A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson and Ingemar Robertsson Department of Leadership and Management, Swedish National Defence College, Karlstad, Sweden Per-Olof Michel Swedish Armed Forces Medical Center, Hammaro, Sweden

Keywords

Evaluation, Leadership, Modelling, Armed forces, Sweden

Introduction
Selection and development of leaders constantly appears to be a central issue in military organisations. In 2002, the headquarters of the Swedish armed forces (SAF) made a preliminary decision to introduce a new system for this purpose. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of a theoretical model for leader evaluation and development, an instrument based on this model, and a strategy for large scale implementation. The previous system for leader evaluation used by the SAF was an atheoretical instrument for officers' marks. It did not include the civilian personnel and it was used in a top-down fashion only, that is officers at higher levels rated officers at lower levels. In addition to the lack of a theoretical model, the old instrument was criticised for mixing stable personality traits and modifiable behaviours resulting in unreliable ratings (Carlstedt and Widen, 2001). A recent attempt to improve this system had its theoretical roots in the functionalistic tradition (Mintzberg, 1980). In this approach, the role of the leader, rather than the leader as a person, is focused upon. A successful position incumbent must be able to handle the functional performance requirements of a given leader position (Jacobs and Jaques, 1991). An instrument called the executive officer leadership instrument (EOL) (Carlstedt and Wide 2001), designed n, to measure the functionalistic model, was developed using structural equation modelling (SEM). The EOL was successfully pilot tested but never replaced the existing atheoretical instrument. The previous system for leader development drew heavily on the situational leadership model (Hersey and Blanchard,
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

Abstract

The aim was to describe the development of a theoretical model for leader evaluation and development, an instrument based on this model, and a strategy for large scale implementation in the Swedish armed forces. The model rests on an interactional person by situation paradigm. It emphasises ``developmental leadership'', which is inspired by transformational and functionalistic leadership approaches. The developmental leadership questionnaire (DLQ) was operationalised from the model and refined through structural equation modelling. The model and the DLQ will be used for three purposes: yearly evaluation of all personnel in the Swedish armed forces; yearly planning dialogues between each employee and his or her nearest supervisor; and a tool for leadership training. The implementation strategy includes an initial course in developmental leadership for all colonels. This is followed by the selection and training of local trainers, who, in turn, initiate the comprehensive programme locally. The system should be fully implemented by 2005.

1969) and on group dynamic models aimed at increased self-awareness (Rodgers, 1970; Schutz, 1958/1998). In recent years pilot studies were also conducted where attempts were made to adapt the transformational leadership model (Bass, 1985, 1997, 1998) to Swedish conditions (Larsson et al., 2001a). Problems noted with the previous systems for leader evaluation and development included the following. As different models, instruments, and criteria for ``goodness'' and ``badness'' were used, an ambiguous situation was created. In the evaluation context, certain behaviours were regarded as favourable while others were preferred in leadership training courses. The result of this was that the evaluation criteria tended to ``win'' and that the impact of leadership training was limited. Another problem was the top-down approach in the evaluation process. Potential benefits from a 360 procedure, noted in several organisational settings (see e.g. Alimo-Metcalfe and AlbinMetcalfe, 2001), and also in some pilot projects in the SAF, were missed. Furthermore, it was assumed that administrative gains could be made if a new system could make use of Web technology.

Model development
The model building process could be summarised as an integration of parts from well established models and our own empirical studies. The main established sources were the transformational leadership model as described by Bass (1998), including the so-called full range of leadership model (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1999), and Jacobs' and Jaques' (1991) conceptualisation of the functionalistic model. Our own empirical studies included four qualitative studies of military
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Received: May 2002 Accepted: September 2002

Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25 # MCB UP Limited [ISSN 0143-7739] [DOI 10.1108/01437730310457294]

