Running head PRODUCT AND TARGET MARKET PLANNING1PRODUCT AND TA.docx

Running head: PRODUCT AND TARGET MARKET
PLANNING1
PRODUCT AND TARGET MARKET PLANNING4
Product and Target Market Planning
The government of Kenya, an East African Country, has
prioritized Modern-housing project as part of the presidency
five-year plans. The government intends to be able to provide
affordable modern housing for the better part of its population
(Waweru, 2014). Reliable Construction Company chose Kenya
as the product market. The company intends to introduce into
Kenya, the sale of concrete and precast materials as a way of
venturing into the foreign market. The ready market for these
products influenced the company’s choice of the country as a
foreign market. The market is set to be the company’s biggest
venture since its launch in 2017.
The company deals in the distribution of concrete and precast
materials. The precast materials consist of various molds and
shapes. The physical attributes of the products provided ensure
that they can be provided to any market as long. This is because
the raw materials to produce these products are sand, cement

and metal rods. The company uses CRH Plc cement in the
United States which is the best cement in the world with its
production company named the largest cement company in The
United States. The bulkiness of cement makes it hard to be
transported to Kenya for the use for the production. However, it
was noted that the southeastern part of Kenya has limestone
which is a raw material for the manufacture of cement and
therefore means that an adapted form of concrete and precast
materials can be provided by the company.
There are many factors that will influence the movement of the
products. Firstly, the political ground will ensure that the
introduction of the product is boosted. This is because they need
to convince the electorate that they are delivering. Secondly,
Kenya is a third world country but among the highly developed
in East Africa. There are many developed industries that deals
with the same products as Reliable Construction Company and
therefore the industries will provide the raw material to produce
the company’s products. The economic state of the country will
be beneficial to the production of the products. The country has
an unemployment rate of twenty-six percent (Waweru, 2014).
This, therefore, means that the country will provide for the
labor needs of the company.
The market is a developed market with valuable potential
customers. The country is on the verge of modernization and
therefore the need for the products is propelled by the
consumer’s need to develop. The number of real estate realtors
is increasing daily and this, therefore, means that there is a
ready market for the products (Waweru, 2014). The country is
in East Africa which is a long distance from the United States.
However, with the introduction of the direct flight from Kenya
to The United States late last year, this has increased the
suitability of the market.
Reference
Wawerù, K. (2014). The ABC of real estate investment in
Kenya: The law, the logic, the math.

Measuring leader behaviour:
evidence for a “big five”
model of leadership
Peter H. Langford and Cameron B. Dougall
Voice Project, Macquarie Park, Australia and
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, North Ryde,
Australia, and
Louise P. Parkes
Voice Project, Macquarie Park, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence for a
“leadership big five”, a model of leadership
behaviour integrating existing theories of leadership and
conceptually aligned with the most established
model of personality, the big five. Such a model provides
researchers and practitioners with a common
language to describe leadership behaviour in a field with a
plethora of leadership models. The model also
describes a wider range of leadership behaviour than other
models of leadership, and presents dimensions
that correlate with important organisational outcomes as
demonstrated in this study.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 1,186 employees
completed the Voice Leadership 360, a survey
designed to measure the leadership big five, collectively rating
193 managers from a range of different sectors
and industries, using a 360-degree survey methodology.

Findings – Confirmatory factor analyses and internal reliability
analyses provide evidence for
22 lower-order factors of leadership behaviour that aggregate
into five higher-order factors of leadership
aligned with the big five personality descriptors. Further
evidence for the validity of the model is indicated by
significant correlations between 360-degree survey ratings and
raters’ judgements of leaders’ personality, and
significant correlations between 360-degree survey ratings and
both work unit engagement levels and
manager reports of work unit performance.
Research limitations/implications – The cross-sectional design
is the main limitation of the present
study, limiting conclusions that changes in leadership
behaviours will lead to changes in organisational
outcomes. The primary research implications of this study
include the support for an integrating model of
leadership behaviour that aligns with a large body of
psychological research, as well as the development of a
survey that can be used for future exploration of the model.
Practical implications – Practitioners may use the results of the
study to rethink how they develop
competency frameworks and measure leadership behaviour in
organisation development contexts.
This broad model of leadership and the familiarity of its
dimensions could increase the effectiveness of
behaviour change interventions, and the presented survey
provides a reliable and valid tool for
360-degree assessments.
Originality/value – The study provides evidence that leadership
can be described in a structurally similar
way to human personality. It presents a leadership model that
consists of a broader range of leadership
behaviours related to organisational outcomes compared with
previous models of leadership.
Keywords Leadership, Validity, Employee engagement, 360-

degree feedback, Psychometrics, Big five
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In a recent review, Lowe (2015) identified at least 30 different
models of leadership.
The sheer number of leadership models available for researchers
to study and practitioners
to apply in organisations leads to a number of questions that can
impede research and
practice. For example, what new information does a certain
model provide over another
model? Are certain models simply presenting the same theories
and ideas (or parts thereof)
as other models but using different terminology? The current
state of leadership research
and practice is reminiscent of a former time in the research of
human personality where
research was limited by a plethora of models presenting the
same ideas using different
language. Adopting a common, empirically derived language of
human personality proved
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 38 No. 1, 2017
pp. 126-144
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/LODJ-05-2015-0103
Received 11 May 2015
Revised 18 October 2015
2 February 2016
Accepted 2 February 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
126
LODJ
38,1
useful for the progress of human personality research (DeYoung
et al., 2007). We propose
that such a common language in leadership research and
practice would be similarly useful
for researchers and practitioners to create, disseminate, and
apply leadership research.
The aim of this study was to propose a common language of
leadership called the leadership
big five. The leadership big five is a broad model of leadership
integrating several existing
leadership models into five common factors. The leadership big
five aligns with the most
established, popular, and exhaustive model of human
personality, the five-factor model of
personality, also known as the “big five” (McCrae and Costa,
1997). This alignment provides
researchers and practitioners the opportunity to understand
leadership behaviour from a
new broader perspective compared to previous models of
leadership, and the opportunity to
discuss leadership using a common language.
Leadership big five
There is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what set of
behaviours are necessary for

effective leadership. Over the past century, we have seen
perceptions of leadership
gradually move from a single factor to a more differentiated set
of behaviours, as
suggested in Table I. The very early days of management
research were entirely devoted
to the application of rational efficiency to production and labour
(e.g. Fayol, 1949,
originally published in French in 1916; Taylor, 1911). In the
1920s and 1930s, the human
relations movement highlighted the importance of showing
concern for the welfare of
workers (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). The
research programs at the
Ohio State University in the 1950s found two meta-categories
labelled “initiating structure” and
“consideration” (Stogdill, 1957). Subsequently, Blake et al.
(1962) proposed a “managerial grid”
Major dimensions of leadership behaviour
Example
descriptions
Planning,
directing,
monitoring
Rewarding,
developing,
consulting
Energetic,
ambitious, strong
communicator

Innovating,
risk taking,
intellectually
stimulating
Well-being,
work-life
balance,
resilience
Fayol (1949),
Taylor (1911)
Scientific
management
Mayo (1933),
Roethlisberger and
Dickson (1939)
Human
relations
Blake et al. (1962),
Stogdill (1957)
Initiating
structure
Consideration
Bass (1985),
Conger (1989),
House (1976)
Transactional Transformational

Yukl (2002) Task Relations Change
Goleman (1995),
Salovey and Mayer
(1990)
Emotional
intelligence –
others
Emotional
intelligence –
self
Seligman and
Csikszentmihalyi
(2000)
Positive
psychology
Leadership big five
(present study)
Organise Connect Voice Innovate Enjoy
Conceptual alignment with big five personality descriptors
McCrae and Costa
(1997)
Conscientiousness Agreeableness Extroversion Openness to
experience
Emotional
stability

Table I.
Historical
development of major
leadership theories
127
Measuring
leader
behaviour
which described these same dimensions of behaviour as
“concern for production” and
“concern for people”.
The 1970s saw a growing recognition of the importance of
leaders’ ability to manage
change, and researchers began to describe leadership behaviour
along two broad
dimensions (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1989; House, 1976):
transactional leadership, characterised
by the previously recognised dimensions associated with the
rational management of
production and people; and transformational leadership,
characterised by creating and
communicating an inspiring mission and vision, setting high
standards of performance,
and providing intellectual stimulation to help subordinates
become more innovative. As an
integration of the above theories, Yukl (2002) proposed a three-
factor model of leadership
consisting of task-oriented behaviours (e.g. planning and

transactional behaviours such
as quality-checking work), relations-oriented behaviours (e.g.
transactional behaviours
such as recognising others), and change-oriented behaviours
(e.g. transformational
behaviours such as encouraging innovative thinking).
The 1990s saw a rapid rise in the concept of “emotional
intelligence”, thanks to
researchers such as Salovey and Mayer (1990) and the popular
writings of Goleman (1995).
At its broadest level, emotional intelligence has two
components: understanding and
influencing other people, and having insight and control over
one’s own emotions. The latter
focus upon emotions is also reflected in the recent “positive
psychology” movement and its
application in the workplace (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi,
2000), emphasising the value
of positive emotions and resilience among employees and
leaders.
With a plethora of different leadership models, to help progress
leadership research
and practice it would be useful to have a broader model of
leadership integrating several
different perspectives into one model. Analyses of natural
language and personality
questionnaires reveal virtually all descriptors of individual
differences in people can
be categorised with the big five factors – extraversion, openness
to experience,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability
(McCrae and Costa, 1997).
Given the robust empirical support for the big five, leadership
behaviours are also likely to

