The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7266.htm

JHOM
22,6 The impact of engaging
leadership on performance,
attitudes to work and wellbeing at
586
work
A longitudinal study
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
University of Bradford School of Management, Bradford, UK and
Real World Group, Leeds, UK
John Alban-Metcalfe and Margaret Bradley
Real World Group, Leeds, UK, and
Jeevi Mariathasan and Chiara Samele
Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, King’s College London, London, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between quality of leadership and
attitudes to work and a sense of wellbeing at work, and organizational performance.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a longitudinal empirical investigation, using
quantitative methods.
Findings – The findings were fourfold: the leadership instrument used was demonstrated to have
convergent, discriminant and predictive validity; differential relationships were found between three
aspects of quality of leadership and attitudes to work and a sense of wellbeing at work; one leadership
quality – “engaging with others” – was shown to be a significant predictor of organizational
performance; leadership quality as assessed by competencies or “capabilities” did not predict
performance.
Originality/value – The paper presents evidence of: the validity of a new leadership instrument; the
differential relationship between leadership quality and staff attitudes to work and their sense of
wellbeing at work; and a predictive relationship between leadership quality and organizational
performance.
Keywords Leadership, Performance management, Team performance, Management attitudes
Paper type Research paper

Leadership and culture

Earlier formal study of leadership can be seen to have passed through four more or less
distinct stages, from the “trait” theories of the 1930-1950s, through the “behavioural”
theories of the 1950-1960s and the “situational” and “contingency” theories of the
Journal of Health Organization and
1960-1970s, to the models of distant, “heroic” leadership – based on being “visionary”,
Management “charismatic” or “transformational” – of the 1980-1990s (e.g. Bass, 1985; House, 1977;
Vol. 22 No. 6, 2008
pp. 586-598 Sashkin, 1988). However, as the writings of Mintzberg (1999), Collins (2002), and Tosi
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-7266
DOI 10.1108/14777260810916560 This research was funded by the NHS SDO, grant number SDO/22/2002.
et al. (2004) and surveys undertaken in the current post-Enron, post-Worldcom era The impact of
(Sirota Survey Intelligence, 2006; Towers Perrin, 2005; Watson Wyatt, 2006) point out engaging
only too clearly, we are now living in a “post-heroic” era, an era that is characterised by
a much more inclusive, “engaging” style of leadership. This sea-change in North leadership
American thinking coincided with the empirical research undertaken by
Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2001, 2005, 2006) into the nature of leadership
in UK local government and the NHS, using a “grounded theory” approach (Parry, 587
1998). This research, which was inclusive with reference to gender, ethnicity and level
in the organisation (Chief Executive to middle managers), was validated among 1,464
local government and 2,013 NHS managers and professionals at all levels. The initial
research has subsequently been validated independently by the Home Office among
1,022 police officers and staff at all levels (Dobby et al., 2004) and in the private sector
(Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2007; Kelly et al., 2006).
The model that emerges is one of “nearby” leadership that reflects an “engaging”
style of leadership. Engaging leadership is a style of leadership that shows itself in
respect for others and concern for their development and well being; in the ability to
unite different groups of stakeholders in developing a joint vision; in supporting a
developmental culture; and in delegation of a kind that empowers and develops
individuals’ potential, coupled with the encouragement of questioning and of thinking
which is constructively critical as well as strategic.
Engaging leadership is based on integrity, openness and transparency, and
genuinely valuing others, and their contributions, along with being able to resolve
complex problems and to be decisive. It is essentially open-ended in nature, enabling
organisations not only to cope with change, but also to be proactive in meeting the
challenge of change. At all times behaviour is guided by ethical principles and the
desire to co-create and co-own ways of working with others towards achieving a
shared vision.
The product of engaging leadership has been defined as “a measure of the extent to
which employees put discretionary effort into their work” (Towers Perrin, 2005).
Clear links have now been established between certain kinds of leadership,
particularly a “post-heroic”, “engaging” style of leadership, and both staff attitudes to
work and their wellbeing at work (e.g. Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000a, b;
Borrill et al., 2005a, b). However, what has so far been elusive has been evidence of a
direct link between leadership and organizational performance. Thus, for example,
while Borrill et al. (2005b) reported statistically significant correlations between
leadership and clinical governance ratings for education and training, risk
management, and patient involvement, the correlations with trust star ratings and
patient satisfaction were positive, but not statistically significant. Similarly, research
undertaken by Corrigan et al. (2000) also found a positive relationship between
leadership style and mental health service users’ perceptions of the intervention
programmes they had adopted.
At the same time, Patterson et al. (2004) and Xenikou and Simosi (2006) have found
that attitudes to work, particularly job satisfaction, are the best predictors of
organizational performance, measured in terms of productivity and profitability. There
is also consistent evidence that overall organisational culture/climate is significantly
correlated with work-related attitudes, such as job satisfaction, motivation, and
JHOM organisational commitment, and performance (e.g. Parker et al., 2003; Patterson et al.,
22,6 2004).
There is, however, much confusion in the literature about the nature and definition
of “organisational culture” and “organisational climate”, and of the further concepts of
“psychological climate” and “collective climate”. This suggests the need for
consistency in the use of the terminology, particularly as many of these terms are
588 used interchangeably (Ashkanasy et al., 2000; Parker et al., 2003). Organisational
culture has been defined as, “A pattern of basic assumptions – invented, discovered, or
developed by a group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration – that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relation to those processes” (Schein, 1985, p. 9). Denison (1996, p. 624) suggests that
“culture” “refers to the deep structures of organizations”, whereas “climate” is
concerned mainly with “those aspects of the social environment that are consciously
perceived by organizational members”.
On the basis of meta-analytic study of 121 independent samples in which
perceptions of climate were measured and analysed at the individual level, Parker et al.
(2003) concluded that the most valid analysis was the model proposed by Jones and
James (1979), for which there is factor analytic support (James and Jones, 1989; Parker
et al., 2003). This model identifies five reference points:
(1) job characteristics;
(2) role characteristics;
(3) leadership characteristics;
(4) work group and social environment characteristics;
(5) organisation and subsystem characteristics.