[ 16 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

leadership in different settings using a grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) approach (Johansson and Larsson, 1998; Larsson, 2002; Larsson et al., 2001b; Wallenius et al., 2002), a couple of model-driven quantitative studies (Johansson and Larsson, 2001; Wallenius et al., in press) and a series of empirical studies analysed by SEM (described in the following section on instrument development) specifically aimed at improving the emerging, integrative model. The doctoral theses of Andersson (2001), Danielsson (2002), and Johansson (2001) were additional sources of inspiration in the model building process. In practice, the steps of model building were not strictly sequential. Rather, we moved forward and backward, constantly reexamining the different sources of data. In the following, the whole model will be described first, followed by a presentation of its parts. The reason for this order is that the parts receive their meaning when understood in relation to the whole model. According to the model (Figure 1), leadership can be understood against the background of a number of interacting factors. Interplay between leader and contextual characteristics shape the actual

Figure 1 Model of leadership styles and their antecedent conditions

leadership. This implies that the model rests on an interactional person by situation paradigm (Endler and Magnusson, 1976). Two main classes of leader qualities are identified: basic prerequisites and desirable competencies. The basic prerequisites affect the development of the desirable competencies. The more favourable basic prerequisites a leader has, the greater the potential to develop the desirable competencies and vice versa. The model also implies that a favourable combination of these two characteristics is a necessary condition for successful leadership. However, neither of them is sufficient in itself. They do not constitute a guarantee for successful leadership, because this is also affected by environmental conditions. The environmental characteristics shown in Figure 1 should be regarded as examples of these kinds of conditions. The illustration shows that groups and organisations mutually influence each other. The same holds true for organisations and the external world. There is an extensive literature on these aspects and they will not be further elaborated upon here. The leader qualities labelled ``basic prerequisites'' will also only be briefly touched upon here, for the same reason. Somewhat simplified, these aspects include individual characteristics such as physical fitness, intelligence, creativity, personality, and view-of-life (see e.g. Yukl, 1994). Leading models in the fields of personality and view-of-life are hierarchical (see e.g. Eysenck, 1990). In the present leadership context, the same idea has been adopted regarding desirable competencies and leadership styles. In the most elaborate cases, four levels can be identified. The dimensional or leadership style level is the top level, and an example would be developmental leadership. The factor level is the second highest and it can be illustrated with individualised consideration. The facet level comes next, support is an example. The fourth and lowest level is the indicator level. Here you find what can be empirically observed, for instance a questionnaire item such as, ``takes time to listen.'' The hierarchical structure of leadership styles and desirable competencies is shown in Table I.

Desirable competencies

The model includes four desirable competencies which will be briefly described here.

Task-related competence

The meaning of task-related competence obviously varies between different leader

[ 17 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

Table I The hierarchical structure of leadership styles and desirable competencies Leadership styles Developmental leadership Factors Exemplary model Individualised consideration Inspiration and motivation Facets Dimension Indicators 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n 1, 2, n

Value base Good example Responsibility Support Confront Promote participation Promote creativity Seek agreements If, but only if, reward Take necessary measures Over-control None None Intra-organisational Extra-organisational Flexible Balanced Problem-focused coping Emotion-focused coping

Conventional leadership

Demand and reward

Non leadership Desirable competencies

Laissez-faire Task-related competence Management-related competence Social competence Capacity to cope with stress

positions and tasks. Generally speaking, it deals with the leader's ability to have the necessary knowledge and skills in relation to the task at hand. Elaborations of this, related to hierarchical level, can, for instance, be found in the writings of Hersey and Blanchard (1969) and Jacobs and Jaques (1991). No specific facets are identified in the model.

Management-related competence

depending on whom one interacts with, ability to interpret body language, etc., are all examples of social competence. These kinds of behaviours form a facet labelled flexible. Some leader behaviours suggest a lack of social competence. An insensitive style with ``bull-like'' behaviour would be an example. The positive reversal of this constitutes the basis for the second facet; balanced.

The role of a manager usually includes the ability to handle a number of functions encapsulated in the term management. Two facets are identified in the model; intraorganisational and extraorganisational. Examples of the first are to know how to apply the formal rules, to be able to plan, organise, and coordinate the activity, to prioritise and make decisions, to control, and follow-up. Other desirable aspects, particularly on higher hierarchical levels, are an ability to view one's own organisation from the outside and to detect important events in the external world and understand their meaning for one's own activity. These competencies constitute the extraorganisational management facet. Also in this field (as in the two remaining competencies described below), there exists an impressive body of literature.