fall on these five dimensions. Indeed, as shown in Table I,
while no single model of
leadership conceptually links with all big five dimensions, the
broad range of leadership
behaviours is conceptually aligned with all big five personality
characteristics. Researchers
have previously examined the relationship between personality
traits and leadership
(e.g. Derue et al., 2011; De Hoogh et al., 2005; Hogan and
Hogan, 2001; Judge et al., 2002).
Studies such as Judge et al. (2002) help us understand what
personality characteristics might
be related to leadership effectiveness, but they do not provide
any conclusive evidence that
the big five is a useful model for the description of leadership
behaviour. Given leadership
behaviour is related to a range of different explanatory factors
in addition to personality
such as learned skills, group processes, and organisational
systems and practices, we
propose the relationship between personality traits and
leadership behaviour is a
descriptive, rather than a necessarily explanatory, relationship.
In an effort to develop an integrative model of leadership, in an
exploratory study
presented as a conference paper, Langford and Fong (2008)
developed 114 new survey
items describing leadership behaviour, representing the theories
identified in Table I. After
gathering ratings of leaders from 1,766 employees, factor
analyses reduced the item set to
63 questions that loaded neatly on 22 lower-order factors which
in turn could be loaded on
two, three, or five higher-order factors. The two-factor solution
resembled the “initiating

structure” and “consideration” dimensions of leadership,
accounting for 59 per cent of
variance in the data. The three-factor solution resembled the
“task”, “relations”, and
“change” dimensions of leadership, accounting for 64 per cent
of variance. The five-factor
solution resembled the big five, and accounted for 72 per cent
of variance in the data,
supporting the existence and usefulness of the leadership big
five.
128
LODJ
38,1
The current study builds directly upon Langford and Fong
(2008). In the earlier study,
three of the 22 lower-order factors were represented by two
items each, so an additional
three items were designed with the aim of representing 22
factors each with three items.
Moreover, the previous study was not conducted in an
ecologically valid 360-degree
feedback setting – respondents were simply asked to rate a
manager in their workplace,
with each respondent choosing a different manager, and the
ratings were not reported to the
managers being rated. Given that leadership surveys are
commonly used in 360-degree
feedback settings, it was deemed important to examine the
refined set of 66 survey items
with a methodology that provided greater ecological validity
and practical application.

Hence, the current study was conducted in organisations with
multiple ratings from
employees of different hierarchical levels for each manager, and
with employees knowing
that reports would be returned to the rated managers. Finally,
Langford and Fong (2008) did
not provide evidence for the criterion and convergent validity of
the leadership big five.
For the model to be of theoretical and practical use, it is
important to understand whether
the behaviours in the model are related to useful outcomes for
organisations, and important
to understand whether the behaviours have relationships with
established descriptors of the
big five model of personality.
Measuring the leadership big five: evidence for the reliability
and validity of previous
360-degree feedback surveys
For the leadership big five to have implications for practice and
research it is important to
be able to reliably and validly measure the leadership big five in
a manner likely to be
applied by managers and researchers, such as with a survey that
can be effectively
implemented using a 360-degree feedback methodology. We
review the validity of existing
surveys and studies here to understand how best to test the
validity of the leadership survey
presented in this paper. When 360-degree feedback surveys are
developed, practical
relevance often tends to be prioritised over methodological
rigour, a common concern in
industrial-organisational psychology (Anderson et al., 2001).
For example, researchers tend
to report reliability coefficients (e.g. Garman et al., 2003;

Church, 2000; Kets de Vries et al.,
2004; Lelliott et al., 2008; Redeker et al., 2014), or the
dimensionality or factor structure of
360-degree feedback surveys (e.g. Kets de Vries et al., 2004;
Lelliott et al., 2008; Redeker et al.,
2014). However, evidence that survey scores can predict
business relevant criterion
measures is rare, which is problematic because it is important to
know whether changes in
ratings of leadership behaviour will result in improvements in
practically important
business outcomes (Atkins and Wood, 2002).
The few studies that have provided evidence for the criterion
validity of 360-degree
feedback surveys have been limited in several ways. First, often
the people completing the
criterion measures are the same people giving 360-degree
feedback ratings at the same time
(e.g. Anderson, 2006; Redeker et al., 2014), such as employees
rating a leader’s behaviour and
then reporting their overall satisfaction with the leader. Such an
approach is subject to
measurement error such as halo effects (Waldman et al., 1998),
and common method variance
(CMV) that spuriously inflates the relationship between the
variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
While methods such as using questions with different wording
can reduce the effects of CMV
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), criterion studies should not solely rely
on data gathered from
participants who completed both the criterion measures and
360-degree feedback ratings.
Another limitation of previous criterion validation research is
that it can be difficult to

interpret the practical implications of criterion measures and
their relevance for business
performance. For example, criterion measures of leadership
effectiveness often consist of
generalised questions asking raters how “effective” a leader is
(Anderson, 2006; Redeker
et al., 2014). However, in such studies no evidence presented
that this generalised criterion
measure of effectiveness is related to relevant business
outcomes such as productivity or
129
Measuring
leader
behaviour
employee turnover. Other criterion measures in the literature
have been more interpretable
and practically relevant than general leadership effectiveness,
such as trust in leaders and
organisational citizenship behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 1990).
However, more concrete
organisational outcomes such as productivity and turnover are
even more clearly
interpretable and practically relevant.
One emerging criterion related to leadership behaviour and
organisational performance is
employee engagement. Employee engagement has a wide range
of definitions and theoretical
perspectives, although recent perspectives have emphasised a
multidimensional approach

related to positive attitudes a person holds about his/her job and
organisation (Langford, 2010;
Shuck, 2011). Employee engagement is related to important
organisational outcomes such as
customer satisfaction, profitability, productivity, safety,
turnover, and absenteeism (Harter
et al., 2002; Langford, 2009). Several models have suggested
that leadership is an important
factor related to employee engagement (e.g. Carasco-Saul et al.,
2015; Christian et al., 2011;
Langford, 2009; Macey and Schneider, 2008). Transformational
leadership behaviour, in
particular, has been theorised to be related to employee
engagement through several paths
such as increasing employees’ innovative behaviour (Carasco-
Saul et al., 2015), influencing
perceptions of meaning in work (Ghadi et al., 2013), and
inspiring employees to form an
emotional attachment to the vision and goals of the organisation
(Shuck and Herd, 2012).
Thus, employee engagement is a particularly relevant and useful
criterion variable for
evaluating a leadership 360-degree feedback survey.
The present study
In summary, we highlight the need for a broad, integrated model
of leadership behaviour
that may assist researchers and practitioners to conceptualise
leadership using a consistent
language. The aim of the present study is to present a broad
model of leadership behaviour
called the leadership big five that is aligned with the most
established and exhaustive model
of human personality, the big five. We aimed to measure and
provide evidence for the
validity of the leadership big five with a 360-degree feedback

survey, overcoming
limitations in previous validation research of 360-degree
feedback surveys.
Our hypotheses were:
H1. Ratings of a broad range of leadership behaviour can be
reduced to five higher-order
factors.
H2. Ratings of leadership behaviour using a 360-degree
feedback survey measuring
these five higher-order factors will be associated with ratings on
conceptually
aligned measures of the big five personality traits.
H3. The leadership big five will be related to a range of
practically relevant criterion
variables, including work unit engagement levels and manager
reports of work unit
performance.
Method
Participants
In total, 193 managers voluntarily invited at least five
employees they work with (including
a minimum of two subordinates) to rate their leadership
behaviour. Approximately
90 per cent of the managers described themselves as middle
managers or above.
The characteristics of the managers including the size of
organisation, sector, and industry
are located in Table II. In total, 1,186 employee participants
rated the managers. Each
manager had on average 6.15 people rate them (SD ¼ 1.61). The
characteristics of the rater

participants including their gender, age, employment status, and
relationship with the
manager they rated are summarised in Table III.
130
LODJ
38,1
The 193 managers were recruited by undergraduate students
who participated in exchange
for course credit. In return for participation, each manager
received a report presenting
their aggregated survey scores, and benchmarking their results
with other managers
in the sample.
Manager characteristic Frequency % of sample
Size of organisation (employees)
Less than 20 31 16.1
20-99 43 22.3
100-199 20 10.4
200-999 32 16.6
1,000-10,000 38 19.7
More than 10,000 27 14.0
Not reported 2 1
Total 193 100
Sector
Public sector 21 10.9
Private sector 158 81.9
Not-for-profit 11 5.7
Not reported 3 1.6

Total 193 100
Industry
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 2 1
Manufacturing 7 3.7
Electricity, gas and water supply 2 1
Construction 7 3.7
Wholesale trade 2 1
Equipment supply and service 3 1.6
Retail trade 44 23
Accommodation, hospitality, tourism, cafes and restaurants 24
12.6
Transport and storage 7 3.7
Information and communication technologies 15 7.9
Finance and insurance 11 5.8
Accounting and financial advising 2 1
Law 5 2.6
Management consulting 2 1
Engineering 4 2.1
Other professional, property and business services 5 2.6
Other government administration 3 1.6
Police and security 1 0.5
Education – primary or early childhood 4 2.1
Education – secondary 3 1.6
Education – university 3 1.6
Education – tertiary other than university (e.g. VET) 1 0.5
Health – hospital and medical 6 3.1
Health – other (e.g. allied health professions not in hospitals) 5
2.6
Community services other than health 4 2.1
Cultural and recreational services 2 1
Personal services 2 1
Pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical products 5 2
Other 10 5
Not reported 2 1.0
Total 193 100

Note: n ¼ 193
Table II.
Characteristics of
managers receiving
feedback represented
in the sample
131
Measuring
leader
behaviour
Measures
Voice Leadership 360. The initial development of the item set
used in this study has been
described earlier in this paper. As reported in the conference
paper by Langford and
Fong (2008), 114 items were developed to measure leadership
behaviours represented by the
theories in Table I. Factor analysis reduced the set to 63 items,
and initial evidence was
presented suggesting the presence of 22 lower-order factors and
five higher-order factors
conceptually aligned with the big five dimensions of
personality. For the present study three
items were added with the goal of having three items for each of
the 22 lower-order factors,
resulting in the 66 items used in the present study.