According to Schein (1985), leadership and culture can be thought of as “two sides of
the same coin”; indeed, he goes so far as to assert that “the unique and essential
function of leadership is the manipulation of the culture”. Kotter and Hesketh suggest
that “only cultures that can help organisations anticipate and adapt to . . . change will
be associated with superior performance over time” (1992, p. 44.) The same authors
talk about an “adaptive culture”, a concept which can be equated to a “transformational
culture” (Bass and Avolio, 1993). They identified the assumptions underlying a culture
that is adaptable as being: – that people are trustworthy and purposeful; that complex
problems can be delegated to the lowest level possible; that mistakes can be the basis of
doing a better job, rather than recrimination. Such a culture is further promoted by
engaging leadership behaviours (Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2007;
Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005, 2006).
The concept of “organisational capability” has been used by Teece et al. (1997) to
denote the specialist knowledge and intellectual property, understanding of how the
organisation operates, and goal directed activities, that are geared to developing
processes and systems. Such behaviour enables efficient and effective planning, and
monitoring, so as to achieve agreed goals, both short-term and long-term. High levels of
organisational capability can lead to a degree of consistency within a team, department
or organisation, thereby enabling staff to make day-to-day decisions and short-term
predictions, with a measure of confidence. Organisational capability is essential to any
organisation, enabling staff to undertake strategic planning, and in this way help to The impact of
turn the vision of an organisation, department or team into a reality; in other words to engaging
be successful. This aspect of organizations might be expected to be influenced by the
extent to which the leadership is competent, as distinct from transformational – leadership
competency being the “what” of leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2006).
Thus, it would appear that both aspects of leadership – being competent as well as
being adopting an engaging style – are required for an effective individual, team, or 589
organization.
The context in which this study was undertaken, was among mental health crisis
resolution/home treatment teams (CRTs). The establishment of these teams marks
shift towards community-oriented mental health care, rather than referring service
users for in-patient care. In 2000, the Department of Health set a national target of
reducing bed-occupancy by 30 per cent (DH, 2000). Two defining characteristics of
CRTs are:
(1) they are multi-professional, including a psychiatrist, nursing staff, social
workers, clinical psychologists, occupational therapist and physiotherapists;
(2) the clinician is rarely the team lead. Teams vary in size from 10 to 30 þ
members, and operate 24/7 for 365 days a year.

