increase our understanding of effective leadership.

Self-Rated Leader Performance

Although self-reports had generally been regarded as important sources of information in a
wide variety of basic and applied contexts (e.g. opinion and attitude study, personnel
selection, therapy outcome research), use of self-evaluations in assessments of own abilities
had received relatively little research attention prior to 1982. Then a major review
concluded that ‘under certain measurement conditions, self evaluation of ability may closely
correspond to performance on criterion measures’ (Mabe & West, 1982, p.294). Since
then, three general conclusions have been drawn surrounding self appraisal:
1. Self-ratings tend to be inflated, suffering from leniency and social
desirability bias. (e.g. Podsakoff & Organ, 1986)

2. Self-ratings are less highly related to ratings by others (i.e., peers,

supervisors or subordinates) than peers’, supervisors’ and subordinates’ ratings are
with each other. (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988)

3. Accurate self-raters are superior performers compared to their less accurate

counterparts. (e.g. Bass & Yammarino, 1991, Church, 1997)
However, enhancing the validity of self-rating often requires little more than ‘simple
modifications in the self evaluation instructions, e.g. using social comparison terminology
or instructing subjects that self evaluations were to be validated’ (Mabe & West, 1982,
p.294). The extension of this is the finding that ‘self-ratings from well designed personality
questionnaires can produce data that are related to boss’s ratings of actual job performance’
(Dulewicz, 1992, p.4).

The LDQ contains a self-assessment of leadership performance containing six items

covering: followers’ effort, capability and flexibility and overall team performance and
impact. A factor analysis revealed two components, broadly reflecting followers’ individual
contributions and team output respectively (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003/4; 2005).

Organisational Commitment of Followers

Transformational and charismatic leadership are partly derived from their effects on
followers (Bass 1985, 1990, & 1997; Burns, 1978; House, 1977; Tichy & Divanna, 1990;
Bryman, 1992; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993 and Shamir,
Zakay & Popper, 1998), albeit that internalisation of the goal appears most important for
transformational leadership and personal identification most important for charismatic
leadership (Shamir, 1999). But within these similar paradigms the common factor is that
the leader ‘induces a high degree of loyalty, commitment, and devotion in the followers’
(Bass, 1990, p.205). Assessing this follower commitment must therefore be fundamental to
a better understanding of leadership within the study environment.

In operationalising their model of transformational leadership in the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire, Bass & Avolio produced evidence (Bass, 1990, pp.218-219) to
demonstrate that the subordinates of more transformational leaders felt that:
• They worked in more highly effective groups.
• Their groups had a greater impact on the organisation.
• They exerted more individual effort.

In producing their Follower Commitment scale, Dulewicz and Higgs (2003; 2005)
combined these attitudinal and affective aspects of commitment with measures of the more
rational calculative type of commitment, in line with findings by Cooke and Wall (1980)
and Mathieu and Zajac (1990). Consequently, the Organisational Commitment scale
contains five items ‘designed to assess the degree of commitment that followers show to
the organisation and to the team in which they work, covering job satisfaction; realism;
commitment to requisite change and to the organisation; and understanding the need for
change’ (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; 2005).

Organisational Context
Since Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) first described ‘How to Chose a Leadership Pattern’, the
importance of the situation or context has been central to leadership style theory. More
recently, successfully implementing change is often seen as the defining action of a leader
(see for example Kotter, 1990; White, Hodgson & Crainer, 1996; Higgs & Rowland, 2001).
Within this paradigm, the leader-centric behaviours of the Goal-oriented style have been
shown to be ‘not related to successful change but also they impaired change
implementation’ (Higgs & Rowland, 2003, p.2). By contrast ‘as complexity of the context
increased, a more facilitative style of leadership became necessary for success’ (Dulewicz &
Higgs, 2004; 2005).