In an effort to make the model as practical and user-friendly as
possible for leaders and
raters engaged in 360 surveys in organisational settings, the five
factors were labelled as
voice, organise, innovate, connect and enjoy (with VOICE as an
acronym). Using established
scientific labels from the big five personality factors, these
factors can perhaps be described
as relating to, respectively, extraversion, conscientiousness,
openness, agreeableness,
and emotional stability (see Table I for the thematic links
between these factors and other
leadership theories).
Big five measure of personality. In order to evaluate the
convergent validity of the
leadership big five with big five personality dimensions, raters
completed a brief 15-item
measure of the big five personality traits. Raters were asked
how well adjectives described
the leaders on a five-point scale from “Strongly Disagree” to
“Strongly Agree”.
Rater characteristic Frequency % of sample
Gender
Female 528 44.5
Male 630 53.1
Not reported 28 2.4
Total 1,186 100
Age
Younger than 20 171 14.4
20-29 452 38.1
30-39 226 19.1
40-49 173 14.6

50-59 125 10.5
60 or older 18 1.5
Not reported 21 1.8
Total 1,186 100
Employment status
Full-time permanent 676 57.0
Part-time permanent 262 22.1
Contract/fixed-term 52 4.4
Long-term casual (W12 months) 129 10.9
Short-term casual (o12 months) 49 4.1
Not reported 18 1.5
Total 1,186 100
Relationship with the manager they rated
The manager’s subordinate 959 80.9
The manager’s peer 152 12.8
The manager’s manager 74 6.2
Not reported 1 0.1
Total 1,186 100
Note: n ¼ 1,186
Table III.
Characteristics of
raters represented
in the sample
132
LODJ
38,1
The adjectives are consistent with behaviours and descriptions
of the big five (e.g. McCrae

and John, 1992).
The measure showed good psychometric properties. As shown in
Table IV, internal
consistency was high for each scale (αW0.8) and a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA)
showed the measure to acceptably fit the big five model. The χ2
test was significant, which
was expected given the large sample size ( χ2 ¼ 520, df ¼ 80,
po0.001). The Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) ¼ 0.96, Normative Fit Index (NFI) ¼ 0.96, Tucker
Lewis Index (TLI) ¼ 0.95,
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ¼ 0.04, and
Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.07. The results exceed acceptable
model fit cut-offs:
CFIW0.90, NFIW0.90 (Byrne, 1994); TLIW0.90, SRMRo0.08
(Hu and Bentler, 1999);
RMSEAo0.08 (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; MacCallum et al.,
1996).
Managers’ survey. The individuals receiving feedback on their
leadership behaviours
were asked to complete a brief survey requesting demographic
information about their
organisation (Table II) and performance details of their business
unit (described in more
detail below). Langford (2009) used a version of this survey to
evaluate the criterion validity
of an organisational climate survey.
Managers receiving ratings of their behaviour were asked to
respond to 16 questions
relating to the performance of the group of employees they
supervise on a five-point scale
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). There were

five performance dimensions,
four consisting of three items and one consisting of four items.
The dimensions were
overall performance (e.g. “the goals and objectives of my work
unit are being reached”),
change and innovation (e.g. “my work unit is innovative”),
safety (e.g. “staff in my work
unit engage in good safety behaviour”), customer satisfaction
(e.g. “customers (internal or
external) are satisfied with our products and/or services”), and
employee productivity
(e.g. “staff in my unit do their jobs quickly and efficiency”).
Additionally, managers
were asked to provide the approximate percentage rate of
voluntary annual employee
turnover and approximate number of days employees are absent
per employee per year
within their work unit.
Work unit engagement. To measure the employee engagement of
each work unit, raters
were asked to complete the ten-item engagement scale of
Langford’s (2009) climate survey
on a five-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly
Agree) (e.g. “I feel a sense of
loyalty and commitment to this organisation”).
Big five factors Items CFA
Openness to experience (0.86) 1. Flexible 0.85
2. Open-minded 0.89
3. Innovative 0.74
Conscientiousness (0.85) 4. Organised 0.76
5. Conscientious 0.83
6. Self-disciplined 0.84

Extraversion (0.85) 7. Energetic 0.79
8. Extroverted 0.78
9. Lively 0.88
Agreeableness (0.89) 10. Caring 0.86
11. Agreeable 0.87
12. Forgiving 0.83
Emotional stability (0.83) 13. Relaxed 0.76
14. Emotionally stable 0.81
15. Satisfied 0.80
Note: Scale α’s in parentheses
Table IV.
Brief big five measure
factor loadings and
regression weights
133
Measuring
leader
behaviour
Results
Missing data
In total only 3.1 per cent of rater responses to the Voice
Leadership 360 were either
unanswered or “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”, suggesting the
survey is suitable for a range

of different industries and management levels. Because there
was only a small amount of
missing data and it was essentially missing at random, missing
data were replaced using a
standard regression-based expectation maximisation algorithm,
common in organisational
research (e.g. Langford, 2009; Patterson et al., 2005).
Levels of analysis
Data were analysed at the levels of both individual raters and
work units (i.e. all ratings
combined for a single manager being rated). Factor analyses and
reliability analyses were
conducted at the individual rater level. All validity coefficients
calculated between
360-degree feedback ratings, rater judgements of leader
personality, rater engagement, and
work unit performance outcomes were calculated at the work
unit level to be consistent with
the practical application of 360-degree feedback surveys.
Factor analyses
CFAs were conducted to confirm the validity of the Voice
Leadership 360’s factor structure
proposed in Langford and Fong’s (2008) exploratory study.
Lower-order factors. The CFA of the 22 lower-order factors
indicated the lower-order
factor model was an acceptable fit for the data, with strong
regression weights (Table V) and
acceptable model fit statistics. The χ2 test was significant,
which was expected given the
large sample size ( χ2 ¼ 5,330, df ¼ 1,848, po0.01). CFI ¼
0.94, NFI ¼ 0.92, TLI ¼ 0.94,
SRMR ¼ 0.03, and RMSEA ¼ 0.04.

H1 – higher-order factors
The first hypothesis was that a five-factor model would provide
a valid explanation of the
survey results. The CFA of the five higher-order factors
indicated the high-order factor
model was an acceptable fit with the data, with strong
regression weights (Table VI) and
acceptable model fit statistics ( χ2 ¼ 1,342, df ¼ 199, po0.01).
CFI ¼ 0.94, NFI ¼ 0.93,
TLI ¼ 0.93, SRMR ¼ 0.04, RMSEA ¼ 0.07. The five-factor
model was a better fit than the
poorer fitting one-factor model (CFI ¼ 0.89, NFI ¼ 0.88, TLI ¼
0.88, SRMR ¼ 0.04, RMSEA
0.09), supporting the use of a multi-factor model. Thus, H1 was
supported.
H2 – relationship with a “big five” measure of personality
The second hypothesis is that the leadership big five would
show empirical convergence with
conceptually aligned measures of the big five personality
dimensions. Analyses were
conducted to determine how well raters’ descriptions of leaders’
personality would predict
Voice Leadership 360 scores. To determine the independent
relationships of the personality
measures with the Voice Leadership 360 higher-order factor
scores, five regression analyses
were conducted. In each regression a 360 higher-order factor
was regressed on all of the
personality factors and the other four 360 higher-order factors.
The standardised regression
coefficients for each of the personality factors predicting each
of the 360 higher-order factors
are presented in Table VII. The data demonstrate good
convergent and discriminate validity.
As expected, each of the five personality factors best predicted

leadership behaviour on the
higher-order factor conceptually aligned with the personality
dimension. The personality
factors generally had either no or a weaker relationship with
higher-order factors not
conceptually aligned with the personality factor, compared to
higher-order factors that were
aligned with the personality factor. Thus, H2 was supported.
134
LODJ
38,1
Lower-order factors Items CFA
Vision and inspiration (0.83) 1. Makes the purpose of the
organisation feel important 0.78
2. Talks enthusiastically about the goals of the organisation
0.79
3. Inspires people with ideas for the future 0.80
High expectations (0.86) 4. Has high performance expectations
0.80
5. Wants to achieve 0.85
6. Has a strong focus on results 0.81
Advocacy (0.84) 7. Speaks positively about the organisation to
others 0.78
8. Promotes the organisation’s products and/or services well
0.81
9. Tells others about the value of what the organisation does
0.81

Verbal influence (0.86) 10. Is a confident presenter 0.76
11. Explains his/her ideas well face-to-face 0.88
12. Speaks clearly 0.82
Time management (0.84) 13. Manages his/her workload well
0.86
14. Is good at managing the demands on his or her time 0.90
15. Is good at delegating work to others 0.66
Quality (0.90) 16. Shows attention to detail 0.83
17. Quality checks his/her work well 0.91
18. Ensures work meets required quality standards 0.85
Speed (0.87) 19. Completes work quickly 0.83
20. Ensures tasks are completed on time 0.85
21. Gets a lot of work done 0.80
Problem solving (0.86) 22. Is good at solving problems 0.84
23. Takes action to prevent problems from occurring 0.83
24. Responds to problems quickly 0.80
Continuous improvement
(0.85)
25. Looks for ways to improve products and services 0.78
26. Finds more efficient ways to complete tasks 0.81
27. Considers creative solutions to problems 0.82
Intellectual stimulation
(0.89)
28. Has ideas that make others rethink some of their own ideas
0.85
29. Stimulates others to think about old problems in new ways
0.87
30. Has interesting ideas 0.84