Hypotheses
This paper sets out, through a longitudinal study, to examine the extent to which
quality of leadership, reflected in the way that staff perceive the “leadership
culture/climate” and the “leadership capabilities” of their organisation, affects
organizational performance. Organizational performance is assessed with reference to
staff attitudes to work and their sense of wellbeing at work, and the extent to which the
organization meets performance goals. The organisation in question, was the Crisis
Resolution Team. It is hypothesised:
.
that a high quality of leadership will be positively associated with positive staff
attitudes to work and their wellbeing at work;
.
that a high quality of leadership will be positively associated with achievement
of organizational goals.

Method
Leadership quality and staff attitudes to work and wellbeing at work were assessed
using the “Leadership Climate and Change Inventory” (LCCI)e (Alban-Metcalfe and
Alimo-Metcalfe, 2003). This instrument assesses the quality of the distributed
leadership of organisations or teams with reference to the extent to which it involves
both “engaging” and competent leadership behaviours. The first of these is referred to
as the “leadership culture”, the second as the “leadership capability”. The LCCIe also
includes 12 impact measures, which assess five “facets” of staff attitudes to work (job
satisfaction; motivation to achieve; motivation to achieve beyond own expectations; job
commitment; organisational commitment) and seven facets of wellbeing at work
(fulfilment; self esteem; self-confidence; reduced job-related stress; reduced job-related
exhaustion; team spirit; sense of team effectiveness).
The “leadership culture” items were derived from the “transformational leadership
questionnaire” (TLQ)e which assesses “engaging” leadership (e.g. Alimo-Metcalfe and
JHOM Alban-Metcalfe, 2001, 2005, 2006) (72 items), while the “leadership capabilities” items
22,6 were derived from discussions with, and ratings of importance by, 35 managers and
professionals working in the area of mental health, concerning the person-related and
task-related (systems and processes) competencies required of a leader (34 items).
The LCCIe was completed by a total of 731 staff working in mental health crisis
resolution/home treatment teams in England. These teams, which operate on 24/7, 365
590 days a year are multi-professional, the professions involved being psychiatrists,
nurses, social workers, psychologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists,
administrators. The team leader is rarely the psychiatrist.
Organizational performance was assessed in terms of meeting the government
target of reducing bed occupancy. The performance criterion adopted was the ratio of
assessments made by a CRT to the number of referrals to in-patient care; the fewer the
proportion of referrals, the greater the success.

Results
Leadership quality
The sample was divided into two groups of n $ 365, and an exploratory principal
components factor analysis of the “culture” items for Group 1, with oblimin rotation,
led to the emergence of three factors, which accounted for 59 per cent of shared
variance. Following confirmatory analysis with Group 2, a similar structure emerged,
which was confirmed for the combined sample. However, as factor 3, comprised only
three items which were not readily interpretable, it was discarded. These were
interpreted and the items used to form two “leadership culture” scales, which were
labelled:
.
“Engaging with others” – 16 items; a ¼ 0:95, e.g. “ Empowering others by
trusting them to take decisions”; “Involving all staff in developing the vision”;
.
“Shared vision” – seven items; a ¼ 0:90, e.g. “Inspiring external stakeholders by
their passion”; “Being sensitive to the agenda of a wide range of external
stakeholders”.
Corresponding analyses of the “capabilities” items resulted in the emergence of a single
factor, one of which was concerned with individuals and relationships and the other
with systems and processes. This was labelled:
“Leadership capability” – 14 items; a ¼ 0:94, e.g. “Being able to make sense of
different types of information so as to make meaningful comparisons and/or to
identify patterns and trends”; “Establishing agreed standards of performance”;
“Having well thought out systems and procedures which support effective use of
resources”.

Statistically significant relationships were detected between the leadership scales

(r $ 0.82), suggesting a high level of co-linearity.

Attitudes to work and wellbeing at work

Product-moment correlations were calculated, and stepwise multiple regression
analyses were conducted, with the three scales as independent variables and each of
the impact measures as the dependent variable. The correlation coefficients range from
r ¼ 0:42 (“engaging with others” £ “a low level of job-related stress”) to r ¼ 0:75 The impact of
(“leadership capability” £ “a strong sense of team effectiveness”). engaging
Since at least six of these items (motivation; motivation to achieve beyond own
expectations; job commitment, organisational commitment; job satisfaction; reduced leadership
stress) has been shown to be predicted by effective leadership behaviour (e.g.
Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000a, b; Bass, 1998; Borrill et al., 2005a,b; Parker
et al., 2003; Patterson et al., 2004), these results provide evidence of the concurrent 591
validity of the LCCIe among this population.
The results of the multiple regression analyses are presented in Table I.

