Journal of Change Management

Vol. 6, No. 4, 383 –396, December 2006

Leadership Styles, Change Context and

Leader Performance in the Royal Navy

M. YOUNG & V. DULEWICZ

 
Royal Navy, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, UK

ABSTRACT This paper presents the findings from a major study (Young, 2005a, Command,
Leadership and Management Competencies predicting Superior Performance in the Royal Navy.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: Henley Management College) into the competencies predicting
superior performance in the Royal Navy (RN) and focuses on measures of leadership style and
degree of change faced by the organization, as identified by the Leadership Dimensions
Questionnaire (LDQ). The LDQ Model proposes that one of three leadership styles is appropriate
for a specific degree of change faced within an organization. The results (from a sample of 261
Officers and Ratings) showed those individuals whose leadership styles were highly fitted,
according to the Dulewicz and Higgs (2003, ‘Design of a new instrument to assess Leadership
Dimensions and Styles’ Henley Working Paper Series HWP 0311) model, to the organizational
context of change were rated significantly higher performers than those clearly not fitted. There
was a significant preference for goal-oriented leadership among Officers and the LDQ measure of
self-rated performance showed that those individuals with more accurate self-awareness of their
own performance were also more likely to adopt a more suitable leadership style for the given
organizational context of change.

KEY WORDS : Leadership styles, performance, context, change, naval leadership

Introduction
According to Boyatzis (1982, p. 1), ‘a model of management is an answer to the
question: What kind of a person will be effective in our organization in specific
management jobs?’ The first phase of this study (Young and Dulewicz, 2005)
found that across the chain of command, regardless of rank, superior performers
reported competencies which allow them to conceptualize, align, interact and
create success, thus giving them the necessary (Boyatzis, p. 192) characteristics

Correspondence Address: Professor V. Dulewicz, Henley Management College, Greenlands, Henley-on-Thames

RG9 3AU, UK. Email: [email protected]

1469-7017 Print=1479-1811 Online=06=040383–14 # 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080=14697010601081860
384 M. Young & V. Dulewicz
to command, lead and manage effectively. These findings are already being used
to help understand and ‘make sense’ (Weick, 1995) of the constructs of command,
leadership and management within the Royal Navy. However, ‘aspects of organ-
izational values and culture are important factors in either facilitating or hindering
a leader’s impact. These have rarely been examined in the academic leadership
research, but it is likely that certain styles of leadership are particularly appropriate
in certain kinds of culture’ (Bartram, 2002, p. 11), resulting in high performance
and follower commitment. Similarly, the degree of change that individuals face
is likely to impact on the suitability of certain leadership styles (Dulewicz and
Higgs, 2003).
This study uses the leadership dimensions questionnaire (LDQ) measures of
self-rated performance, leadership style and organizational change context in an
attempt to better understand the effect of the associated factors on the exercise
of effective leadership and management in the Royal Navy.

Leadership Styles
A review of the leadership literature establishes that effective leadership behaviour
will vary with circumstance (e.g. Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958; Fiedler, 1965;
1967; House, 1971; Reddin, 1970; Hersey and Blanchard, 1982). Within this
paradigm, recent authors have moved on from focusing on the leader/follower
variables to examining the efficacy of different leadership behaviours in different
contexts of change (e.g. Senge, 1999; Jaworski, 2001; Higgs and Rowland, 2003).
Whilst a diverse range of behaviours is described within this literature, according
to Dulewicz and Higgs (2005), it is feasible to group them into three broad
categories:

Goal-oriented
A set of behaviours in which the leader sets direction and behaves in a way in
which he/she plays a significant role in directing others to achieve the key
goals required to attain the performance required. This is not to suggest an author-
itarian approach but rather behaviours that are strongly leader-centric.

Involving
A somewhat less leader-centric set of behaviours. In this style, the leader’s focus
remains on providing a strong sense of direction. However, there is more signifi-
cant focus on involving others in both setting direction and, largely, in determining
how goals will be achieved.