Risk taking (0.87) 31. Is comfortable with change 0.86
32. Is willing to try new things 0.89
33. Takes calculated risks 0.74
Optimism (0.83) 34. Sees the positive side of things 0.80
35. Shows enthusiasm 0.85
36. Sees the future as being better than today 0.73
Receiving feedback (0.88) 37. Seeks feedback about how he/she
is performing 0.76
38. Responds well when others give feedback 0.90
39. Acts upon feedback given by others 0.89
Empathy (0.90) 40. Understands the values, needs and interests
of others 0.87
41. Treats people fairly 0.86
42. Is sensitive to the different needs of different people 0.87
Developing others (0.90) 43. Gives others chances to perform
well on their own 0.83
44. Creates opportunities for others to learn new skills 0.88
45. Helps others achieve their development goals 0.88
Recognition (0.88) 46. Recognises people’s achievements 0.87
47. Tells others that he/she believes in their abilities 0.86
48. Thanks others for their help 0.80
Performance correction
(0.88)
49. Is good at managing people who are underperforming 0.84
50. Is good at correcting undesirable behaviour in others 0.89
51. Resolves disputes well 0.82
Cooperation (0.86) 52. Keeps people informed about what’s

going on 0.75
53. Works well in a team 0.86
54. Is good at coordinating his/her work with others 0.86
(continued)
Table V.
Voice Leadership 360
lower-order factor
loadings and
regression weights
135
Measuring
leader
behaviour
H3 – organisational and employee outcomes
The final hypothesis was that the leadership big five would
correlate with practically
important business outcomes. The 360-degree feedback ratings
for each manager were
aggregated and correlated with the manager’s ratings of five
outcomes of work unit
performance, absenteeism, and turnover, and a composite
performance measure, which is an
average of the standardised scores for the five outcome
measures, absenteeism, and
turnover. Additionally, the ratings for each manager were
correlated with an average of

their raters’ employee engagement scores. The data are
presented in Table VIII.
Lower-order factors Items CFA
Stress management (0.89) 55. Is able to stay productive when
facing stressful events 0.84
56. Keeps a positive attitude when something goes wrong 0.85
57. Copes well under pressure 0.88
Happiness (0.86) 58. Keeps a good sense of humour 0.88
59. Has fun at work 0.88
60. Likes the kind of work he/she does 0.70
Work/life balance (0.89) 61. Maintains a good balance between
work and other aspects of his/her life 0.82
62. Stays involved in non-work interests and activities 0.88
63. Has a social life outside of work 0.88
Health and safety (0.82) 64. Maintains a physically healthy
lifestyle 0.68
65. Engages in safe workplace behaviour 0.87
66. Encourages others to be safe and healthy 0.83
Notes: The Voice Leadership 360 is copyrighted by Macquarie
University, with an exclusive licence to Voice
Project. With permission, university researchers involved in
non-profit research can use the survey without
cost. For all enquiries regarding use of the survey or
benchmarking data please contact Peter Langford on
[email protected] Scale α’s in parenthesesTable V.
Higher-order factors Lower-order factors CFA
Voice (0.92) 1. Vision and inspiration 0.82
2. High expectations 0.73

3. Advocacy 0.77
4. Verbal influence 0.74
Organise (0.94) 5. Time management 0.78
6. Quality 0.80
7. Speed 0.81
8. Problem solving 0.84
Innovate (0.93) 9. Continuous improvement 0.83
10. Intellectual stimulation 0.85
11. Risk taking 0.75
12. Optimism 0.80
Connect (0.96) 13. Receiving feedback 0.77
14. Empathy 0.84
15. Developing others 0.83
16. Recognition 0.85
17. Performance correction 0.71
18. Cooperation 0.83
Enjoy (0.92) 19. Stress management 0.77
20. Enjoyment 0.81
21. Work/life balance 0.75
22. Health and safety 0.72
Note: Scale α’s in parentheses
Table VI.
higher-order factor
loadings and
regression weights
136
LODJ

38,1
The pattern of correlations generally shows good evidence of
criterion, convergent, and
discriminant validity. For example, all higher-order factors and
lower-orders factors were
related to at least one criterion measure of performance,
suggesting the Voice Leadership
360 scales measure a broad set of behaviours that are likely
important for work unit
performance. The criterion measures also had stronger
relationships with behaviours that
are theoretically closer to the outcome measure at both lower-
order factor and higher-order
factor levels. For example, safety performance was related most
to the lower-order factor of
health and safety, involving leaders engaging in safe behaviour
and encouraging safe
behaviour. Turnover was related most (negatively) to the lower-
order factor of developing
others (i.e., helping others achieve development opportunities).
Change and innovation was
related most to the higher-order factor of innovate, assessing
continuous improvement,
intellectual stimulation and risk taking. Work area engagement
was broadly related to the
leadership ratings, consistent with previous research suggesting
the quality of supervision
and leadership is a driver of engagement (Langford, 2009).
Additionally, consistent with
theory (e.g. Carasco-Saul et al., 2015; Shuck and Herd, 2012),
work area engagement had
stronger relationships with transformational leadership
behaviours such as making the

purpose of the organisation feel important, inspiring others, and
talking enthusiastically
about the goals of the organisation (vision and inspiration) than
task-oriented leadership
behaviours such as quality checking. Unexpectedly, customer
satisfaction was related to
only one leadership behaviour (advocacy, measuring the
positive promotion of the
organisation, and its products and services). Absenteeism also
had only one relationship
with leadership behaviour (receiving feedback), but in a
positive direction. That is, leaders
who tended to take feedback well and act upon it had slightly
higher rather than lower
absenteeism in their work area. Thus, H3 was generally
supported, although not across all
outcome measures.
Discussion
The present study aimed to explore the existence of a
“leadership big five” – a five-factor
model of leadership providing an overarching framework and
integrating existing
leadership models.
Leadership big five
As hypothesised, the results showed that the leadership big five,
aligned to the big five
model of personality, provided an empirically useful
explanation of the survey data.
Further, the low percentage of unanswered or “Don’t Know/Not
Applicable” responses
suggests the leadership big five, and the way it was measured in
the current study, is
applicable across a wide range of different industries and levels
of raters and ratees.

Data collected from raters (work unit level)
Rater
feedback M SD
Leader
extraversion
Leader
conscientiousness
Leader
openness
Leader
agreeableness
Leader emotional
stability
M 4.25 4.32 4.24 4.29 4.21
SD 0.50 0.45 0.48 0.49 0.50
Voice 4.36 0.39 0.25** 0.21** −0.03 −0.12 0.12
Organise 4.24 0.42 −0.03 0.51** 0.05 −0.16* −0.14
Innovate 4.16 0.44 0.04 0.01 0.26* −0.12 −0.17*
Connect 4.15 0.44 −0.10* −0.07 0.06 0.40** −0.01
Enjoy 4.23 0.44 0.16** 0.00 −0.07 −0.10 0.51**
Notes: Standardized β coefficients ⩾ 0.25 are made italics for
emphasis. *po0.05; **po0.01
Table VII.
Standardized linear
regression β
coefficients of

leader personality
judgements predicting
higher-order
leadership
factor scores
137
Measuring
leader
behaviour
W
or
k
un
it
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
da
ta
co
lle
ct

ed
fr
om
m
an
ag
er
s
W
or
k
un
it
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
da
ta
co
lle
ct
ed
fr
om
ra
te

rs
R
at
er
fe
ed
ba
ck
M
SD
C
om
po
si
te
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
T
ur
no
ve
r
(w
or

k
un
it
)
E
m
pl
oy
ee
pr
od
uc
ti
vi
ty
Sa
fe
ty
C
ha
ng
e
an
d
in
no
va
ti
on

C
us
to
m
er
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
A
bs
en
te
ei
sm
O
ve
ra
ll
w
or
k
un
it
pe
rf
or
m

an
ce
W
or
k
un
it
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
n
19
3
17
5
19
3
19
3
19
3
19
2
17

9
19
2
19
2
M
0
16
.0
2
4.
20
4.
30
3.
97
4.
34
6.
31
4.
31
4.
00

SD
0.
60
23
.5
9
0.
59
0.
66
0.
57
0.
55
6.
02
0.
54
0.
49
V
oi
ce
(e
xt
ra

ve
rs
io
n)
4.
36
0.
39
0.
24
**
−
0.
17
*
0.
10
0.
17
*
0.
28
**
0.
11
−
0.

04
0.
11
0.
58
**
V
is
io
n
an
d
in
sp
ir
at
io
n
4.
22
0.
48
0.
29
**
−
0.
16
*

0.
15
*
0.
22
**
0.
34
**
0.
13
−
0.
01
0.
15
*
0.
60
**
H
ig
h
ex
pe
ct
at
io

ns
4.
47
0.
42
0.
14
*
−
0.
13
0.
04
0.
07
0.
17
*
0.
05
−
0.
05
0.
05

0.
37
**
A
dv
oc
ac
y
4.
36
0.
42
0.
28
**
−
0.
16
*
0.
13
0.
16
*
0.
27
**

0.
15
*
−
0.
10
0.
15
*
0.
59
**
V
er
ba
l
in
fl
ue
nc
e
4.
39
0.
50
0.
12

−
0.
09
0.
03
0.
11
0.
17
*
0.
04
0.
00
0.
04
0.
41
**
O
rg
an
is
e
(c
on
sc

ie
nt
io
us
ne
ss
)
4.
24
0.
42
0.
15
*
−
0.
09
0.
00
0.
24
**
0.
25
**
−
0.
01

0.
08
0.
08
0.
45
**
T
im
e
m
an
ag
em
en
t
4.
18
0.
48
0.
06
−
0.
02
−

0.
01
0.
15
*
0.
15
*
−
0.
02
0.
11
0.
04
0.
31
**
Q
ua
lit
y
4.
32
0.
46

0.
18
*
−
0.
11
0.
00
0.
27
**
0.
29
**
0.
03
0.
06
0.
08
0.
41
**
Sp
ee
d

4.
24
0.
48
0.
05
−
0.
04
−
0.
06
0.
18
*
0.
16
*
−
0.
08
0.
08
0.
01
0.

37
**
P
ro
bl
em
so
lv
in
g
4.
22
0.
49
0.
24
**
−
0.
14
0.
06
0.
25
**
0.
30

**
0.
06
0.
02
0.
17
*
0.
50
**
In
no
va
te
(o
pe
nn
es
s)
4.
16
0.
44
0.
26
**

−
0.
13
0.
12
0.
21
**
0.
35
**
0.
04
0.
00
0.
16
*
0.
60
**
C
on
ti
nu
ou

s
im
pr
ov
em
en
t
4.
20
0.
47
0.
23
**
−
0.
09
0.
08
0.
18
*
0.
31
**
0.

06
−
0.
01
0.
16
*
0.
54
**
In
te
lle
ct
ua
l
st
im
ul
at
io
n
4.
06
0.
51
0.
27

**
−
0.
11
0.
15
*
0.
22
**
0.
33
**
0.
06
−
0.
05
0.
16
*
0.
61
**
R
is
k-

ta
ki
ng
4.
10
0.
52
0.
14
*
−
0.
10
0.
06
0.
14
0.
28
**
−
0.
06
0.
03
0.