The LDQ has an embedded context scale that allows analysis of the suitability of certain
styles, by providing a measure of change faced by the organisation. The scale reflects five
separate components:

1. a general fundamental need to change;

2. fundamental change of the organisation/business;
3. the need for followers to change;
4. specific pressures from the business environment; and
5. an unstable context. (Source: Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004; 2005)

The components of the Organisational Context scale capture the impact of change in the wider
environment as well as in the organisation’s culture (Pettigrew, 1979; Schien, 1985;
Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv & Saunders, 1990) and climate (Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Taguri
& Litwin, 1968). This reflects Dulewicz and Higgs’s (2003) dynamic leadership model
within which ‘it is feasible that a change in leadership behaviour may lead to a different
strategic approach being adopted by the organisation’ (p.10).
Leadership Styles
Building on the work of others, particularly Bass (1985; 1990) and Alimo-Metcalf & Alban-
Metcalf (2001), Dulewicz & Higgs (2003; 2005) identify three different leadership styles
within their model (based on their extensive literature review):
1. Engaging Leadership. A style based on a high level of empowerment and
involvement appropriate in a highly transformational context. Such a style is
focused on producing radical change with high levels of engagement and
commitment.
2. Involving Leadership. A style that is based on a transitional organisation which
faces significant but not radical changes in its business model or “modus operandi”.
3. Goal Leadership. A style that is focused on delivering results within a relatively
stable context. This is a leader-led style aligned to a stable organisation delivering
clearly understood results.
The profile for each style, based upon the range (high, medium or low) of scores obtained
on the 15 LDQ dimensions, is reproduced at Table 1.

METHOD

The LDQ was completed by just over 1000 managers and senior officers who attended
Henley’s main programmes (MBA & DBA and In-company) as well as from large public
and private sector organisations between May 2002 and March 2004.

Sample
The average age of the 1009 respondents was 38.1 years (SD 7.0). A large majority of the
sample was male (76.5%) and a minority (23.5%) female. Just over one-half of respondents
(52.1%) worked in the Public/Not-for-profit Sector, primarily in the Armed Forces, Civil
Service and NHS, and just under one-half (47.9%) worked in the Private Sector, across the
entire spectrum of companies from large multi-nationals to SMEs. Looking at the
functions in which they worked, 27.7% were General Managers, 9.8% were in
Sales/Marketing, 10.6% in Finance, 7.2% in Technical and 36.4% in ‘other’ functions. The
last percentage was high because many public sector staff do not work in the traditional
functional areas. As regards their highest qualifications, 29.8% had a first degree, 23.6% had
a higher degree and another 18.4% had a professional qualification. Turning finally to the
nationality of the respondents, 78.8% were from the UK, 10.6% were from the rest of
Europe and the remaining 10.6% were from other parts of the world. Full biographical
details of the sample (N = 1009) are presented in Table 1.

RESULTS

Biographical Data

In order to investigate possible differences on three main biographical factors – gender,

sector and job function - on the context, performance and commitment scale scores, t-tests
were conducted on these groups.

As noted above, an Organisational Context scale (which has become section II of the LDQ)
was designed to examine the degree and nature of change and volatility in their working
environment that respondents perceive they face in their role as a leader. From the t-tests
results reported in Table 3 relating to biographical differences, it can be seen that Females
and Private Sector staff perceive higher levels of change than Males and those working in
the Public Sector.

The Leader Performance scale provides a self-assessment of leadership performance. It

contains six items, covering followers’ effort, capability and flexibility and overall team
performance and impact. Regarding biographical differences, the results of t-tests reported
in Table 3 showed that Public Sector staff rate their performance higher than those in the
Private Sector but there were no gender and job function differences.

The Follower Commitment scale covers job satisfaction; realism; commitment to requisite
change and to the organisation; and understanding the need for change. No gender, job
function or sector differences were found, as can be seen from the results in Table 3.

Context, Leader Performance, Follower Commitment & LDQ Dimensions

Inter-Correlations
Correlations between these measures are reported in Table 4, based on scores from a sub-
sample of around 650. The results showed that those who perceived greater change were
significantly more like to attain higher scores on eight LDQ Dimensions: Critical Analysis,
Vision, Perspective, Achieving Self-awareness (negative), Motivation, Sensitivity and
Intuitiveness. Statistically significant correlations were also found between self-assessed
Leader Performance and all 15 LDQ Dimensions; and between self-assessed Follower
Commitment and 14 of the Dimensions, the exception being Intuitiveness.

Regression & Hierarchical Regression

Multiple Regression Analyses were conducted on each of the LDQ subscales by entering
the IQ, EQ and MQ groups of items separately. Then, in order to investigate the
correlation findings further, in terms of the IQ + EQ + MQ model upon which the LDQ
is designed, and to test Goleman’s (1996) original proposition that IQ + EQ = success,
separate hierarchical regression analyses were conducted on the three LDQ subscales.

The results of the simple Regression, with Context as the Independent Variable (I.V.), are
presented in Table 5. Of the Dependent Variables, IQ items accounts for 4.2% of the total
Context variance (R Squared expresses as a percentage), EQ items for 10% and MQ items
for 6.2%.