Capacity to cope with stress

Social competence

Abilities like building trust, being a good listener, flexibility of communication

A first facet is labelled problem-focused coping skills (Lazarus, 1991, 1999). It includes the abilities to grasp new information during stress, to overview ambiguous situations, to handle different issues simultaneously, etc. Intellectual capacity (intelligence) is part of the basic prerequisites. When dealing with the desirable competencies, it is a question of being able to use the basic talent, particularly in stressful conditions. A second facet is labelled emotion-focused coping skills (Lazarus, 1991, 1999). Examples of this are positive reappraisal, distancing, relaxation, etc. The conceptual difference between these psychological processes and ``emotional stability,'' which is a personality dimension (see e.g. Costa and McCrae, 1985; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985), is obviously not razor sharp. When talking about the desirable competencies, it is a question of being able to handle one's emotions during stressful encounters.

[ 18 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

Leadership styles

The model includes three basic types of leadership styles. This part is heavily influenced by the writings on transformational leadership and the full range of leadership model (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998, 1999). However, some alterations have been made from the original American model. An example of a change concerns the concept of charisma, which is central in the writings of Bass. Charisma was regarded as unsuitable in a Scandinavian leadership culture because here it appears to evoke associations of elitism and a glorifying of the leader. Such associations were assumed to fit badly with democratic leadership, using the classical term of Lewin and Lippit (1938), which is regarded as self-evident by most Scandinavians. Alterations originating in methodological concerns are presented in the section on instrument development. The English word ``transformational'' is difficult to translate into simple Swedish. Therefore, we chose the label ``developmental.'' In the Swedish language, the word is ``utvecklande.'' This can be translated to ``developing'' as well as to ``developmental.'' Unfortunately, this inspiring double meaning gets lost when translated into English.

be a positive role model and contribute to mutual trust. Individualised consideration has two facets in our conceptualisation; support and confront. Support includes giving emotional, but also tangible, support. Confronting deals with facing co-workers who have done a bad job and acting constructively. Individualised consideration implies that this is done with the best interest of the co-worker in mind. Inspiration and motivation has two facets. The first promote participation relates to giving encouragement, delegation of responsibility, etc. Another example would be the involvement of co-workers in the formulation of long-term goals. The second facet, promote creativity, includes encouraging new ideas, a questioning of the present structures and processes, etc. The leadership style we label as conventional has two subforms; demand and reward and control. The basis of the first of these two kinds of leadership behaviours could be summarised as ``I will be good to you if, but only if, you are good to me.'' It is called ``contingent reward'' in Bass' (1998) original model. Psychometrically, this scale has proved to be problematic (low internal consistency). Therefore, we identify two facets within this class of leadership behaviours. The first has a more positive tone and a negotiating approach. It is labelled seek agreements. An example: the leader says ``Can't we do it this way now you do this and I do that?'' The co-worker responds ``Yes, but I need some extra time to complete subtask X''. The leader responds ``OK''. In our pilot studies (see next section), this facet tends to correlate positively with developmental leadership. The second facet has a more negative tone and emphasises the ``if, but only if'' aspect. Consequently, it has been labelled if, but only if, rewards. It tends to correlate positively with controlling leadership (see below). Control. This class of leader behaviours typically include controlling and corrective actions. Rules are followed in order to avoid mistakes. A Swedish study (Larsson et al., 2001a) shows that a high frequency of controlling leadership tends to coexist with high scores on items dealing with being goaloriented as well as with low scores on individualised consideration. Thus, being goal-oriented has one meaning in the case just mentioned, and another if coexisting with high frequencies of individualised consideration and inspiration and motivation. Bass (1998) labels this category ``active management-by-exception''. The positively toned aspect constitutes the facet

Conventional leadership

Developmental leadership

Leadership behaviours labelled as developmental have three characteristics: the leader acts as an exemplary model; shows individualised consideration; and demonstrates inspiration and motivation. The first aspect resembles Bass' writings on idealised (charismatic) influence. Bass' factor, ``intellectual stimulation,'' has been dropped as a separate factor and integrated with inspiration and motivation. The main reason for this was empirical; correlations of 0.70 or higher were obtained, indicating that it was more or less the same phenomenon. Developmental leadership could be regarded as a state of mind as well as a set of behaviours. The state of mind aspect is particularly relevant when talking about an exemplary model. This factor has three facets. The first is called value base and includes behaviours such as expressing values resting on a humanistic base and setting high ethical and moral standards. The second facet, good example, is characterised by a high degree of consistency between what you think, what you say, and what you do. Other examples are to admit your own mistakes and to treat others with respect. The third facet is labelled responsibility and is illustrated by staying responsible even when facing resistance. By doing all of this, the leader will

[ 19 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

take necessary measures. The negatively toned facet is labelled overcontrol.