Engaging
Leader behaviours for this style are focused on facilitating others in achieving both
the nature of the direction and the means of achieving the necessary goals. The
leader is more concerned with developing the capability of others to achieve
than with the close direction of the enterprise.
Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) conducted some preliminary analyses of these styles
which showed all three were fairly well represented within their sample of
 Leadership, Change Context and Performance 385
managers. Furthermore, this breakdown did not vary according to the gender,
sector (public/private), function or nationality of the manager. Further analyses
looked at the personality characteristics (from the 16PF personality questionnaire)
of those well fitted to each style. All three styles had a number of extravert person-
ality factors in common, as well as being tough and forthright. Turning to style-
specific characteristics, those with an Engaging style tend to be emotionally
well-adjusted extraverts while those who are ‘goal-oriented’ are more likely to
be conscientious (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005). The profile for each style, based
upon the range (high, medium or low) of scores obtained on the 15 LDQ
dimensions, is reproduced in Table 1.
Earlier findings from this study (Young and Dulewicz, 2003) showed that over
one-half of the variance (adjusted R square ¼ 0.64) in officers’ performance could
be predicted by one characteristic, that of professional effectiveness. The main
behavioural indicator of Professional Effectiveness is that the individual ‘carries
out the full range of tasks effectively’ (JSP 505, para 4.13). This focus on
output (task achievement) rather than process (leadership and/or management)
could favour the adoption of a goal-oriented approach amongst officers as in
this style ‘the leader sets direction and behaves in a way in which he/she plays
a significant role in directing others to achieve the key goals’ (Dulewicz and
Higgs, 2005, p. 107). This suggestion is given further support from the finding
that officers demonstrate a significant preference for controlling and influencing
(see Young and Dulewicz, 2003) and led to the hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Officers will demonstrate a significant preference for goal-oriented

leadership style when compared with other ranks.

Table 1. Goal oriented, engaging and involving styles of leadership from LDQ dimensions.

LDQ dimension Low Medium High

Critical analysis and judgement EI G

Vision and imagination E GI
Strategic perspective EI G
Engaging communication GI E
Managing resources E I G
Empowering G I E
Developing GI E
Achieving EI G
Self-awareness G EI
Emotional resilience GEI
Motivation GEI
Interpersonal sensitivity GI E
Influence G EI
Intuitiveness GI E
Conscientiousness GEI

G, Goal Oriented; E, Engaging; I, Involving.

Source: Dulewicz and Higgs (2003; 2005).
386 M. Young & V. Dulewicz
Organizational Context
Since Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) first described ‘How to Choose a Leadership
Pattern’, the importance of the situation or context has been central to leadership
style theory. The LDQ has an embedded context scale that provides a measure of
change faced by the organization. Factor analysis identified that the scale reflects
five separate components (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005):

1. a general fundamental need to change;

2. fundamental change of the organization/business;
3. the need for followers to change;
4. specific pressures from the business environment; and
5. an unstable context.

The components of the organizational context scale capture the impact of

change in the wider environment as well as in the organization’s culture
(Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1985; Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv and Saunders, 1990)
and climate (Litwin and Stringer, 1968; Taguri and Litwin, 1968). The total
score ranges from 21 to 105, within which three broad categories reflect different
contexts (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003; 2005):

Relatively stable 21– 58

Significant change 59– 73
Transformational 74– 105

Successfully implementing change is often seen as the defining action of a

leader (see for example, Kotter, 1990; White, Hodgson and Crainer, 1996;
Higgs and Rowland, 2001). Within this paradigm, the leader-centric behaviours
of the goal-oriented style have been shown to be ‘not related to successful
change but also they impaired change implementation’ (Higgs and Rowland,
2003, p. 2). In contrast, ‘as complexity of the context increased, a more facilitative
style of leadership became necessary for success’ (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005).
The following hypothesis was framed to test the LDQ style/context model:

Hypothesis 2: A statistically significant negative relationship will exist between:

(a) Degree of fit with an empowering leadership style and performance in a trans-
formational context;
(b) Degree of fit with an involving leadership style and performance in a changing
context; and
(c) Degree of fit with a goal-oriented leadership style and performance in a stable
context.