Meeting performance indicators

In order to examine the relationship between leadership quality and performance,
teams were divided into three groups: high, moderate, and low performers. One-way
analyses of variance were conducted, followed post hoc by Tukey’s HSB test
(Table II).
Statistically significant effects were detected only in the case of “Engaging with
Others” (p ¼ 0:014). The source of these effects were significantly higher ratings of
leadership quality by the staff in the high performing teams, compared with the
moderate and low performing teams (p ¼ 0:037 and 0.02, respectively).

Discussion
Leadership quality
Since at least six of these items (motivation; motivation to achieve beyond own
expectations; job commitment, organisational commitment; job satisfaction; reduced
stress) has been shown to be predicted by effective leadership behaviour (e.g.
Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000a,b; Bass, 1998; Borrill et al., 2005a,b; Parker

Engaging with Shared Leadership

Leadership scale/impact measure others vision capabilities

Attitudes to work
A high level of job satisfaction 0.56 – 0.17
A high level of motivation to achieve 0.41 0.18 0.18
Staff who are motivated to achieve beyond their
expectations 0.46 – 0.21
A strong sense of job commitment 0.65 – –
A strong sense of commitment to the organisation 0.65 – –
Wellbeing at work
A high sense of fulfilment among staff 0.48 0.28 –
A high level of self-esteem among staff 0.46 0.23 –
A high level of self-confidence 0.61 – 0.12
A low level of job-related stress 0.22 0.24 – Table I.
A low level of job-related emotional exhaustion 0.34 0.14 – Multiple regression of
A strong sense of team spirit 0.70 – – leadership scales against
A strong sense of team effectiveness 0.26 0.18 0.33 staff attitudes to work
and wellbeing at work,
Notes: (n ¼ 731); (beta coefficients); (p # 0:05) for whole sample
JHOM et al., 2003; Patterson et al., 2004), these results provide evidence of the concurrent
22,6 validity of the LCCIe among this population.

Attitudes to work and wellbeing at work

The results here suggest that both of the “leadership culture” scales and the
592 “leadership capability” scale were significantly correlated with each of the dependent
variables (impact measures). The stepwise multiple regression analyses, however,
resulted in the emergence of differential patterns of relationships. As shown in Table I,
“Engaging with others”, was significantly related to each of the five attitudes to work
items and each of the seven facets of wellbeing at work items, while “Shared vision”
was significantly related to two facets of Attitudes to Work (“A high level of
motivation to achieve” and “A strong sense of team effectiveness”), and to four aspects
of wellbeing at work (“A high sense of fulfilment among staff” and “A high level of self
esteem among staff”) and (“A low level of job-related stress” and “A low level of
job-related emotional exhaustion”).
Three facets of attitudes to work: – “A high level of job satisfaction”, “A high level
of motivation to achieve”, “Staff who are motivated to achieve beyond their
expectations”, and “Staff who are motivated to achieve beyond their expectations”,
were significantly related to “leadership capability”, as was one aspect of wellbeing at
work, “A high level of self-confidence”.
Within this context, what is perhaps most instructive is to note where significant
relationships are absent. Thus, among the facets of attitudes to work, neither “shared
vision” not “leadership capability” is significant predictor of either “commitment to the
job” or “commitment to the organization”; indeed here, “shared vision” is only a
significant predictor of “motivation to achieve”. Conversely, with regard to wellbeing
at work, “shared vision” emerged as a significant predictor of five of the seven facets,
the only non-significant links being with “self confidence” and “sense of team spirit”.
On the other hand, “leadership capability” emerged only as a significant predictor of
“self confidence” and “sense of team effectiveness”. In summary, “engaging with
others” was a significant predictor of all 12 facets, “shared vision” of six out of the 12,

Mean N of Difference
Ratio (assessments/referrals) Group score SD ratings (Tukey’s HSB test)