Non-leadership

As a concept, this leadership style has its origin in the model of Lewin and Lippit (1938). They labelled it laissez-faire and Bass (1998) describes it as non-leadership. No specific facets are identified. Typical behaviours include being absent when needed, avoiding responsibility, being ignorant, etc. In our model, this factor encompasses what Bass (1998) labels ``passive management-by-exception'' as well as ``laissez-faire''. This combining has also been suggested by the original authors under the heading ``passive-avoidant leadership'' (see e.g. Bass, 1999).

Relationship between the leadership styles

We agree with the original formulations regarding the relationship between the leadership styles (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998). This means that leaders differ from each other by exhibiting different frequencies of these styles. All leaders use all classes of behaviours to a higher or lower degree. Generally, empirical evidence shows that higher frequencies of transformational behaviours (developmental in our model) covary with increased productivity, work satisfaction, etc. (Bass, 1999). However, situational aspects must obviously be taken into consideration. During an intense, stressful task where much is at stake, for instance, a highly controlling leadership (the facet take necessary measures) may be the only option. The hypothesised relationship between the different leadership styles on the one hand, and organisational results and individual development on the other, is shown in Figure 2.

Instrument development
One starting point for developing a new leadership questionnaire was two existing inventories; the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ, revised form 5x) (Avolio et al., 1998) and the executive officer leadership (EOL) instrument (Carlstedt and Widen, 2001). The MLQ aims to map the transformational leadership model (Bass, 1998) and the EOL the functionalistic leadership model (Jacobs and Jaques, 1991). The MLQ (36 items) and the EOL (38 items) were administered to Swedish soldiers and officers serving in Kfor, a NATO-led international force responsible for establishing a security presence in Kosovo. The total item pool was analysed using SEM. A hierarchical factor approach was used.

A meaningful and psychometrically sound model with a general factor and nine orthogonal (uncorrelated) residual factors was developed (Larsson et al., 2001a). The residual factors had a lot in common with the factors in the domains of leadership styles and desirable competencies in the model suggested above. A second point of departure when the new questionnaire was constructed, was a qualitative analysis of General Ulysses S. Grant's military leadership in the Civil War (Larsson, 2002). Using a grounded theory approach, an interactional person by situation model was generated. The structure of this model, and several of its components as well, was adopted when the present model was developed. Thus, a qualitative study yielded an interactional model structure which, to a high degree, was filled with factors obtained in a SEM study. The questionnaire development process that followed could be characterised as a series of empirical tests. Altogether, approximately 1,000 leaders have done self-ratings and have been rated by about 5,000 raters. Study groups included military samples with ranks ranging from conscript soldiers to generals, police commanders, rescue service leadership teachers, state secretaries, and chief executive officers at the Swedish Department of Justice. Data from each sample, and from combinations of samples, have been analysed using confirmatory as well as exploratory factor analysis. Most of these studies are, as yet, unpublished, although one has been documented (Larsson et al., 2001a). Most items in the domain we label desirable competencies originate in the EOL, although many have been slightly reworded in the test process. The items designed to measure the facet emotion-focused coping were inspired by the ways of coping questionnaire (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Most items in the leadership styles domain originate in the MLQ. Originally, the MLQ was translated into Swedish, backtranslated into English, and checked by one of the original constructors, professor Bruce Avolio. However, in the course of the test process it became apparent that many Swedish respondents reacted negatively to these items. A smaller problem was that some wording was clumsy in the Swedish version this was gradually corrected. A bigger problem was that the items were perceived as ``too American''. This is not a critique but merely a realisation that the two cultures differ. Thus, after several modifications of the original translation, we finally rewrote all these items. The aim was