Negative relationships are expected as closeness of fit to the appropriate style

will result in a lower score and this is expected to be related to higher levels of
performance in that context of change.
 Leadership, Change Context and Performance 387
Self-rated Leader Performance
‘Self-ratings from well designed personality questionnaires can produce data that
are related to boss’s ratings of actual job performance’ (Dulewicz, 1992, p. 4).
However, not all individuals will make an accurate self-assessment but this in
itself is of interest as ‘discrepancies between self-evaluations and others’ evalu-
ations allow for rare insights into one’s interpersonal world’ (Brutus, Fleenor
and Tisak, 1999, p. 319). Research into self-other agreement, as an operationaliza-
tion of self-awareness, have found it to be related to leadership performance
(Atwater and Yammarino, 1992) and managerial performance (Atwater et al.,
1998; Brutus et al., 1999).
The LDQ contains a self-assessment of leadership performance containing six
items covering; followers’ effort, capability and flexibility and overall team per-
formance and impact. Using this measure, earlier findings from this study
(Young and Dulewicz, forthcoming, 2007) showed that individuals who most
accurately assessed their own performance were not only more effective perfor-
mers, but also were more emotionally self-aware. However, would this self-aware-
ness also make those individuals more situationally aware leaders through the
adoption of an appropriate style for their individual context of change? Examining
this required the use of a ‘goodness of fit’ difference score shown in Table 2.
Using a simple difference measure based on the Dulewicz and Higgs (2003)
model; the goal with stable, involving with significant change and engaging
with transformational change combinations, were assessed as a perfect fit and
scored zero. The most extreme misfits (goal with transformational and engaging
with stable) scored two with the remaining mis-matches scoring one. The resulting
style/context fit ‘d’ measures, based on the individual’s perception of change, can
then be compared with performance and leadership. This allowed the framing of a
third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: A statistically significant positive relationship exists between a

measure of self and other agreement and the appropriateness of
an individual’s leadership style for their context of change.

It should be noted that the positive relationship is expected as higher self aware-
ness will result in lower scores on the self-other agreement difference measure and
this, in turn, is expected to be related to more appropriate leadership styles indi-
cated by a lower degree of fit score.

Table 2. Leadership style and organizational change goodness of fit matrix

Leadership style Organizational context

Relatively stable Significant change Transformational

Goal-oriented 0 1 2
Involving 1 0 1
Engaging 2 1 0
388 M. Young & V. Dulewicz
Method
The study, (full details of the instruments and procedure can be found in Young
and Dulewicz, 2005) used two psychometric questionnaires (OPQ and LDQ) to
improve understanding of the complex interplay between personal factors and
behavioural characteristics (competencies) relevant across the different levels of
management (competence) that comprise the chain of command (core compe-
tence) in the Royal Navy. The original study adopted a ‘multimethod’ approach
drawing on both competency and competence methodology (Young, 2005b) to
gather data, as shown in Figure 1.

Sample
The study was conducted in the Maritime Warfare School (MWS), the RN’s
largest unit in terms of manpower, most of who either arrive from, or depart to
an operational job or administrative HQ. When compared with the official
figures for the entire RN, the sample is highly representative (see, Young and
Dulewicz, 2003). Moreover, as all participants are reported on through the same
chain of command and because the Navy’s appraisal system requires reports for
each Officer or Rating to have been moderated by up to three different expert
panels, the choice of this sample increased the reliability of the performance cri-
teria. Accordingly, the total population of RN ‘managers’, from first line super-
visory to executive board, within the MWS (280 personnel) were surveyed in
this study. The respondent sample comprised 271 officers and ratings, producing
a response-rate of 97% (see, Young and Dulewicz, 2003, table 4, for details).