The Hierarchical Regression results also reported in Table 5 show that the IQ scales model
accounts for 3.7% of the variance on Context and is significant initially. However,
introducing the MQ scales adds a further 11% to the variance explained, which is a
significant contribution. The five MQ variables add a further 3.3% also a significant
addition, so that the 15 LDQ in total account for 18% of the total variance on the context
scale.

The results with Self-rated Leadership as the I.V. are presented in Table 6. The IQ items
accounts for19.9% of the total Context variance, EQ items for 11.9% and MQ items for
25.7%.

Hierarchical Regression analysis was also conducted on the Self-rated Leadership

performance scale (see Table 6), with similar results to Context, in that each group of LDQ
scales, IQ, EQ and MQ, added significantly to the overall variance. However, much more
of the total variance (28.5%) on the performance scale was explained. IQ accounted for
12.8%, EQ for an additional 6.9% and MQ for an additional 8.7%.
The regression analysis results with Follower Commitment as the I.V. are presented in
Table 7. This time, all three groups accounted independently for around 10% of the total
variance on Follower Commitment - the IQ items account for 10.8%, EQ items for 9.2%
and MQ items for 10.9%.

The results of the hierarchical regression analysis on Follower Commitment are presented
in Table 7 and show less of the total variance (13.8%) is explained than on the other two
sub-scales. The three IQ scales account for 9.9% of the variance and the seven EQ scales
add 2.5%, a statistically significant increment but the five MQ scales only add a further
1.4%, an increment which is not significant.

DISCUSSION

A sample of over 1000 managers and senior officers means that a robust and
comprehensive standardisation sample exists for producing the norms for the LDQ report
writer. Furthermore, separate norms can be produced for Gender, based on 772 males and
237 females; and for Sector, based on 483 managers working in the private sector and 526
senior officers working in the public and not-for-profit sectors.

Turning to biographical differences in the three new LDQ subscales, and focusing first on
Organisational Context, women perceive a greater change in their context than men. There
do not appear to be obvious reasons why this should be so and further research into this
finding seems desirable. Private sector staff also perceive greater change than those
working in the public sector and this does seem to support quite a widely held view that the
degree of change faced by private sector organisations is more fundamental than in the
public sector. The private sector mean of 70.14 falls just below the Transformation
Change range (74+) whereas the public sector mean of 66 is around the midpoint of the
‘significant change’ range in the LDQ model.

The only significant difference found on the Leader Performance scale was for Sector and
in this instance, the public sector officers’ mean score was significantly higher than private
sector managers’. Some would argue that leadership is of a higher standard in the public
sector since much trouble is taken to develop leadership, especially in the Senior Civil
Service and the Royal Navy, organisations in which a high proportion of the respondents
worked. However, further research into this finding would also seem to be called for.

Turning to Follower Commitment, no significant differences were found between public

and private sector, gender or job function.

The subscales were further investigated by correlating those scores with the 15 LDQ
dimension scores. With Context, it was found that all three IQ dimensions were
significantly positively correlated but only one MQ scale (Achieving) and two EQ scales
(Motivation and Intuitiveness), although one other EQ scale (Self-awareness) was
significantly negatively correlated. It is almost self-evident that those who score highly on
Vision, Strategic Perspective and Critical Analysis have the intellectual faculties to enable
them to perceive the context and the degree of change more widely and accurately, and
also perhaps those who are more intuitive. However, it is not quite so obvious why those
who are more highly achievement-motivated (Achieving and Motivation) and those who
are more sensitive and less self-aware are also so disposed. Furthermore, while the IQ,
EQ and MQ models all add significantly to the variance explained by hierarchical
regression analysis on the context scores, all 15 LDQ dimensions taken together only
account for 18% and so much of the variance is accounted for by other factors which are
concerned with the actual context experienced and not by personal characteristics.

Self-rated Performance, Follower Commitment and LDQ Scores

It should be emphasised at the outset that these subscale scores are derived from self-
assessment and not from a 360o assessment by Followers and so the problems of intra-
method ratings apply. Notwithstanding, a study by Young & Dulewicz (2004) on a large
sample (n= 261) of naval officers found a statistically significant correlation between LDQ
self-rated performance and actual performance ratings from the formal RN appraisal
process. Thus, the value of the self-appraised performance should be given some
credence.