[ 20 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

Figure 2 Hypothetical relationship between different leadership styles on the one hand and organisational results and individual development on the other

to design items covering the content of the factors and facets of the model as it gradually developed. The final version has been labelled the developmental leadership questionnaire (DLQ). It consists of 36 items designed to measure leadership styles (three for each facet and for the laissez-faire factor), and 21 items designed to measure desirable competencies (three for each facet and for the task-related competence factor). Inspired by the MLQ, the DLQ also includes three items which aim to assess the results of leadership in terms of performance, organisational image, and work satisfaction. Participants are asked to judge how frequently the person they are rating engages in the specific behaviour described by each item. Each behaviour is rated on a nine-point frequency scale ranging from never, or almost never (1) to always, or almost always (9). Sample items are presented in Table II. As can be seen in Table II, items designed to measure the domain desirable competencies are also expressed in behavioural terms. Returning to the model (Figure 1), it should be noted that the DLQ does not measure the domain basic prerequisites nor any of the domains under the heading contextual characteristics.

Psychometric properties of the DLQ

More than ten pilot studies have been performed in a two-year period. Items have gradually been added, replaced, and reworded. A summary of findings is presented in the following.

Reliability

Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging between 0.60 and 0.85, and test-retest correlations exceeding 0.50 have been obtained on the dimension, factor, and facet levels. Fairly similar values have been noted across all pilot studies, irrespective of whether they were self-ratings or ratings made by subordinates or superiors.

Validity

More theoretical aspects of validity have been assessed in two ways. The first consists of a series of SEM analyses. Both hierarchical, nested models (orthogonal) and oblique models have been tested. Fairly similar dimensionality patterns have been obtained in the different samples. However, the factors demand and reward as well as control, did not yield a consistent pattern until they were divided into positive and negative toned facets respectively. The second theoretical approach to validity consists of judging the adequacy of the instrument's coverage of the theoretical model

[ 21 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

Table II Sample items from the developmental leadership questionnaire (DLQ) Dimension, factor, and facet Developmental leadership Exemplary model Value base Good example Responsibility Individualised consideration Support Confront Inspiration and motivation Promote participation Promote creativity Conventional leadership Demand and reward Seek agreements If, but only if, reward Control Take necessary measures Overcontrol Non-Leadership Laissez-faire Task-related competence Management-related competence Intraorganisational Extraorganisational Social competence Flexible Balanced Capacity to cope with stress Problem-focused coping Emotion-focused coping Sample items

Discusses what values are important before making decisions Acts in accordance with the opinions he or she expresses Accepts responsibility for the operations even in hard times Takes time to listen Can deal with troublesome colleagues Even delegates prestigious tasks Inspires me to think creatively

Aims to reach agreements on what must be done Only rewards/praises colleagues who carry out agreed tasks Takes necessary action when required ``Keeps a log'' of other people's mistakes Is indifferent, carries out his or her tasks without caring about them Is the person to turn to for advice on issues in my field of work Structures operations effectively Is quick to discover external conditions that may affect our operations Communicates easily with others Is insensitive and loutisha Makes good decisions under pressure, even when lacking full information Demonstrates positive thinking in stressful situations

Note: aResponse scale reversed on this item

(content validity). This was done continuously within the research team and also by numerous leadership course participants. More criterion-related aspects of validity have been assessed in three ways. As noted above, the DLQ includes three items designed to measure the results of leadership. The sum score of these items have been related to dimension, factor, and facet scores, using both self-rating and rater data. The values of bivariate correlations and multiple regression analyses vary across samples, but generally support the rank order shown in Figure 2 (unpublished data). An earlier version of the DLQ was also related to independent performance evaluations made by commanders and peers of cadets. The results once again supported the suggested rank order (unpublished data). In summary, promising results have been obtained as far as the different aspects of validity are concerned. However, due to continuous small alternations of the model and the items following each pilot test, more validation data is needed for the present DLQ version.

Applications
The model (Figure 1) and the instrument (the DLQ) have been designed for three purposes: 1 yearly evaluation of all personnel in the Swedish armed forces; 2 the basis for yearly planning dialogues between each employee and his or her nearest supervisor; and 3 a tool for leadership training. From 2005 (see section on implementation below) it is planned that all personnel should be evaluated on a yearly basis using the DLQ.