Measures
The Occupational Personality Questionnaire
OPQ was developed in the UK for use specifically in occupational contexts (SHL,
1999). The central aim in the development of the OPQ was to provide an

Figure 1. Data gathering methods

 Leadership, Change Context and Performance 389
instrument that would give a comprehensive, detailed description on up to 32
factors of personality. Details of the instruments and procedure used are reported
by Young and Dulewicz (2003).

The Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire

LDQ was designed by Dulewicz and Higgs (2003). The authors identified eight
intellectual and managerial leadership dimensions related to add to the seven
existing emotional intelligence elements. Based on these 15 ‘IQ, MQ and EQ’
elements, the LDQ provides a mechanism through which the respondent can deter-
mine their dominant leadership style from within ‘engaging’, ‘goal’ or ‘involving’.
Dulewicz and Higgs (2003; 2005) provide full definitions of all the LDQ dimen-
sions while the titles appear in Table 1 above.

Job Performance Measures

The current ratings and other ranks report (RORRS) and the officer’s joint apprai-
sal report (OJAR) provide ratings of overall current performance and potential. In
addition, 10 specific officer characteristics and nine rating characteristics (compe-
tencies) are appraised. The scale guides and definitions for both ratings and offi-
cers are presented by Young and Dulewicz (2003). The RN’s appraisal process
can be traced back to 1755 and the current system conforms to Zigon’s (1994)
guidelines for performance appraisal best practice. Furthermore, the criteria per-
formance data comprised ‘live’ appraisal assessments and so they reflected the
organization’s values, norms and standards

Difference Score
To assess the fit of leadership style and the degree of self other agreement, it was
necessary to calculate difference scores (d scores). Wohlers and London (1989)
popularised the use of difference scores as a measure of self-awareness (see,
Atwater and Yammarino, 1992; Brutus et al., 1999). Their method involves
taking ‘the self-rating for each managerial characteristic subtracted from the
average co-worker rating for the characteristic. The difference scores are then
averaged across characteristics to obtain a single difference score for each
manager rated’ (Wohlers and London, 1989, p. 236). Dulewicz and Higgs
(2003) used the Wohlers and London (1989) technique to establish difference
scores and so this technique was used in the present study.

Style Fit
In the original Dulewicz & Higgs (2003) study, dimension scores were calculated,
based on the percentage of the maximum possible raw score (50) with three ranges
chosen to denote high (.79%), medium (61– 79%) and low (,61%) scores. Sub-
sequent analysis and review of the original study methodology, by the second
author, suggested values based a more straightforward method. Accordingly, in
this study the ranges were based on mid-point sten (standardised ten-point)
scores, with high (7.5), medium (5.5) and low (2.5).
390 M. Young & V. Dulewicz
Table 3. Descriptive statistics – frequency of leadership styles
n under each style based on lowest ‘d’ z score
Style Frequency Per cent Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) per cent
Goal 103 39.5 32
Involving 69 26.4 28
Engaging 89 34.1 40
Total 261 100
n under each style based on lowest ‘d’ z scores , 0
Style Frequency Per cent Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) per cent
Goal 64 39.5 31
Involving 46 28.4 28
Engaging 52 32.1 41
Total 162 100
n under each style based on lowest ‘d’ z scores , 2 1.0
Style Frequency Per cent Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) per cent
Goal 21 33.3 36
Involving 21 33.3 28
Engaging 21 33.3 36
Total 78 100

Results
Frequency of Leadership Styles
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics for the frequency of leadership styles in the
current study based upon standardized difference (d) scores. Establishing the
‘current appropriate style’ purely on the basis of an individual’s lowest d score
could mean, in some instances, (all high d scores) that it is a very loose fit (no dis-
tinct style). For this reason the d scores were standardised so that the descriptive
statistics could also be presented based on lowest d score below 0 (i.e. within the
best fitting 50%) and below – 1.0 (i.e. within the best fitting 16%).
Considering the difference in samples between Dulewicz and Higgs’s execu-
tives on developmental programmes combined with other public and private
sector executives and this study’s broad spectrum of military ‘leaders’ from super-
visory management level up, some difference in frequency of styles was expected.
However, there were no significant differences in frequency of styles across the
three levels of ‘goodness of fit’ (chi-square ¼ 3.73, df ¼ 8, not significant).