07
0.
47
**
O
pt
im
is
m
4.
28
0.
47
0.
29
**
−
0.
16
*
0.
16
*
0.
21
**

0.
34
**
0.
11
0.
02
0.
19
*
0.
57
**
C
on
ne
ct
(a
gr
ee
ab
le
ne
ss
)
4.
15
0.
44

0.
25
**
−
0.
07
0.
08
0.
27
**
0.
32
**
0.
08
0.
03
0.
16
*
0.
57
**
R
ec

ei
vi
ng
fe
ed
ba
ck
3.
89
0.
55
0.
17
*
0.
02
0.
02
0.
26
**
0.
33
**
0.
06

0.
16
*
0.
15
*
0.
47
**
E
m
pa
th
y
4.
27
0.
54
0.
23
**
−
0.
07
0.
08
0.

22
**
0.
27
**
0.
10
−
0.
02
0.
15
*
0.
51
**
D
ev
el
op
in
g
ot
he
rs
4.
28
0.

47
0.
30
**
−
0.
18
*
0.
17
*
0.
26
**
0.
34
**
0.
04
−
0.
07
0.
15
*
0.
57

**
R
ec
og
ni
ti
on
4.
31
0.
51
0.
24
**
−
0.
13
0.
08
0.
22
**
0.
25
**
0.
08

−
0.
04
0.
15
*
0.
54
**
P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
co
rr
ec
ti
on
3.
88
0.
48
0.
18
*

−
0.
01
0.
04
0.
24
**
0.
27
**
0.
06
0.
08
0.
13
0.
45
**
C
oo
pe
ra
ti
on

4.
24
0.
44
0.
19
**
−
0.
03
0.
08
0.
23
**
0.
25
**
0.
09
0.
05
0.
11
0.
44

**
E
nj
oy
(e
m
ot
io
na
ls
ta
bi
lit
y)
4.
23
0.
44
0.
25
**
−
0.
12
0.
13
0.

24
**
0.
32
**
0.
06
0.
02
0.
13
0.
60
**
St
re
ss
m
an
ag
em
en
t
4.
17
0.

52
0.
22
**
−
0.
06
0.
12
0.
18
*
0.
31
**
0.
03
−
0.
02
0.
13
0.
51
**
H

ap
pi
ne
ss
4.
39
0.
50
0.
26
**
−
0.
14
0.
16
*
0.
16
*
0.
28
**
0.
11
−
0.

03
0.
17
*
0.
55
**
W
or
k-
lif
e
ba
la
nc
e
4.
16
0.
55
0.
17
*
−
0.
07
0.
10

0.
18
*
0.
26
**
0.
06
0.
08
0.
08
0.
52
**
H
ea
lt
h
an
d
sa
fe
ty
4.
20
0.

47
0.
20
**
−
0.
11
0.
07
0.
33
**
0.
25
**
0.
01
0.
04
0.
06
0.
48
**
N
o

te
s:
*p
o
0.
05
;*
*p
o
0.
01
Table VIII.
Means, standard
deviations and
correlations between
factors and
organisational
outcome measures
138
LODJ
38,1
The leadership big five has several theoretical and practical
implications. Theoretically, the
leadership big five provides evidence that a broad set of
leadership behaviours can be
reduced and described with a similar set of factors commonly

used to describe personality.
This set of factors has advantages over previous, more narrowly
defined models of
leadership. Specifically, because all leadership big five factors
were related to business
relevant criterion measures such as turnover and work unit
engagement, the data suggest
that leadership behaviour is better conceptualised as a broad
range of multidimensional
leadership behaviours rather than a narrower set of behaviours
as described by any one of
the leadership models outlined in Table I.
In the same way the personality literature was once limited by
competing and
overlapping models of personality (McCrae and John, 1992), the
leadership literature
consists of a variety of different models and frameworks that
make it difficult to integrate
findings, and collaborate between researchers using different
theoretical constructs and
measures of leadership behaviour (e.g. Anderson, 2006; Redeker
et al., 2014; Yukl, 2002).
We propose the leadership big five reported in this study can
begin the development of a
common language of leadership behaviour, for two important
reasons; first, because it
conceptually aligns leadership behaviour with the most
established and common-language
model of personality in the research literature; second, because
it includes a broad list of
leadership behaviours that spans multiple existing models of
leadership. This has several
implications for researchers and practitioners. For future
research direction, this common
language would be useful for researchers to synthesise both

previous and future research.
The increased consistency and understanding of leadership
behaviour in the research
literature could help leadership research progress faster in a
similar way that the big five
model of personality helped personality research progress.
For practitioners, the leadership big five provides a framework
that practitioners may find
easier to understand and more comprehensive than other
leadership models. The big five model
of personality is so prevalent that virtually all psychologist
practitioners would be familiar with
its theory and application. For example, the big five model of
personality and associated
assessments are used by practitioners in executive coaching
settings to increase leadership
effectiveness (McCormick and Burch, 2008). Thus, the
familiarity and ease of conceptual
integration with the big five and associated assessments is
likely to be advantageous for
practitioner understanding, which may have implications for the
effectiveness of behaviour
change interventions. Additionally, because the leadership big
five describes a broader range of
leadership behaviours important for organisational outcomes
compared with many previous
leadership models, its application (e.g. in a leadership
development context) may be more likely
to increase organisational performance compared with other
models.
All lower-order and higher-order factors predicted some form of
criterion of work unit
performance including employee engagement, turnover, safety,
customer satisfaction,

change and innovation, and overall work unit performance.
Unexpectedly, customer
satisfaction and absenteeism were related to fewer leadership
behaviours. This is likely
because the process by which leadership behaviour affects
certain organisational outcomes
is complicated and indirect, involving several steps of mediator
and moderator variables.
For example, because employees are more likely to interact
directly with customers than
leaders, the relationship between leadership behaviour and
customer satisfaction may be
mediated or moderated by employee engagement and the
personal characteristics of
employees. Indeed, employee engagement shows more
consistent relationships with
customer satisfaction (Langford, 2009) than the leadership
behaviours in the present study.
Measurement of the leadership big five: Voice Leadership 360
The present study overcomes several limitations with validity
research of previous
360-degree feedback surveys by using criterion variables that
are interpretable and have
139
Measuring
leader
behaviour
practical relevance for organisations. Also, because most of the
criterion variables

were measured independently of rater feedback, the study
overcomes a significant
limitation of CMV, which can spuriously increase the
relationship between predictor and
criterion measures. The exception to this was rater engagement
and judgements of
managers’ personality, which raters completed at the same time
as completing the
360 surveys. However, the engagement items were written
differently such that the rater
was the subject rather than the leader (cf. the 360 items).
Additionally, the personality
items and 360 items were not similarly worded. Thus, there is
less concern about CMV
here than with the methodologies of previous research, where
criterion and predictive
measures were worded similarly with the leader always as the
subject (e.g. Anderson,
2006; Redeker et al., 2014). The methodologies strengthen the
conclusion that the
lower-order and higher-order factors in the leadership big five
are related to work
unit performance.
Limitations and strengths
The cross-sectional nature of the study is perhaps the biggest
limitation of the present
study and there is an opportunity for future research to confirm
the findings using a
longitudinal design. Another limitation of the study is that the
leaders personally chose
the 360-degree feedback raters, which may have resulted in
leaders selectively choosing
raters who would provide more positive rather than negative
feedback, or whose ratings
reflect the generalised likeability of the leader rather than

leadership behaviour, a concern
in 360-degree feedback methodologies (Eichinger and
Lombardo, 2004). Indeed, the mean
scale scores for managers were generally high. However, in
practice because leaders often
choose their own 360-degree feedback raters, this would have
likely increased the
ecological validity of the study. Additionally, because the CFA
showed that the leadership
big five was a better fit for the data than a one-factor model, it
is unlikely that ratings
reflect generalised likeability. Further, any range restriction
from the generally high
ratings may have resulted in an underestimation of the
relationship between the
predictive and criterion measures that was not corrected for in
the present study. Criterion
validity coefficients of 360-degree feedback surveys are likely
to increase substantially
with the correction of measurement error and range restriction
(Conway and
Huffcutt, 1997; Schmidt et al., 2006).
The organisational performance data collected were based partly
on subjective reports
by the managers who received feedback. Thus, managers could
have provided inaccurate
information about the performance of their work area. However,
the performance outcomes
are of interest to managers and observable, and managers were
able to opt out of providing
specific performance ratings if they were not confident in their
ratings.
Because the data were primarily collected from a western
sample it is unknown

whether the leadership model presented here is relevant for non-
western populations.
Researchers have suggested that a single leadership model is
unlikely to be successfully
applied in all Asian and African contexts (Blunt and Jones,
1997). Additionally,
researchers have suggested that a six rather than a five-factor
model more adequately
describes personality in the Chinese culture (Cheung et al.,
2001). Thus, validating
the model with non-western cultures is needed for researchers
and practitioners in
those contexts.
The study has several strengths. First, it presents data that is
oriented towards both
researchers and practitioners. There is a well-known divide
between practitioners and
researchers (Anderson et al., 2001), and the present study aims
to be both
methodologically rigorous (e.g. overcoming limitations of
previous validation research)
and practically relevant (e.g. presenting an easy to understand,
broad model of leadership
behaviour, assessed against practically important business
outcomes). The combination
140
LODJ
38,1
of rigour and practical relevance may lead to more effective
research and practical use of

360-degree feedback surveys than previously reported (e.g.
Nowack and Mashihi, 2012).
Second, the study has high external and ecological validity
relevant for the practical
application of the leadership model. The data suggest the
leadership model and
measurement survey presented in the current study are
applicable for a wide range of
industries and management levels, and the data were collected
in a manner consistent
with its practical application. Third, the study invites
researchers to adopt a common
language of leadership, consistent with the common language of
the big five model of
personality. This may encourage consistency, prevent
redundancy, and stimulate
increased cross-fertilisation of future leadership research.
References
Anderson, N., Herriot, P. and Hodgkinson, G.P. (2001), “The
practitioner-researcher divide in industrial,
work and organizational (IWO) psychology: where are we now,
and where do we go from here?”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74
No. 4, pp. 391-411, doi: 10.1348/
096317901167451.
Anderson, R.J. (2006), “The leadership circle profile:
breakthrough leadership assessment
technology”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 No.
4, pp. 175-184, doi: 10.1108/
00197850610671946.
Atkins, P.W.B. and Wood, R.E. (2002), “Self- versus others’
ratings as predictors of assessment center

ratings: validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55
No. 4, pp. 871-904, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00133.x.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond
Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Blake, R.R., Mouton, J.S. and Bidwell, A.C. (1962),
“Managerial grid”, Advanced Management – Office
Executive, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 12-15.
Blunt, P. and Jones, M.L. (1997), “Exploring the limits of
Western leadership theory in East Asia and
Africa”, Personnel Review, Vol. 26 Nos 1-2, pp. 6-23, doi:
10.1108/00483489710157760.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative Ways of
Assessing Model Fit, in Bollen, K.A. and
Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Qquation Models, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136-162.
Byrne, B.M. (1994), “Testing for the factorial validity,
replication, and invariance of a measurement
instrument: a paradigmatic application of the Maslach burnout
inventory”, Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Vol. 1 No. 29 No. 3, pp. 289-311.
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W. and Kim, T. (2015), “Leadership
and employee engagement proposing
research agendas through a review of literature”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 38-63, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314560406
Cheung, F.M., Leung, K., Zhang, J.X., Sun, H.F., Gan, Y.Q.,
Song, W.Z. and Xie, D. (2001), “Indigenous