Scale 1: High vs Moderate

Engaging with others High 4.77 0.80 157 p ¼ 0:037
Moderate 4.75 0.69 145
High vs Low
Table II. F2; 418 ¼ 4:29, p ¼ 0:014 Low 4.51 0.86 119 p ¼ 0:020
Means and standard Scale 2:
deviation of leadership Shared vision High 4.54 0.84 157 n/a
scores in relation to the Moderate 4.48 0.79 145
ratio of assessments to F2; 418 ¼ 0:86, ns Low 4.41 0.84 119
referrals for admission to Scale 3:
in-patient care for high, Leadership capabilities High 4.75 0.73 157 n/a
moderate and low Moderate 4.66 0.68 145
performing teams F2; 419 ¼ 2:80, ns Low 4.54 0.78 120
and “leadership capability” five out of the 12. Also, there was little overlap in the The impact of
relationships involving “shared vision” and “leadership capability”. engaging
The significant relationships with “engaging with others” are readily interpretable;
where staff perceive the leadership as engaging with them by involving them in leadership
developing a shared vision, being loyal to them, supporting them through coaching
and mentoring, by involving them in determining how to achieve the vision, positive
attitudes to work and a sense of wellbeing at work are to be expected. Sadly, as the 593
findings of Bass, Collins, Tosi et al., and others testify, such behaviour is not always
commonplace, and is, in some cases, rare.
The relationships involving “job satisfaction”, “motivation to achieve” and
“motivation to achieve beyond expectations” are worthy of comment. Here, it would
seem that these attitudes to work are affected optimally by a combination of concern
for how staff are treated and leadership capabilities that include enabling staff to make
sense of information as to identify patterns and trends, to work within agreed
performance parameters, and to use well thought out systems and procedures. Having
clear systems, processes and guidelines enable staff to make predictions with a
measure of confidence; a culture of engaging with staff engenders the antithesis of a
“blame culture”, and creates one of adaptability, experimentation, learning and
innovation.
Many aspects of wellbeing at work are associated not just with a sense of
“engagement”, but also leadership that is, for example, an inspiration to external
stakeholders, and a culture in which staff are themselves encouraged to think
strategically. Thus, “shared vision” is a significant predictor of “fulfilment” and “self
esteem”, “reduced stress” and “reduced emotional exhaustion”, and a “sense of team
effectiveness”. Interestingly, a reduction in “job-related stress” does not emerge as
being as strongly linked to “engaging with others”, as one might expect. Rather, it
tends to be reduced when the culture also incorporates a sense of vision.
Overall, results are consistent with the hypothesis 1, that “leadership culture” and
“leadership capability” must both be taken into consideration if the effect of leadership
on staff is fully to be explained and understood. However, by far and away the greatest
single influence are behaviours involved in “engaging with others”.

Meeting performance indicators

The results presented here provide, for the first time, evidence of a direct predictive
link between certain kinds of leadership behaviour and the successful achievement of
an externally imposed performance indicator. In this case, the performance indicator
was a Department of Health target of reducing bed occupancy by services users in the
area of mental health.
The evidence is that leadership quality is a significant predictor of goal achievement
and that this quality is one of “engaging” leadership. This is consonant with what the
Sirota Intelligence Survey (2006) and Tosi et al. (2004) reported, and with the Towers
Perrin (2005) definition of the product of engaging leadership.

The leadership competencies debate

It is also important to note that leadership competencies (or “capabilities”) did not
predict organisational performance. This has serious implications for the NHS and
other organisations that believe that leadership can be represented purely by
JHOM competencies. Indeed, there is increasing criticism in the literature of the simplicity and
22,6 naivety of assuming that by being competent in a rage of leadership activities is
sufficient for harnessing the collective efforts of individuals (Alimo-Metcalfe and
Alban-Metcalfe, 2008a; Bolden and Gosling, 2006), and the US (Hollenbeck et al., 2006).
Bolden and Gosling cite various researchers who have pointed out that:
.
the competency approach has been criticised for being overly reductionist,
594 fragmenting the role of the manager (or leader), rather than presenting an
integrated whole;
.
competencies are frequently overly universalistic or generic, assuming that they
are the same, no matter what the nature of the situation, individual or task;
.
competencies focus on past or current performance, rather than future
requirements, thereby reinforcing rather than challenging traditional ways of
thinking;
. competencies tend to focus on measurable behaviours and outcomes to the
exclusion of more subtle qualities, interactions and situational factors.