In this study all 15 LDQ dimensions were highly statistically significantly (0.1% level)
related to self-rated performance. The highest individual correlations (>.40) were in the
MQ area, specifically Managing Resources, Communication and Developing. These were
the characteristics that were most closely associated with being an effective leader, as see
through his/her own eyes. The results of simple regression analysis support the
importance of the MQ Dimensions since they explained 28.5 of the total variance,
compared to 17.9% for IQ and only 11.9% for EQ Dimensions. Notwithstanding,
hierarchical regression results showed that IQ, EQ and MQ clusters each explained
significant incremental variance taken separately, whilst overall they explained being 26.6%
of the variance.

Turning to Follower Commitment, all LDQ dimensions apart from Intuitiveness were
significantly correlated with the scores from that subscale, but the co-efficients were not as
large as for Performance. Furthermore, unlike Performance, results from the simple
Regression showed that the IQ, EQ & MQ subgroups each accounted for around 10% of
the total variance. Therefore, it is surprising that results from the Hierarchical Regression
analysis showed that IQ, EQ and MQ together accounted for only 13.8% of the variance
and that, while EQ dimensions did add significant variance to IQ, MQ did not. These
findings merit further research.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, research findings on the new LDQ subscales measuring Organisational
Context, Follower Commitment and Leader Performance have been presented.
Furthermore, standardisation data are available, based on a sample of more than 1000
managers. The norms produced constitute a comprehensive sample of middle and senior
managers from around the world (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003). The results of this research
provide support for use of the LDQ in a range of situations, in both public and private
sector organisations.A unique feature of the LDQ is the opportunity it provides to relate
profiles of the scores across the 15 Dimensions to three different leadership styles and in
turn to the degree of organisational volatility faced by the leader. The relevance of each
style is dependent on the context within which leadership is exercised. The Context scale in
part II of the questionnaire provides a reliable measure to help respondents identify the
style that is most appropriate for their role in the current organisational context. New sub-
scales designed to measure Leader Performance and Follower Commitment have also been
produced to facilitate further research into the LDQ questionnaire.

REFERENCES

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, R. (2001) ‘Development of the TLQ’. Journal of

Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74, No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Bass, B. & Yammarino, F. (1991). ‘Congruence of Self and Other’s Leadership ratings of
Naval Officer for understanding Successful Performance’. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, No 40, pp.437-454.
Bass, B.M. (1965) Leadership, Psychology, and Organisational Behavior. London: Harper &
Row.
Bass, B.M. (1990) ‘From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share
the Vision’. Organisational Dynamics. Winter 1990 Vol 18, Issue 3, pp. 19-31.
Bass, B.M. (1999). ‘Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational
Leadership’. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 1999, 8 (1), pp. 9-
32.
Bryman, A. 1992). Charisma & Leadership in Organisations London: Sage Publications.
Burns, J M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row.
Church, A. (1997). ‘Managerial Self-Aeareness in High-Performing Individuals in
Organisations’. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 82, No 2, pp. 281-292.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organisations. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cook, J. & Wall, T. (1980). ‘New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organisational
Commitment and Need Fulfilment’. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol 53, pp.39-
52.
Dulewicz, V. (1992) ‘Assessment of management competences by personality
questionnaires.’ Selection and Development Review Vol. 8, No. 1.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. J. (2003) ‘Design of a new instrument to assess Leadership
Dimensions and Styles’ Henley Working Paper Series HWP 0311.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M.J. (2003/4). A new approach to assessing Leadership
Dimensions, Styles & Context. Competency & Emotional Intelligence Quarterly, Winter.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M.J. (2004). Design of a new instrument to assess Leadership
Dimensions & Styles. Selection & Development Review, 20, 2, 7-12.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M J. (2005). Assessing leadership dimensions, styles and
organizational context. Journal of Managerial Psychology (In Press).
Harris, M. & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). ‘A Meta-Analysis of Self-Supervisor, Self-Peer, and
Peer-Supervisor Ratings. Personnel Psychology Vol 41, pp.43-61.
Higgs, M. J. & Rowland, D. (2001). Developing Change Leadership capability. The
Impact of a Development Intervention. Henley Working Paper Series HWP 0104.
Higgs, M. J. & Rowland, D. (2003). ‘Is change changing? An examination of approaches
to change and its leadership’. Henley Working Paper Series HWP 0313
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Saunders, G. (1990) ‘Measuring Organisational
Cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases’. Administrative
Science Quarterly. Vol 35, pp. 286-316.
House, R.J. (1977). ‘A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership’ in Leadership: The Cutting
Edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kotter, J. (1990) ‘What Leaders Really Do’ Harvard Business Review May-June 1990, pp37-
60.
Litwin, G. & Stringer, R. (1968) Motivation and Organisational Climate. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Mabe, P. & West, S. (1982). ‘Validity of Self-Evaluation of Ability: A Review and Meta-
Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 67, No 3 pp. 280-296.
Mathieu, J. & Zajac, D. (1990). ‘A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates
and consequences of organisational commitment’. Psychological Bulletin, 108, pp.
171-194.
Pettigrew, A. (1979). ‘On Studying Organisational Cultures’. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Vol24, pp. 570-581.
Podsakoff, P. & Organ, D. (1986). ‘Self-Reports in Organisational Research: Problems
and Perspectives. Journal of Management Vol 12, pp. 531-544.
Schein, E. (1985). Organisational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Shamir, B. (1999). ‘An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories’ Leadership Quarterly, Summer 1999, Vol 10 Issue 2,
pp.285-306.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. & Arthur, M.B. (1993) ‘The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self concept based theory’ Organisational Science Vol 4 pp. 577-594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E. & Popper, M. (1998). ‘Correlates of Charismatic Leader Behaviour
in Military Units: Subordinates Attitudes, Unit Characteristics, and Superiors’
Appraisals of Leader Performance’. Academy of Management Journal, Aug 1998; Vol
41, No 4, pp.387-409.
Taguri, R. & Litwin, G. (1968) Organisational Climate: Explorations of a Concept. Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press.
Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W.H. (1958) ‘How to Chose a Leadership Pattern’ Harvard
Business Review, Vol 36,No 2, Mar-Apr 1958, pp.95-101.
Tichy, N.M. & Devanna, M.A. (1990) The Transformational Leader. New York: John Wiley.
White, R., Hodgson, P. & Crainer, S. (1996). The Future of Leadership. Lanham Maryland:
Pitman Publishing.
Young, M. & Dulewicz, V. (2004). Leadership Competencies & Styles: Relationships with
Leader Performance, Follower Commitment and Organisational Context in the
Royal Navy. Henley Working Paper, HWP 0408.
Table 1. Goal Oriented, Engaging & Involving Styles of Leadership from
LDQ Dimensions

LDQ Dimension Low Medium High

Critical Analysis & Judgement EI G

Vision & Imagination E GI

Strategic Perspective EI G

Engaging Communication GI E

Managing Resources E I G

Empowering G I E

Developing GI E

Achieving EI G

Self-awareness G EI

Emotional Resilience GEI

Motivation GEI

Interpersonal Sensitivity GI E

Influence G EI

Intuitiveness GI E

Conscientiousness GEI

Note: G = Goal Oriented; E = Engaging; I = Involving.

Source: Dulewicz & Higgs (2004; 2005)
Table 2. Biographical Data on LDQ Standardisation Sample (N = 1009)

Age Mean SD
38.07 6.99

N %
Gender Male 772 76.5
Female 237 23.5
Total 1009 100

Sector Private 483 47.9

Public 504 50.0
Not-for-Profit 22 2.1
Total 1009 100

Job Function General Management 279 27.7

Marketing / Sales 99 9.8
HR & Training 40 4.0
Finance 107 10.6
R&D 11 1.1
Manuf / Operations 33 3.3
Technical/IT 73 7.2
Other 367 36.4
Total 1009 100

Qualification None 5 0.5

(highest) GCSE 49 4.9
O Levels/ONC 81 8.0
A Levels/HNC 149 14.8
1st Degree 301 29.8
Higher Degree 238 23.6
Professional Qualification 186 18.4
Total 1009 100

Nationality UK 795 78.8

Eire 18 1.8
Europe 56 5.6
Scandinavia 32 3.2
Africa/ Caribbean 17 1.7
Asia / Pacific 37 3.7
North America 13 1.3
Central / South America 3 0.3
India 3 0.3
Australia/ NZ 16 1.6
S Africa 5 0.5
Other 14 1.4
Total 1009 100
Table 3: t-tests on Context, Performance and Commitment by Biographical
variables