Chinese personality constructs. Is the five-factor model
complete?”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 407-433, doi:
10.1177/0022022101032004003.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work
engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 89-136, available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2010.01203.x
Church, A.H. (2000), “Do higher performing managers actually
receive better ratings? A validation of
multirater assessment methodology”, Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research,
Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 99-116, doi: 10.1037/1061-4087.52.2.99.
Conger, J.A. (1989), The Charismatic Leader: Behind the
Mystique of Exceptional Leadership,
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Conway, J.M. and Huffcutt, A.I. (1997), “Psychometric
properties of multisource performance ratings:
a meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-
ratings”, Human Performance, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 331-360, doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1004_2.
141
Measuring
leader
behaviour
http://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314560406

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
De Hoogh, A.H., Den Hartog, D.N. and Koopman, P.L. (2005),
“Linking the big five‐factors
of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership;
perceived dynamic
work environment as a moderator”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 839-865.
Derue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N. and Humphrey, S.E.
(2011), “Trait and behavioral theories of
leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative
validity”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 7-52, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2010.01201.x.
DeYoung, C.G., Quilty, L.C. and Peterson, J.B. (2007),
“Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the
big five”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93
No. 5, pp. 880-896, doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.93.5.880.
Eichinger, R.W. and Lombardo, M.M. (2004), “Patterns of rater
accuracy in 360-degree feedback”,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 23-25.
Fayol, H. (1949), General and Industrial Management, Pitman,
London.
Garman, A.N., Tyler, J.L. and Darnall, J.S. (2003),
“Development and validation of a 360-degree-
feedback instrument for healthcare administrators”, Journal of
Healthcare Management, Vol. 49
No. 5, pp. 307-322.

Ghadi, M., Fernando, M. and Caputi, P. (2013),
“Transformational leadership and work engagement:
the mediating effect of meaning in work”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 532-550, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence: Why it can Matter
More Than IQ, Bantom Book,
Toronto.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-
unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a
meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-279, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.87.2.268.
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001), “Assessing leadership: a view
from the dark side”, International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 Nos 1-2, pp. 40-51, doi:
10.1111/1468-2389.00162.
House, R.J. (1976), “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership”,
Working Paper Series Nos 76-06, Toronto
University, Ontario, available at:
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED133827
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural
Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi:
10.1080/10705519909540118.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M.W. (2002),
“Personality and leadership: a qualitative
and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
87 No. 4, pp. 765-780.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R., Vrignaud, P. and Florent-Treacy, E.
(2004), “The global leadership life inventory:
development and psychometric properties of a 360-degree
feedback instrument”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.
15 No. 3, pp. 475-492,
doi: 10.1080/0958519042000181214.
Langford, P.H. (2009), “Measuring organisational climate and
employee engagement: evidence for a 7 Ps
model of work practices and outcomes”, Australian Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 185-198.
Langford, P.H. (2010), “The nature and consequences of
employee engagement: searching for a
measure that maximizes the prediction of organizational
outcomes”, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.),
Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues,
Research and Practice, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Cheltonham, pp. 375-384.
Langford, P.H. and Fong, Y. (2008), “Development of a survey
that supports two, three and five meta-
categories of leadership behaviour”, Proceedings of the 43rd
Annual Australian Psychological
Society Conference, Hobart, 23-27 September, pp. 189-193.
Lelliott, P., Williams, R., Mears, A., Andiappan, M., Owen, H.,
Reading, P., Coyle, N. and Hunter, S.
(2008), “Questionnaires for 360-degree assessment of
consultant psychiatrists: development and

psychometric properties”, The British Journal of Psychiatry:
The Journal of Mental Science,
Vol. 193 No. 2, pp. 156-160, doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.041681.
142
LODJ
38,1
http://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED133827
Lowe, K. (2015), “Making responsible leadership more
responsible: elevating the internal
perspective”, paper presented at the APS Industrial and
Organisational Psychology
Conference, Melbourne, 3 July.
McCormick, I. and Burch, G.S.J. (2008), “Personality-focused
coaching for leadership development”,
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 60
No. 3, pp. 267-278, doi: 10.1037/
1065-9293.60.3.267.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1997), “Personality trait
structure as a human universal”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 509-516.
McCrae, R.R. and John, O.P. (1992), “An introduction to the
five-factor model and its applications”,
Journal of Personality, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 175-215, doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M. (1996),
“Power analysis and determination of

sample size for covariance structure modelling”, Psychological
Methods, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 130-149,
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of
employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2007.0002.x
Mayo, E. (1933), The Human Problems of an Industrial
Organization, McMillan, New York, NY.
Nowack, K.M. and Mashihi, S. (2012), “Evidence-based
answers to 15 questions about leveraging
360-degree feedback”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, Vol. 64 No. 3,
pp. 157-182, doi: 10.1037/a0030011.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson., J.F.,
Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, L. and
Wallace, A.M. (2005), “Validating the organizational climate
measure: links to managerial
practices, productivity and innovation”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 379-408, doi: 10.1002/job.312.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff,
N.P. (2003), “Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature
and recommended
remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp.
879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter,

R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader,
satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 107-142, doi: 10.1016/1048-
9843(90)90009-7.
Redeker, M., de Vries, R.E., Rouckhout, D., Vermeren, P. and
de Fruyt, F. (2014), “Integrating
leadership: the leadership circumplex”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 435-455, doi:
10.1080/1359432X.2012.738671.
Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939), Management and
the Worker: An Account of a Research
Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company,
Hawthorne Works, Chicago, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”,
Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 185-211.
Schmidt, F.L., Oh, I.S. and Le, H. (2006), “Increasing the
accuracy of corrections for range restriction:
implications for selection procedure validities and other
research results”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 281-305, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2006.00065.x.
Seligman, M.E. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), “Positive
psychology: an introduction”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Shuck, B. (2011), “Integrative literature review: four emerging

perspectives of employee engagement:
an integrative literature review”, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 304-328, doi: 10.1177/1534484311410840.
Shuck, B. and Herd, A.M. (2012), “Employee engagement and
leadership exploring the convergence
of two frameworks and implications for leadership development
in HRD”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 156-181, doi:
10.1177/1534484312438211.
143
Measuring
leader
behaviour
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Stogdill, R.M. (1957), Leader Behavior: Its Description and
Measurement, Bureau of Business Research,
College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management,
Norton, New York, NY.
Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E. and Antonioni, D. (1998), “Has
360 degree feedback gone amok?”,
The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 86-
94, doi: 10.5465/
AME.1998.650519.

Yukl, G.A. (2002), Leadership In Organizations, Prentice-Hall
International, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Corresponding author
Peter H. Langford can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please
visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
144
LODJ
38,1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
assp.org JUNE 2018 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 45
Safety Leadership &
Professional Development
Edited by Richard Olawoyin and Darryl C. Hill, 2018, ASSP.
With contributions from academics and industry leaders,
Richard Olawo-
yin and Darryl C. Hill provide a road map that defines the
safety profession and pro-
motes leadership and professional development. Major sections
of this text focus on

ethics, leadership and management; certification and
accreditation related to the safe-
ty profession; professional development; technical aspects,
including risk assessment
and hazard recognition; and workplace culture.
Safety Leadership and Professional Development is suitable for
undergraduate, grad-
uate, post-graduate students, certification
trainees, higher education and occupa-
tional safety and health professionals.
“The book should be required read-
ing for new safety professionals
and for students preparing for their
first safety position. Topics are ad-
dressed that are often overlooked
or under researched in more tech-
nical publications. It covers the key
elements of successful safety and
health programs and, more impor-
tantly, offers the methodologies for
their implementation.”
Paul Specht, Ph.D., CSP
“This gathering of recognized
experts has yielded an essential
reference—an excellent tool for
reinforcing the high expectations
government and industry have of a
value-adding, successful safety and
health professional.”
Steven G. Schoolcraft, P.E., CSP, PMP, CMIOSH
To order, visit www.assp.org or call ASSP Customer Service at
(847) 699-2929.