Table 4. Officers versus ratings t– test for style preference (z scores)

t– test for equality of means

Z difference score Rank n Mean Std dev t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Goal-oriented Officers 103 20.17 0.97 22.216 259 0.03

Ratings 158 0.11 1.01
Involving Officers 103 20.13 0.97 21.66 259 0.10
Ratings 158 0.08 1.01
Engaging Officers 103 20.13 0.96 21.66 259 0.10
Ratings 158 0.08 1.02
 Leadership, Change Context and Performance 391
Style Preference in Officers
Hypothesis 1 proposed that officers would demonstrate a significant preference for
goal-oriented leadership style when compared with other ranks. The results of an
independent samples t-test shown in Table 4 support this hypothesis. The negative
mean for officers reflects the fact that their difference scores were lower (signifi-
cantly so for the goal-oriented style), indicating a better fit. The possibility that this
differing style preference is a result of different perceptions of the change context
was ruled out by a t-test, which showed no significant difference in context
between Officers and Ratings (t ¼ – 0.789, df ¼ 254, not significant).

Leadership Style – Context Match

Based on data from all the respondents, the Maritime Warfare School was reported
as facing ‘significant change’ (mean: 63.0; SD: 11.7) which suggests that an Invol-
ving style of leadership would be most appropriate. This allowed the testing of the
sub Hypothesis 1b that a statistically significant negative relationship would exist
between degree of fit with an Involving leadership style and performance in a
changing context. The degree of fit to the Involving style did produce significant
correlations with performance as Table 5 shows, but this was also found for the
other two styles. This is probably a statistical phenomenon resulting from the
nature of the LDQ dimensions and the style profiles, which will be discussed later.
An independent samples t-test (shown in Table 6) confirmed that the involving
leadership style did not produce significantly higher performance in the change
context of the Maritime Warfare School as the Dulewicz and Higgs (2003)
model predicted. Nevertheless, closer examination of Table 6 reveals the mean
performance and leadership of those with Involving as a most appropriate style
was slightly higher than those with goal or engaging styles, although this is not
significant across the whole sample.
As the data were gathered on a department-by-department basis it was possible
to further analyse the organizational context at the department level. Reflective of
the overall context five out of the six departments returned mean scores placing
them in the ‘significant change’ category. However, one group (CLM training)
did produce responses reflecting a ‘stable’ context (mean: 55.3, SD: 11.4). This

Table 5. Correlations between leadership styles and assessment of overall performance and
leadership
Z difference score
Z score: Goal-oriented Involving Engaging

Overall performance r – 0.17 20.19 20.20

Leadership r – 0.13 20.14 20.15
n 252– 256

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
392 M. Young & V. Dulewicz
Table 6. Involving versus goal and engaging styles in a context of significant change: t – test for per-
formance and leadership.

t-test for equality of means

Z score Style n Mean Std dev t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Overall Involving 57 0.03 1.14 0.30 250 0.77

Performance Goal and engaging 195 20.01 0.95
Leadership Involving 68 0.00 1.01 0.45 254 0.96
Goal and engaging 188 20.01 0.97

group was filtered out of the following t-tests as for them, according to the
Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) model, involving would not be the most appropriate
style. In addition, rather than simply comparing ‘most appropriate’ style with
performance, the degree of fit with involving style was analysed based on a compari-
son of those displaying best and worst fit (at or around the top and bottom 33%).
As Table 7 shows, those with a ‘better fit’ to the involving style performed stat-
istically significantly better than those with a ‘poor fit’. However, Table 6 drew
attention to a phenomenon linking goodness of fit to any of the styles with per-
formance. Accordingly, the best fit/worst fit t-test was also conducted on goal-
oriented and engaging styles.
Table 8 shows that whilst those individuals with a best fit to either goal-oriented
or engaging styles of leadership had higher mean performance and leadership
scores than those with the worst fit, unlike with involving style, the difference
was not significant. This provides qualified support for the Dulewicz and Higgs
(2003) model in that a highly involving style results in significantly higher per-
formance than a non-involving style in a context of significant change.