[ 22 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

A 180 approach will be used. This means that all commanders will rate all subordinates, and that each commander (also civilian) will be rated by their subordinates. All ratings made by commanders will be transparent and all ratings made by subordinates will be presented in the form of averages where single subordinates cannot be identified. According to Swedish labour market regulations, each employee should receive a ``developmental dialogue'' with his or her nearest superior once a year. At present, the procedure and quality of these dialogues vary considerably (Larsson et al., 2000). From 2005, it is planned that these dialogues shall use the outcome of the yearly DLQ as a point of departure. The transparent superior employee evaluation, the anonymous average subordinate ratings of the superior, and the self-ratings of both parts will be used as a guiding tool in these dialogues. The third application is to use the model and the DLQ during leadership training courses. Model introduction and a first assessment and feedback session is planned to take place during the first year at the officers' training programme. Regular booster sessions are intended to follow. In this context, a 360 approach will be used, because valuable additional information may be obtained from peers (for competition reasons, they are omitted in the evaluation context). Web technology is planned to be used for all three kinds of applications. Every employee receives a password and responds to the DLQ on his or her personal computer. Data is stored in a database and written reports with figures and bar charts can easily be obtained on the dimension, factor, facet, and item levels.

be instructed by the local trainers on how to use the DLQ for evaluation purposes. For psychosocial reasons, at least one of the local trainers should have a solid academic education in the social sciences; for instance social welfare officers. The amount of effort needed to support those who receive negative feedback is yet unclear. However, pilot studies indicate that a small proportion need considerable support. In some cases it may actually be a question of changing career. The need for support may be stronger among the civilian personnel because, unlike the military officers, many have no previous experience of receiving systematic feedback. Full scale trials of the whole system are currently performed within one department at the headquarters of the SAF and at four regiments. Systematic evaluations remain to be done but informal reports are positive. Thus, the plans to start on a full scale basis from 1 July 2005 remain.

Concluding comments
The construction of a theory-driven, comprehensive system for evaluation and leader development, as well as an implementation strategy, has been summarised. Potential benefits from the new system include the following. The classical conflict between selection and evaluation on one hand, and learning and development on the other, can hopefully be better handled when a common model and tool is used for both purposes. Theoretically and methodologically, the model and the DLQ may give added value in relation to existing models and tools. In particular, the hierarchical structure of the theoretical model appears to be new in this area. Practically, the Webbased 180 /360 systems could be expected to be an improvement, compared to the existing methods for evaluation and development. Obviously, the model and the DLQ need further tests and modifications. Details on this need to be separately documented. It should also be observed that the DLQ only measures parts of the interactional model. The basic prerequisites on the individual side, and all of the contextual characteristics, need to be evaluated with other tools. Similarly, practical application experiences should be closely monitored. Information technology security is an example of a potential problem which deserves special attention. The handling of individuals who receive negative feedback is another. The possibility to develop subgroup specific norm values is another avenue for further exploration, etc.

Implementation
Implementation of the new evaluation and development system in the SAF is directed by the headquarters of the SAF. Union representatives and research group members participate in a steering group. The following implementation plan has been outlined. Step 1: all regiment, staff, and military school commanders (usually colonels) go through a developmental leadership training course. Step 2: each of these commanders selects a group of about five local trainers, who then will be trained. Step 3: the local trainers give courses in developmental leadership (including the 360 feedback) for all local commanders. The commanders will also be trained to use the DLQ output as a basis for developmental dialogues. All personnel will