Fred Manuele on
Safety Management
By Fred Manuele, 2018, ASSP.
Fred Manuele is a respected thought leader
in safety whose many works have influenced
the safety profession and inspired some of the
profession’s most prominent authors, leaders,
speakers and educators. To highlight the signifi-
cance of his work, this book presents a collection
of his contributions to the profession that have
appeared in Professional Safety over the years.
Topics include addressing serious injuries and
fatalities, risk assessments, prevention through
design, acceptable risk and occupational safety
and health management systems.
To order, visit www.assp.org or call ASSP
Customer Service at (847) 699-2929.
ASSP Update
WHAT IS
YOUR PLAN?
100% ONLINE PROGRAM!
Earn your Master’s in
OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY
AND HEALTH
from one of the nation’s
leading universities

> Emphasis in Safety
Management
> ABET accredited
> New cohort begins each fall
For more information, visit
murraystate.edu/oshonline
Equal education and employment opportunities
M/F/D, AA employer. Murray State University
supports a clean and healthy campus.
Please refrain from personal tobacco use.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction
prohibited without permission.
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice Vol. 17(4)
2017 57
A Leadership and Professional Development Teaching and
Learning Model
for Undergraduate Management Programs
Belinda Johnson White
Morehouse College

This article describes a holistic leadership and professional
development teaching and learning model for
undergraduate students with universal application across all
disciplines and functional areas of
organizations due to its emphasis on the non-technical skill
requirements of leadership. The model
highlights the development of intrapersonal, interpersonal and
professionalism skills or KSAs
(knowledge, skills and abilities) and uses the mnemonics
FOCUS and ACTION to structure the large
number of traits, behaviors and KSAs. The model is useful in
the early stages of career development as it
succinctly identifies management competencies expected of
emerging leaders, signaling a readiness for
the leadership pipeline.
The topic of leadership development in higher education has
received significant attention over the
past three decades (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm & McKee,
2014; Riggio, 2008). Many college programs
endeavored to understand fully their efforts to develop the next
generation of leaders (DeRue, Sitkin &
Podolny, 2011). The management education program of this
undergraduate liberal arts institution took on
the task via the department�s goal of receiving the Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) accreditation. Accreditation first requires alignment
of the mission of the business program
with the mission of the institution. The business program
faculty chose the mission �to develop skills
requisite for excellence in leadership�� to complement the
college mission �to develop students with
disciplined minds who will lead lives of leadership and

service� (college website).
In addition, accreditation requires development and
implementation of a curriculum to accomplish the
business program mission. Through arduous rounds of
committee meetings, retreats and discussions, the
business department faculty agreed on a set of ten learning
objectives for the business program: (1)
discipline specific goals and outcomes; (2) communication; (3)
critical/analytical thinking and problem
solving; (4) ethics and social responsibility; (5) global
awareness; (6) information systems and
technology; (7) leadership, professionalism and civic
engagement; (8) interpersonal and teamwork skills;
(9) organization and synthesis of learning; and (10) graduate
education and professional career
preparation.
To remain true to the business department�s newly created
mission�develop skills requisite for
excellence in leadership, the business faculty agreed to the
creation of a three-hour core course titled
Leadership and Professional Development (LPD) to specifically
address learning objective seven�
leadership, professionalism and civic engagement. The
responsibility for the design, development and
delivery of the course was assigned to a two-person team
comprised of a business faculty member and the
director of career counseling and placement, hereafter referred
to as the LPD instruction team. The
58 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice Vol. 17(4)
2017

members of the instruction team were selected because of their
combined 44 years of corporate, teaching
and career development experience. The collective background
of the team members provided the skills
necessary to create a course that would meet the criteria
established by the faculty.
Essential elements identified by the business faculty for
inclusion in the LPD class centered on (1)
teaching and learning leadership basics and management
competencies; (2) contributing to the realization
of the college mission and the department mission; (3) teaching
and learning professionalism and soft
skills; (4) integrating content and activities that would address
other skills identified in the business
department learning objectives of communication, interpersonal
and teamwork skills, graduate education
and professional career preparation; and (5) ensuring the
requirement for a service-learning project.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this article is to describe the LPD teaching and
learning model and content designed
by the instruction team to address the business department�s
learning objective focused on leadership,
professionalism and civic engagement. The modular design and
absence of business technical skills (such
as accounting, finance, management and marketing) positions
the model for adaptive use in a variety of
educational and training settings, independent of the subject
matter skills associated with the activity.
Therefore, this article is beneficial to academics and
practitioners who wish to use the model in their own
functional area. This article presents the LPD model�s origin

and supporting literature; its purpose, design
and components; and summary followed by a section offering
conclusions with recommendations.
LPD MODEL ORIGIN: LITERATURE REVIEW
To accomplish the task set before them by the business
department faculty, the LPD instruction team
sought a variety of sources to identify class content and
delivery. The sources included student leadership
theoretical models�the Social Change Model (Haber &
Komives, 2009; Wagner, 2006) and the Student
Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 1998;
Posner, 2004); the college mission and nine
institutional values; professionalism guiding principles and
selected literature on soft skills; and a
management development model�Hogan and Warrenfeltz�s
(2003) domain model of managerial
education. Considered below are some key elements of the
aforementioned sources.
The Social Change Model
Created in the early 1990s, the Social Change Model (SCM) has
been referred to �as the most widely
used model of leadership development in higher education�
(Haber & Komives, 2009, p. 138). The SCM
resulted from the collaborative efforts of ten leadership
specialists and student affairs professionals. The
group, led by Helen and Alexander Astin, identified �what
knowledge, values, or skills students need to
develop in college in order to participate in effective leadership
focused on social change� (Wagner,
2006, p. 8). The result was the SCM of leadership development.

Key assumptions of the SCM informed the LPD model in that
the SCM encourages change based on
values, presents opportunity for collaboration, underscores
individuals� passionate commitment to social
justice, and is made accessible to all students. The above-
mentioned group of researchers summarized
their findings by identifying seven critical values to leadership
development, all beginning with the letter
C, grouped into three categories: (1) individual
values�consciousness of self, congruence and
commitment; (2) group values�collaboration, common purpose
and controversy with civility; and (3)
community values�character. These seven values, known as the
Seven C�s, revolve around change,
which is considered to be the hub of SCM. The SCM is founded
on the belief that the ultimate goal of
leadership is positive social change, defining change as
�believing in the importance of making a better
world and a better society for oneself and others� (Wagner,
2006, p. 9).
2017 59
The Student Leadership Practices Inventory
The Student Leadership Practices Inventory (Student LPI) is
similar to the SCM in that they both
were created specifically for the college undergraduate. The
Student LPI results from the work of Kouzes
& Posner (1998). As one of the few leadership development

instruments targeted for college students, the
Student LPI identifies specific behaviors and actions that
students report using when they are at �their
personal best as leaders� (Posner, 2004, p. 443-444). Research
by Kouzes and Posner on student
leadership behavior was based on a case-study approach to
determine a pattern of behaviors used by
students when they were most effective as leaders. The results
of their research are summarized in what is
described as the five practices of exemplary leadership: (1)
modeling the way; (2) inspiring a shared
vision; (3) challenging the process; (4) enabling others to act;
and (5) encouraging the heart (Kouzes &
Posner, 1998; Posner, 2004).
College Mission and Values
The SCM and Student LPI provide a theoretical foundation that
supports the college mission and
values. The SCM call to service and social justice along with
the exposed values and ideals of the Student
LPI are in congruence with the college mission to �develop
students with disciplined minds who will
lead lives of leadership and service� and the nine institutional
values (college website). In 2008, the
college president commissioned a year-long dialogue titled the
Institutional Values Project (IVP). Its
purpose was to engage faculty, staff and students in dialogue
about the values considered important to the
college community and necessary for the achievement of its
vision of becoming one of the best liberal
arts colleges in the nation. The LPD instruction team faculty
member was selected to serve as a member
of the leadership team for the project.
Group discussions, surveys and other assessments were used to

identify the shared values and
enabling behaviors that represent the college. The emphasis on
engaging faculty, staff and students in the
development of the shared values was identified as key to the
success of the academic community, as well
as preparing students for citizenship and leadership. The year-
long process resulted in the adoption of
nine college values. These nine values are listed as follows:
spirituality, community, accountability, trust,
respect, integrity, honesty, civility and compassion (college
website).
The three inputs outlined above�SCM, Student LPI and the
college mission and institutional values,
provide rich character-based context to inform the LPD model.
The following discussion will detail inputs
related to competencies and knowledge needed for success in
the organizational setting�professionalism,
soft skills and managerial education.
Professionalism Guiding Principles
To better understand how to incorporate professionalism into
the new course, the LPD instruction
team reviewed Andrews� 1969 Harvard Business Review
article, �Toward professionalism in business
management.� He identified five criteria to be used to evaluate
the professional quality of any occupation:
(1) knowledge that has been subjected to disciplined analysis;
(2) competent application to a class of
practical problems; (3) social responsibility through which
practitioners are motivated less by personal
gain than to accomplish goals appropriate to his field; (4) self-
control by which the membership of a
profession has effective means for setting standards of conduct
and influencing behavior; and (5)

community sanction whereas those served by the profession
grant respect, authority and status to the
occupation and its practitioners (Andrews, 1969, p. 50-51).
Further investigation into professionalism led to the work of
McGuigan (2007) on the attributes of
professionalism that are to be exhibited by the practitioner
through which the individual earns the
community sanction described in Andrews� fifth criteria of
professionalism in business management.
McGuigan (2007, p. 1) says �whether or not the occupation
itself has attained professional status, the
individual can attain the attributes of professionalism.� His
five attributes of professionalism for the
individual include: (1) reliance on a high personal standard of
competence in providing professional
service; (2) the means by which a person promotes or maintains
the image of the profession; (3) a
2017
willingness to pursue development opportunities that improve
skills; (4) the pursuit of quality,
competence and ideals within the profession; and (5) exuding a
sense of pride about the profession.
Soft Skills
A discussion of professionalism is tightly coupled with a
discussion of soft skills. Research studies
since the 1990s have classified soft skills under the umbrella of
professionalism and noted its critical role

in career success (Kryer, 1997; Levenburg, 1996; Sergenian &
Pant, 1998). More recent studies show
evidence that soft skills are critical to one�s future workplace
success due to the collaborative nature of
today�s business environment (Azevedo, Apfelthaler & Hurst,
2012; Bedwell, Fiore & Salas, 2014;
NACE, 2014).
Soft skills are defined as �interpersonal qualities, also known
as people skills, and personal attributes
that one possesses� (Robles, 2012, p. 453) and the
�nontechnical skills related to personal traits� (Onifade
& Stivers, 2014, p. 13). Noting that �leadership involves a
relationship process that requires working with
others to accomplish a goal or to promote positive change,�
Brungardt (2011, pg. 1) defines soft skills as
�that relationship factor involved in human interaction required
to achieve positive outcomes from the
leadership process.� The soft skills cited in Brungardt�s
(2011) study as desirable by employers but
deficient in their incoming hires include communication,
interpersonal, adaptability, leadership,
teamwork, working with diverse groups, decision-making and
creative thinking.
Two studies of particular interest to the LPD instruction team
are Robles (2012) and Onifade and
Stivers (2014). Both studies addressed the identification of soft
skills that employers said were important
but lacking in business graduates, with a recommendation for
business educators to revise their curricula
to meet the needs of the workplace.
Research conducted by Robles (2012) based on a survey of 49
business executives identified ten soft-
skill attributes determined as critical to employee success that