Self Rated versus Actual Performance

As discussed earlier Young and Dulewicz (forthcoming, 2007) have previously
shown that, within this population, self-evaluation of own performance was sig-
nificantly correlated with appraised (actual) performance. In addition, those indi-
viduals who most accurately assessed their own performance were not only more
effective performers but also more emotionally self-aware. Examining whether

Table 7. t-test of the best and worst fit to the involving style against performance and leadership
(excluding the CLM training department)
Group statistics t– test for equality of means
Style n Mean Std dev t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Appraised performance (Z)

Overall performance Best fitting 65 0.16 0.80 2.2 140 0.03
Worst fitting 77 20.17 1.0
Leadership Best fitting 65 0.03 0.95 21.8 131 0.07
Worst fitting 68 20.26 1.1

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
 Leadership, Change Context and Performance 393
Table 8. t-Test of the best and worst fit to the goal– oriented and engaging styles against performance
and leadership excluding the CLM training department

Group statistics t– test for equality of means

Style-fit n Mean Std dev t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Appraised Goal-oriented style

performance (Z)
Overall performance Best fitting 69 20.02 0.83 1.8 131 0.08
Worst fitting 64 20.30 1.02
Leadership Best fitting 70 0 0.97 1.9 133 0.06
Worst fitting 65 20.33 1.09
Engaging style
Overall performance Best fitting 68 20.01 0.94 1.7 133 0.09
Worst fitting 67 20.30 1.04
Leadership Best fitting 70 0.01 0.97 21.26 133 0.21
Worst fitting 65 20.33 1.09

this self awareness would result in more situationally aware leadership style was
achieved by correlating the self/actual performance difference score with the lea-
dership style/organizational change context ‘goodness of fit’ score, as shown in
Table 2 above. The results showed that those best able to judge their own perform-
ance also demonstrated the most appropriate leadership styles for their individual
context of change. The correlation (r ¼ 0.18) between the two variables was
highly significant (1% level; n ¼ 256)

Discussion
Leadership Style
Goal-oriented leadership was the most frequently reported style of leaders in this
study and was significantly more prevalent within the Officer Corps. This finding is
reflective of Fiedler’s (1965; 1967) ‘leader-match’. The ‘managing, task-control-
ling’ nature of those who describe their least preferred co-worker in unfavourable
terms (Fiedler, 1965, p. 116) is most similar to the ‘strongly leader centric’
(Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005) behaviours of the goal-oriented style. Fiedler found
that ‘in very favourable or in very unfavourable situations for getting a task accom-
plished by group effort, the autocratic, task controlling, managing leadership works
best’ (Fiedler, 1965, p. 119). This approach was also most effective in the military,
assuming the leader is accepted, and a finding that this study confirms.
Applying the Dulewicz and Higgs model (2003; 2005) in terms of style-context
match, the mean context score of ‘significant change’ for the entire MWS organ-
ization would favour an Involving style of leadership. The fact that goal-oriented
was the most frequent style overall suggests that the main driver for these style
preferences is not the change context. Fiedler observes that ‘we neither expect
nor want the trusted airline pilot to turn to his crew and ask, “What do you
think we ought to check before take-off?”’ (Fiedler, 1965, p. 119). Similarly,
the style preferences reported in this study may well be the result of cultural expec-
tation and influence rather than the change context. Bass (1990, p. 361) notes that
394 M. Young & V. Dulewicz
‘groups operate more successfully when the task, the leader’s personality and the
follower’s personality are compatible. For example, groups with task-oriented
leaders perform better than do those with person-oriented leaders when followers
are also task oriented’. The military in general and the Royal Navy in particular,
pride itself on its ‘can do’ attitude, which is a reflection of such task orientation.
This may well reward and encourage the ‘leader-led’ goal-oriented style.