[ 23 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

Further studies will hopefully provide some answers to these questions and a basis for continuous improvement of the system. In the short term, the implementation process provides a major educational and Webtechnological challenge. In Sweden, part or all of the police forces and the rescue services respectively may join in the process. Similar kinds of pilot studies and trainer training has begun. Hopefully, this article can inspire readers from other organisational contexts to give us constructive criticism and join us in the challenge.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Albin-Metcalfe, R.J. (2001), ``The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire'', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 1-27. Andersson, L. (2001), ``Militart Ledarskap Nar det Galler: Svenskt Militart Ledarskap med Fredsframjande Insatser i Fokus [Military leadership when the stakes are high: Swedish military leadership focusing on peacekeeping operations]'', unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm, Stockholm. Avolio, B. (1999), Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.L. (1998), Reexamining the Components of Transformational and Transactional Leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (CLS Report 98-1), Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1997), ``Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?'', American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 130-9. Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London. Bass, B.M. (1999), ``Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership'', European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32. Carlstedt, L. and Widen, H. (2001), The Executive Officer Leadership Instrument (EOL) (Technical Report T:21), Swedish National Defence College, Karlstad, Sweden. Costa, P.T., Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1985), The NEO Personality Inventory Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL. Danielsson, E. (2002), ``Ar delaktighet mojlig i en byrakrati? [Is participation possible in a bureaucracy?]'', unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Umea, Umea.

References

Endler, N.S. and Magnusson, D. (1976), ``Toward an interactional psychology of personality'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 956-74. Eysenck, H.J. (1990), ``Biological dimensions of personality'', in Pervin, L.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 244-76. Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, M.W. (1985), Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach, Plenum Press, New York, NY. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, New York, NY. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969), Management of Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Jacobs, T.O. and Jaques, E. (1991), ``Executive leadership'', in Gal, R. and Mangelsdorff, A.D. (Eds), Handbook of Military Psychology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 431-47. Johansson, E. (2001), ``The UNknown soldier: a portrait of the Swedish peacekeeper at the threshold of the 21st century'', unpublished doctoral thesis, Karlstad University, Karlstad. Johansson, E. and Larsson, G. (1998), ``A model for understanding stress and daily experiences among soldiers in peacekeeping operations'', International Peacekeeping, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 124-41. Johansson, E. and Larsson, G. (2001), ``Swedish peacekeepers in Bosnia and Herzegovina: a quantitative analysis'', International Peacekeeping, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 64-76. Larsson, G. (2002), ``Cigars, whiskey, and winning: a qualitative analysis of Kaltman's analysis of General Ulysses S. Grant's leadership'', The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 45-53. Larsson, G., Carlstedt, L., Johansson, E. and Andersson, L. (2001a), Analysis of Leadership Dimensions: Combining Transformational and Functionalistic Approaches (Research Report F:14), Swedish National Defence College, Karlstad, Karlstad. Larsson, G., Johansson, A., Jansson, T. and Gronlund, G. (2001b), ``Leadership under severe stress: a grounded theory study'', in Lester, R.I. and Morton, A.G. (Eds), Concepts for Air Force Leadership, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, pp. 441-7. Larsson, G., Skold, T. and Wireng, B. (2000), ``Civil Personals Kompetensutveckling: En Kvantitativ Undersokning av en Forsoksverksamhet [Competence development for civililan personnel: a qualitative study]'', Technical Report T:15, Swedish National Defence College, Karlstad. Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

[ 24 ]

Gerry Larsson, Leif Carlstedt, Jens Andersson, Lars Andersson, Erna Danielsson, Ann Johansson, Eva Johansson, Ingemar Robertsson and Per-Olof Michel A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and development Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24/1 [2003] 16-25

Lazarus, R.S. (1999), Stress and Emotions: A New Synthesis, Free Association Press, London. Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY. Lewin, K. and Lippit, R. (1938), ``An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: a preliminary note'', Sociometry, Vol. 1, pp. 292-300. Mintzberg, H. (1980), The Nature of Managerial Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Rodgers, C. (1970), Encounter Groups, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Schutz, W.C. (1958/1998), FIRO: A ThreeDimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior, 3rd ed., WSA, Muir Beach, CA. Wallenius, C., Johansson, C.R. and Larsson, G. (2002), ``Reactions and performance of Swedish peacekeepers in life-threatening situations'', International Peacekeeping, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 133-52.

Wallenius, C., Larsson, G. and Johansson, C.R. (in press), ``Military observers' reactions and performance when facing danger'', Military Psychology. Yukl, G.A. (1994), Leadership in Organizations, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Further reading

Antonovsky, A. (1987), Unraveling the Mystery of Health: How People Manage Stress and Stay Well, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Hendriks, A.A.S. (1997), The Construction of the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI), Rijksuniversiteit Groeningen, Groeningen, The Netherlands. Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1984), ``Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 465-90.

[ 25 ]