LDQ Scales Biodata Group Statistics Independent Samples Test

N Mean SD t df Sig. Level
LDQ sub-scales by Gender
Organisational Context Female 133 69.47 11.57 2.18 646 0.03
Male 515 66.90 12.29
Leader Performance Female 134 23.85 2.73 0.20 650 0.85
Male 518 23.80 2.98
Follower Commitment Female 135 17.84 2.49 -0.05 650 0.96
Male 517 17.86 2.39
LDQ sub-scales by Sector
Organisational Context Public/NFP 426 66.01 12.23 -4.14 646 0.00
Private 222 70.14 11.64
Leader Performance Public/NFP 427 24.10 2.88 3.60 650 0.00
Private 225 23.24 2.94
Follower Commitment Public/NFP 427 17.79 2.45 -0.88 650 0.38
Private 225 17.97 2.33
LDQ sub-scales by Job Function
Organisational Context Other 238 69.62 11.72 -1.63 387 0.10
Gen Mgr 151 71.58 11.26
Leader Performance Other 240 23.33 2.97 -1.85 391 0.07
Gen Mgr 153 23.88 2.67
Follower Commitment Other 241 17.83 2.33 -0.70 391 0.48
Gen Mgr 152 18.00 2.37

16
Table 4. Correlations between Context, Performance, Commitment and
LDQ Dimensions
LDQ Dimensions Context Performance Commitment
Critical Analysis r 0.14 0.25 0.26
& Judgement Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vision & Imagination r 0.20 0.32 0.26

Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00

Strategic r 0.16 0.30 0.27

Perspective Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00

Managing r 0.00 0.42 0.30

Resources Sig. 0.95 0.00 0.00

Engaging r -0.03 0.46 0.29

Communication Sig. 0.41 0.00 0.00

Empowering r 0.04 0.36 0.26

Sig. 0.31 0.00 0.00

Developing r 0.02 0.43 0.25

Sig. 0.61 0.00 0.00

Achieving r 0.20 0.22 0.20

Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00

Self-awareness r -0.18 0.32 0.24

Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00

Emotional r -0.07 0.35 0.25

Resilience Sig. 0.07 0.00 0.00

Motivation r 0.09 0.32 0.25

Sig. 0.02 0.00 0.00

Interpersonal r 0.08 0.25 0.21

Sensitivity Sig. 0.03 0.00 0.00

Influencing r 0.02 0.28 0.19

Sig. 0.59 0.00 0.00

Intuitiveness r 0.13 0.14 0.08

Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.06

Conscientious r 0.04 0.26 0.22

Sig. 0.37 0.00 0.00
N 648 652 651

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

17
 Table 5: Regression Analysis - LDQ IQ, EQ & MQ Dimensions & Context Rating

Regression (Enter)
R R Square Adjusted R Square
IQ Model 0.206 0.042 0.038
EQ Model 0.316 0.100 0.089
MQ Model 0.249 0.062 0.055

Hierarchical IQ + EQ + MQ Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted Change Statistics:
R Square R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 IQ 0.192 0.037 0.032 0.037 7.57 3 595 0.00
2 EQ 0.383 0.147 0.132 0.110 10.85 7 588 0.00
3 MQ 0.424 0.180 0.158 0.033 4.63 5 583 0.00

Table 6: Regression Analysis - LDQ IQ, EQ & MQ Dimensions & Self-rated Performance

Regression (Enter)
R R Square Adjusted R Square
IQ Model 0.424 0.179 0.170
EQ Model 0.344 0.119 0.115
MQ Model 0.507 0.257 0.252

Hierarchical IQ + EQ + MQ Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted Change Statistics:
R Square R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 IQ 0.358 0.128 0.124 0.128 29.31 3 599 0.00
2 EQ 0.444 0.197 0.184 0.069 7.31 7 592 0.00
3 MQ 0.534 0.285 0.266 0.087 14.33 5 587 0.00

Table 7: Regression Analysis - LDQ IQ, EQ & MQ Dimensions & Self-Rated Follower Commitment

Regression (Enter)
R R Square Adjusted R Square
IQ Model 0.328 0.108 0.097
EQ Model 0.303 0.092 0.087
MQ Model 0.331 0.109 0.102

Hierarchical IQ + EQ + MQ Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted Change Statistics:
R Square R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 IQ 0.315 0.099 0.094 0.099 21.92 3 599 0.00
2 EQ 0.353 0.124 0.109 0.025 2.45 7 592 0.02
3 MQ 0.371 0.138 0.116 0.014 1.86 5 587 0.10

18

View publication stats