Leader Style/Context Fit

In examining the effectiveness of the styles within this study, ‘goodness of fit’ to
any and all of the styles was correlated with superior performance regardless of
context. This is probably a statistical phenomenon resulting from the degree of
overlap between the three styles, a finding that emerged from the original
Dulewicz and Higgs (2003; 2005) study. The reason is probably that the three
styles appear to have a number of personality characteristics (established from
16PF) in common. According to Dulewicz and Higgs (2003), the better fitted to
a style, the more likely the person is to be assertive; socially bold; emotionally
stable; self-confident; tough-minded; and forthright. Therefore, if these personal-
ity characteristics are related to high performance, then all styles will be predictive
of performance. The fact that these common factors reflect ‘extraversion, tough-
ness and forthrightness’ (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003), which are all desirable
characteristics in the military reinforces the likelihood of this interpretation.
In addition, all of the LDQ dimensions are ‘positively constructed’, in that higher
scores relate to strengths, as confirmed by the fact that LDQ raw score (as a percent-
age) was significantly correlated with overall performance (r ¼ 0.22 P , 0.001)
and leadership (r ¼ 0.21, P , 0.001). Additionally, all of the leadership styles lie
at the high end of many of the LDQ dimensions (as can be seen from Table 1).
As a result, the tighter the fit to any of the styles, the higher the dimension scores
and therefore performance. Despite this, the study found that those with a highly
involving style were more effective than those who did not adopt an involving
style, in those departments reporting ‘significant change’.

Self-awareness and Situational Leadership

In adopting the most suitable leadership style for the environment, the most self-
aware individuals appear to be benefiting from Argyris’s (1976) double loop learn-
ing. Their external or congruent self-awareness allows them to be sensitive to the
effectiveness of their chosen leadership style whilst their internal or emotional
self-awareness means they can challenge their own underlying assumptions and
emotions to change their theory (style)-in-use appropriately. The result appears
to be situationally aware leadership.

Application
The significant preference for goal-oriented leadership among officers, identified in
this study, is very much in line with the finding that their reporting system rewards
task achievement over leadership. Of course, this is a facet of the culture as, in the
Royal Navy; leaders are expected, when required, to subordinate the safety of their
 Leadership, Change Context and Performance 395
teams for the achievement of the mission. However, in choosing a leadership style,
it has long been established (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958) that there are many
situations where directive or goal-oriented is a less than optimal approach (i.e. a
well-developed team with plenty of time). Indeed, the finding of this study
showed that in a context of significant change a more involving style would
result in better performance than a goal-oriented approach. This study alerted
the Royal Navy to this opportunity for improvement and, as a result, a new
element has been introduced into Junior Officers’ career development focusing
on the benefits, and development, of style flexibility and self-awareness in
leadership.

Further Research
‘The leadership literature strongly suggests that the situation or context is highly
relevant to leadership style’ (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005). This study found only
partial evidence of organizsational change context as a determinant of effective
leadership style, as was predicted by the Dulewicz and Higgs (2003; 2005)
Model, but this could be a result of the strong ‘can do’ leadership culture of the
Royal Navy. However, many more studies are currently in progress using the
LDQ across a variety of contexts and these may shed light on this equivocal
finding.