They go on to comment that, “This expansion of the concept of competencies raises

further concerns because of its tendency to disguise and embed rather than expose and
challenge certain assumptions about the nature and work of leadership.”
From a US perspective, Hollenbeck and colleagues (Hollenbeck et al., 2006) criticised
what they saw as the flawed assumptions upon which the competency approach is
based. Thus they commented, that, “as a descendent of the long-discredited ‘great man’
theory, competency models raise again the spectre of one set of traits, abilities, and
behaviours . . . that make up the ‘great leader’”; that effective leaders are not the sum of
a set of competencies, and that the research demonstrates that “what matters is not a
person’s sum score on a set of competencies, but how well [or as we would put it, in
what way ] a person uses what talents he or she has to get the job done”. Hollenbeck and
colleagues concluded that, “. . . we see little evidence that these systems, in place for
years now, are producing more and better leaders in organizations”. Indeed, most
competency frameworks are singularly characterised by a lack of empirical evidence of
their concurrent or predictive validity.
In addition, it can be argued that the competency approach “. . . reinforces a focus on
the individual ‘leader’, while restricting consideration of ‘leadership’ as a distributed
relational process” (e.g. Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2008a; Bolden and
Gosling, 2006; Jackson, 2004).
Given that the teams studied were similar to many others teams working in the
public and private sectors in that:
.
they are multi-professional in composition;
.
they operate 24/7, 365 days a year; and
.
they often work in conditions where “crises” are commonplace events; and
.
the environment is one of dealing with complex change, the findings are likely to
be generalisable to other groups of workers in both of these sectors.

Equally, whereas it has been suggested that good leadership should be linked to
organisational performance, what the present study shows is the need to specify which
kinds of leadership behaviour are effective, and to recognise that some kinds of The impact of
leadership behaviour may not be effective, or may indeed be counter-productive. engaging
leadership