employers want business educators to
promote in their curriculum. The ten soft-skills attributes are as
follows: communication, courtesy,
flexibility, integrity, interpersonal skills, positive attitude,
professionalism, responsibility, teamwork and
work ethic. The soft-skills competencies desired by employers
identified in the research conducted by
Robles (2012) were matched by Onifade and Stivers (2014).
Using a cluster organizational structure, they
reported desirable soft skills in three clusters: (1) personal
skills cluster�interpersonal/people skills,
professionalism, et cetera; (2) communication cluster; and (3)
global social competencies�global
perspective, intercultural competence and social responsibility.
Hogan and Warrenfeltz Domain Model of Managerial Education
With the aforementioned delineations of professionalism and
soft-skills competencies identified, the
LPD instruction team expanded its research base to a teaching
and learning model designed for a business
management program�the Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003)
domain model of management education. The
research on career and organizational success conducted by
Hogan and Warrenfletz shows the need to go
beyond technical issues in the development of the modern
manager and include training in self-mastery,
including knowledge, awareness and management of self. As the
intent of the addition of the LPD course
is to serve the college business program in this capacity, the
Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) findings were
of specific interest to the instruction team.
The taxonomy of learning outcomes for a business management
program proposed by Hogan and
Warrenfeltz (2003) was created based on existing competency

models. Their taxonomy is organized in
terms of four competency domains: (1) intrapersonal skills such
as core self-esteem, emotional security or
resiliency, self-confidence, stability and self-control; (2)
interpersonal skills such as the ability to engage
with others, socially adept, approachable and rewarding to deal
with; (3) leadership skills seen as the
ability to build and maintain effective teams; and (4) business
skills, which involve several cognitive
abilities such as planning, monitoring budgets and forecasting
costs. According to Hogan and Warrenfeltz
(2003), these four domains �define the content of management
education; they provide a basis for
designing curricula, assigning people to training and evaluating
management education. Finally these four
domains form a natural, overlapping developmental sequence,
with the later skills depending on the
2017 61
appropriate development of the earlier skills. We also think they
form a hierarchy of trainability, in which
the earlier skills are harder to train and the later skills are easier
to train� (p. 78).
The extensive literature review conducted by the LPD
instruction team clearly identified a
magnanimous amount of information that should be covered in
the LPD course. The competencies
identified contained a multiplicity of traits, abilities, skills,
knowledge and behaviors (TASKBs) that the
learner should be exposed to in order to meet the business
department learning objective in leadership,

professionalism and civic engagement. Using the Hogan and
Warrenfeltz (2003) domain model of
management education as a framework, the LPD instruction
team assigned the TASKBs identified in the
literature review to one of Hogan and Warrenfeltz�s four
domains. Considering the literature review did
not find complete agreement among all researchers on the
classification of TASKBs within the domain
competencies of intrapersonal, interpersonal and leadership
skills or professionalism and soft-skills
categories, the LPD instruction team made the final decision as
to the domain placement of the TASKBs.
This assignment is reported in Table 1 Leadership and
Professional Development Competency
Comparison.
TABLE 1
LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COMPETENCY COMPARISON
Skill Domain
Intrapersonal
Develops early; has
important consequences for
career development
Interpersonal
Easily measured; predicts a
wide range of occupational
outcomes
Leadership
Depends on intrapersonal
and interpersonal skills

Domain Model of
Managerial
Education
(Hogan &
Warrenfeltz, 2003)
Core self-esteem
Emotional security
resiliency;
self-confident; stable,
positive moods; positive
attitudes toward authority;
self-control; core of
emotional intelligence
Charming, poised, socially
adept, approachable,
rewarding to deal with;
Dealing effectively with the
other; Maintaining
relationships with a variety
of people
Building and maintaining
effective teams through
recruiting, persuading,
motivating, visioning and
persistence
Social Change
Model
(Haber &

Komives, 2009;
Wagner, 2006)
Consciousness of self: self
aware of beliefs, values,
attitudes and emotions
Congruence: actions
consistent with values and
beliefs
Commitment: investment
and energy to serve group
and goals
Collaboration: effectively
working with others
Common purpose: shared
aims and values
Controversy with civility:
effectively managing
differences
Citizenship: responsibly
connected to community
and society
Change: making a better
world and society for self
and others
Student Leadership
Practices Inventory
(Kouzes & Posner,
1998)
(Not referenced in model) (Not referenced in model)

Modeling the way; Inspiring
a shared vision; Challenging
the process; Enabling others
to act; Encouraging the
heart
College Mission;
College Values
(1867, 1998)
Values: spirituality,
accountability, trust, respect
for self, integrity
Values: community, trust,
respect for others, honesty,
civility, compassion
Mission: leadership and
service
Professionalism
Occupation
Criteria
(Andrews, 1969)
(Not referenced in model)
Behavior monitoring and
discipline by membership
Social responsibility;
Community sanction

2017
Professionalism
Individual
Attributes
(McGuigan, 2007)
High personal standards of
competence; Promote and
maintain image of
profession; Pursuit of
developmental opportunities
to improve skills; Pursuit of
quality, competence, and
ideals within profession;
Sense of pride about the
profession
(Not referenced in model) (Not referenced in model)
Soft Skills
(Robles, 2012)
Integrity: honest, ethical,
high morals, positive
attitude
Professionalism:
businesslike, well-dressed,
appearance, poised
Responsibility: accountable,
reliable, resourceful, self-

disciplined
Work ethic: hard working,
willing to work, loyal, self-
motivated
Communication: oral,
speaking, written,
presenting, listening
Courtesy: manners,
etiquette, gracious
Flexibility: adaptability,
adjusts, teachable
Interpersonal skills: nice,
personable, friendly
Teamwork: cooperative,
agreeable, collaborative
(Not referenced in model)
Soft Skills
(Onifade & Stivers,
2014)
Personal skills:
dependability, reliability,
initiation, self-motivation,
professionalism, work ethic,
accountability, honesty,
integrity, ethical values,
personal productivity, time
management
Personal Skills: adaptability,
flexibility, collaboration,
teamwork skills

Communication: oral,
written, presentation
Global Social
Competencies: intercultural
competence
Personal skills: leadership
ability, creativity,
innovation
Global Social
Competencies: global
perspective, social
responsibility
The LPD instruction team was then faced with the dilemma of
how to present a vast amount of
material to students in such a way as to effectively achieve the
business department learning objective in
leadership, professionalism and civic engagement. Based on our
experience in teaching the college�s
student body population, we concluded that a structured,
simplified presentation of the wealth of
TASKBs that comprise the competency domains was necessary;
in other words�an LPD model.
The three components of the business department learning
objective�leadership, professionalism and
civic engagement would be used as category headings for the
LPD model: first, intrapersonal and
professionalism skills; second, interpersonal and leadership
skills; and third, civic engagement
representing the experiential learning activities required for
inclusion in the class such as the service-
learning project. Collectively these components would enable

the overlap of the designation of the
TASKBs into the intrapersonal, interpersonal and leadership
categories by other researchers, allowing
some flexibility in the assignment of TASKBs. This flexibility
accommodated our desire to create an easy
to remember three-component LPD model using two
mnemonics�FOCUS for the first component,
ACTION for the second component and the term Great
Leadership for the third component.
LPD MODEL PURPOSE AND DESIGN
The purpose of the model is to assist students in developing the
traits, abilities, skills, knowledge and
behaviors (TASKBs) expected of business graduates pursuing
lives of leadership and service in the
twenty-first century. Using Kolb�s (1984) learning theory as
the pedagogical framework, the LPD model
is designed to provide an integrated, holistic, experiential
learning approach to leadership development
(see Figure 1).
2017 63
FIGURE 1
LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (LPD)
TEACHING & LEARNING MODEL

Informed by (a) leadership theoretical models, (b) the college
mission and values, (c) soft
skills/professionalism guiding principles and (d) a domain
model of managerial education, the LPD
model outlines specific management competencies for the
emerging leader. At the foundational base, the
model identifies developmental needs in the area of
intrapersonal and professionalism skills, represented
by the mnemonic FOCUS. The middle section of the model
identifies developmental needs in the area of
interpersonal and leadership skills, represented by the
mnemonic ACTION. A third and final component
of the model, Great Leadership, is an experiential learning
category. This category provides the platform
for the inclusion of experiential activities that require students
to utilize the FOCUS and ACTION
TASKBs in career development and civic engagement activities.
The overarching outcome for students
engaging the LPD model is to engage the business department
mission �to develop skills requisite for
excellence in leadership�,� which complements the college
mission �to develop students with
disciplined minds who will lead lives of leadership and
service� (college website).
The LPD model subscribes to the teaching of management skills
with the goal of �increasing
students� intra- and interpersonal awareness combined with the
development and practice of interpersonal
and team skills within a managerial context� (Bigelow et.al.,
1999, p. 356) that began in the 1980s.
Subsequent research shows that competency-based models lead
to increased student satisfaction and
learning (Brownell & Chung, 2001; Hess, 2007; Hill &
Houghton, 2001; McEnrue, 2002). Another
strategy employed by the LPD instruction team to enhance the

student learning experience was the use of
the mnemonics FOCUS and ACTION.
Great
Leadership
(career
development and
civic engagement
activities )
ACTION
(interpersonal and
leadership skills )
FOCUS
(intrapersonal and
professionalism skills)
2017
Mnemonics have been reported to be used with success in
statistics (Hunt, 2010) and accounting
education (Seay & McAlum, 2010). Encouraged by their
professions to require students to be active

Running head PRODUCT AND TARGET MARKET PLANNING1PRODUCT AND TA.docx

Running head PRODUCT AND TARGET MARKET PLANNING1PRODUCT AND TA.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head PRODUCT AND TARGET MARKET PLANNING1PRODUCT AND TA.docx

Similar to Running head PRODUCT AND TARGET MARKET PLANNING1PRODUCT AND TA.docx (20)

More from todd581

More from todd581 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head PRODUCT AND TARGET MARKET PLANNING1PRODUCT AND TA.docx