References
Argyris, C. (1976) Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21(3), pp. 363– 377.
Atwater, L. and Yammarino, F. (1992) Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity
of leadership and performance predictions?, Personnel Psychology, 45(1), pp.141–165.
Atwater, L. et al. (1998) Self-other agreement: does it really matter?, Personnel Psychology, 51(3), pp. 577 –597.
Bartram, D. (2002) The SHL Corporate Leadership Model, SHL White Paper, Version 1.2 (15 November 2002).
Bass, B. M. (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision, Organisational
Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 19 –31.
Boyatzis, R. (1982) The Competent manager – A model for effective performance (New York: Wiley).
Brutus, S. et al. (1999) Exploring the link between rating congruence and managerial effectiveness, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 16(4), pp. 308–322.
Dulewicz, V. (1992) Assessment of management competences by personality questionnaires, Selection and
Development Review, 8(1), pp. 1–4.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. J. (2003) Design of a new instrument to assess leadership dimensions and styles,
Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 0311.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. J. (2005) Assessing leadership dimensions, styles and organizational context, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), pp. 105–123.
Fiedler, F. E. (1965) Engineer the job to fit the manager, Harvard Business Review, Sept–Oct, pp. 115 –122.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. (1982) Management of Organisational Behaviour, 4th Edn (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall).
Higgs, M. J. and Rowland, D. (2001) Building change leadership capability: the quest for change competence,
Journal of Change Management, 1(2), pp. 116–131.
Higgs, M. J. and Rowland, D. (2003) Is change changing? An examination of approaches to change and its leader-
ship, Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 0313.
Hofstede, G. et al. (1990) Measuring organisational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty
cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), pp. 286–316.
396 M. Young & V. Dulewicz
House, R. J. (1971) A path goal theory of leader effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(16),
pp. 321 –38.
Jaworski, J. (2000) Synchronicity (New York: Berrett Koehler).
JSP 505 (2001) Officers’ joint appraisal report, Joint Services’ Publication, Langennech: DSDC(L).
Kotter, J. (1990) What leaders really do, Harvard Business Review, May–June, pp. 37–60.
Litwin, G. and Stringer, R. (1968) Motivation and Organisational Climate (Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press).
Pettigrew, A. (1979) On studying organisational cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(9), pp. 570–581.
Reddin, W. J. (1970) Managerial Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company).
Senge, P. M. (1997) Learning leaders, Executive Excellence, 16(1), pp. 12–13.
Schein, E. (1985) Organisational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey Bass).
SHL (1999) OPQ 32 Manual and Users Guide (Thames Ditton, UK: SHL Group).
Tagiuri, R. and Litwin, G. (1968) Organisational Climate: Explorations of a Concept (Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press).
Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. H. (1958) How to Chose a Leadership Pattern’ Harvard Business Review,
36(2), pp. 95 –101.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organisations (London: Sage).
White, R. et al. (1996) The Future of Leadership (Lanham Maryland: Pitman Publishing).
Wohlers, A. and London, M. (1989) Ratings of managerial characteristics: evaluation difficulty, co-worker
agreement, and self-awareness, Personnel Psychology, 42(2), pp. 235–261.
Young, M. (2005a) Command, leadership and management competencies predicting superior performance in the
Royal Navy. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: Henley Management College.
Young, M. (2005b) Clarifying the link between competency, competence and performance, Competency and
Emotional Intelligence Quarterly,12(4), pp. 24–32.
Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2003) Command, leadership and management competencies. Predicting superior
performance in the Royal Navy, Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 0317.
Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2005) A model of command, leadership and management competency in the British
Royal Navy, Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 26(3), pp. 228–241.
Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (forthcoming, 2007) Relationships between congruent and emotional self awareness
and performance in the British Royal Navy, Journal of Managerial Psychology.
Zigon, J. (1994) Performance Appraisal Lessons from Thirteen Years in the Trenches (London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Devlopment).

Notes on Contributors
Commander (Dr) Mike Young, for the past five years, has been the driving force
behind leadership development activity in the Royal Navy. His achievements in
this role have earned him promotion to Commander and the award of an MBE.
A graduate of the Joint Services Advanced Command and Staff Course, he
holds a Doctorate in Business from Henley Management College where he is
now a Visiting Fellow and supervises on the doctoral programmes. He has pub-
lished numerous articles on competency, leadership and organizational develop-
ment and he is a Chartered Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development (CIPD).
Professor Victor Dulewicz is a Chartered Occupational Psychologist, a Fellow
of both the British Psychological Society and the CIPD, and a Member of the Insti-
tute of Directors. Currently Director, Centre for Board Effectiveness at Henley
Management College, he was previously an occupational psychologist for Rank
Xerox and the Civil Service Selection Board, and for nine years Manager, Assess-
ment and Occupational Psychology for the STC Group (now Nortel). He has co-
authored three books, written more than 100 articles and papers, and presented at