Conclusion
Despite record investment in the National Health Service by the UK Government over 595
the last decade or so, its performance is regarded as disappointing (Wanless, 2002).
This means that there is little doubt that it will remain the focus of increased scrutiny
by politicians. Judging by their earlier behaviour, they will attempt to maintain control
via the use of targets, audits and reviews, despite the fact that such a regime has led to
a reduced sense of self-efficacy and self-confidence in their leadership capacity by NHS
chief executives (Blackler, 2006) – the very people needed to create the appropriate
culture that will support increased organisational effectiveness. If this were not enough
pressure on leaders and staff in the NHS, it should also be noted that the levels of stress
of staff in the NHS have been found to be at a worryingly high level, such that a
longitudinal study of around 11,000 staff across all occupational groups, concluded
that “probably about 27 per cent of staff in the NHS are minor psychiatric cases” (Wall
et al., 1997), with managers obtaining the highest levels.
Thus, a major challenge for the NHS, as with any organisation – public, private, or
third sector – is “How can we increase individual’s performance, while maintaining
their wellbeing, and motivation?” This was the question examined in this longitudinal
study. The findings suggest that creating a culture of engaging leadership is critical,
since it not only predicts the performance of teams, it also predicts a range of positive
affective outcomes, including high levels of motivation, job satisfaction, job and
organisational commitment, as well as wellbeing indicators, including high levels of
fulfilment, self-esteem, self-confidence, and reduced levels of stress and emotional
exhaustion.
There are serious implications from these findings for politicians and policy makers,
not least of which is to stay away from interfering with how those responsible for
leading NHS organisations, and teams at all levels, should achieve their objectives.
The lesson for formally designated leaders, whatever their level in the organisation,
is to enact their role in a way that increase engagement. An engaging leader may be
defined as someone who encourages and enables the development of an organisation
that is characterised by a culture based on integrity, openness and transparency, and
the genuine valuing of others and of their contributions.
This shows itself in concern for the development and wellbeing of others, in the
ability to unite different groups of stakeholders in articulating a shared vision, and in
delegation of a kind that empowers and develops potential, coupled with the
encouragement of questioning and of thinking which is critical as well as strategic
(Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2008).
Engaging leadership enables organisations not only to cope with change, but also to
be proactive in shaping their future. It is at all times guided by ethical principles and
the desire to co-create and co-own ways of working with others towards a shared
vision.
JHOM References
22,6 Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000a), “The convergent and discriminant validity
of the transformational leadership questionnaire”, International Journal of Selection &
Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 158-75.
Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000b), “The Transformational Leadership
Questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant validation study”, Leadership &
596 Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 280-96.
Alban-Metcalfe, J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2003), “Leadership culture and change inventory – an
organisational 360 feedback instrument”, Selection & Development Review, Vol. 19,
pp. 7-10.
Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2007), “The development of a private sectors version
of the (engaging) transformational leadership questionnaire”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 280-96.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2001), “The construction of a new transformational
leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79,
pp. 1-27.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2005), “Leadership: time for a new direction?”,
Leadership, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-71.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2006), “More (good) leaders in the public sector”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 293-315.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2008), “Engaging leadership: creating organisations
that maximise the potential of their people”, Research Insight Report, CIPD, London.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M. and Peterson, M.F. (Eds) (2000), Handbook of Organizational
Culture & Climate, Sage, London.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership and organizational culture”,
Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 112-21.
Blackler, F. (2006), “Chief executives and the modernization of the English National Health
Service”, Leadership, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-30.
Bolden, R. and Gosling, J. (2006), “Leadership competencies: time to change the tune?”,
Leadership, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 147-63.
Borrill, C., West, M.A. and Dawson, J.F. (2005a), The Relationship between Leadership, People
Management, Staff Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave, Aston University, Aston.
Borrill, C., West, M.A. and Dawson, J.F. (2005b), The Relationship between Leadership and Trust
Performance, Aston University, Aston.
Collins, J. (2002), Good to Great, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Corrigan, P., Lickey, S., Campion, J. and Rashid, F. (2000), “Mental health team leadership and
consumers’ satisfaction and quality of life”, Psychiatric Services, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 781-5.
Denison, D.R. (1996), Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, NY.
DH (2000), NHS Plan, Department of Health, London.
Dobby, J., Anscombe, J. and Tuffin, R. (2004), Police Leadership: Expectations and Impact, Online The impact of
Report 20/04, Home Office, London.
engaging
Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W. Jr and Silzer, R.F. (2006), “Leadership competency models”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 398-413. leadership
House, R.J. (1977), “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds),
Leadership. The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.
Jackson, D. (2004), “Distributed leadership: spaces between the pebbles in a jar”, National College 597
for School Leadership paper.
James, A.L. and Jones, L.R. (1989), “Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into
the measurement of meaning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 739-51.
Jones, A.P. and James, L.R. (1979), “Psychological climate: dimensions and relationships of
individual and aggregated work environment perceptions”, Organizational Behavior &
Human Performance, Vol. 23, pp. 201-50.
Kelly, A., Johnson, P. and Gill, R. (2006), “Time for a change: a UK model of transformational
leadership”, paper presented to the British Academy of Management Conference, Belfast.
Kotter, J.P. and Hesketh, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press, New York,
NY.
Mintzberg, H. (1999), “Managing quietly”, Leader to Leader, Vol. 12, Spring, pp. 24-30.
Parker, C.P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S.A., Huff, J.W., Altman, R.A., Lacost, H.A. and Roberts, J.E.
(2003), “Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a
meta analytic review”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 389-416.
Parry, K.W. (1998), “Grounded theory and social processes: a new direction for leadership
research”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 85-105.
Patterson, M., Warr, P. and West, M. (2004), “Organizational climate and company productivity:
the role of employee affect and employee level”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 193-216.
Sashkin, M. (1988), “The visionary leader”, in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds), Charismatic
Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 122-60.
Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Sirota Survey Intelligence (2006), “High morale again pays off in stock market gains”, Purchase,
NY, available at: www.sirota.com
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Towers Perrin (2005), Reconnecting with Employees: Quantifying the Value of Engaging Your
Workforce, Towers Perrin, London.
Tosi, H.L., Misangyi, V.F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D.A. and Yammarino, F.J. (2004), “CEO
charisma, compensation, and firm performance”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 405-20.
Wall, T.D., Bolden, R.I., Borrill, C.S., Carter, A.J., Golya, D.A., Hardy, G.E., Haynes, C.E., Rick, J.E.,
Shapiro, D.A. and West, M.A. (1997), “Minor psychiatric disorder in NHS trust staff:
occupational and gender differences”, The British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 171,
December, pp. 519-23.
Wanless, D. (2002), Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View, HM Treasury,
London.
JHOM Watson Wyatt (2006), “Effective communication: a leading indicator of financial performance –
2005/2006 Communication ROI Studye”, research report, Watson Wyatt World Wide,
22,6 available at: www.watsonwyatt.com/research/reports.asp
Xenikou, A. and Simosi, M. (2006), “Organisational culture and transformational leadership as
predictors of business unit performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 566-79.
598
Further reading
Gordon, G.G. and DiTomaso, N. (1992), “Predicting organizational performance from
organizational culture”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 783-98.
Northouse, P. (2004), Leadership, 3rd ed., Sage, London.

Corresponding author
John Alban-Metcalfe can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints