This research explores the leadership constructs of global leaders and Chinese managers in multi-national corporations (MNCs) in order to understand whether their constructs are misaligned, and if so, in what ways. To address these questions, data was gathered via repertory grid test interviews with 31 global leaders and 59 Chinese managers in six MNCs’ China organizations. Analysis subsequently revealed that global leaders rely upon twelve key constructs to define global leadership capability and potential. These are: creative, drive to improve, communication skill, collaborative style, charisma, professional knowledge and experience, visionary, cross culture, flexibility, confidence, team development and emotional intelligence. Crucially however, half of the global leaders’ key constructs were not identified as important to Chinese managers; furthermore, most of the missing constructs resonate with charismatic and transformational leadership characteristics, indicating a gap between the two groups’ leadership concepts. Subsequently, both groups of leaders’ leadership constructs were compared with their respective companies’ Leadership Competency Frameworks. The results again revealed gaps, suggesting reliance upon headquarter-developed leadership frameworks to communicate leadership expectations and develop local leaders is either deficient, or inappropriate. The global leaders and Chinese managers’ perspectives on Chinese managers’ career barriers were also explored, with the evidence indicating that perceptions of both groups are influenced by their own cultural assumptions. As the global leaders’ perspectives aligned with their own leadership constructs but Chinese managers were not aware of the importance of those constructs, it seems to support the contention that a bias may exist when global leaders evaluate Chinese managers’ leadership capability and potential.

This research explores the leadership constructs of global leaders and Chinese managers in multi-national corporations (MNCs) in order to understand whether their constructs are misaligned, and if so, in what ways. To address these questions, data was gathered via repertory grid test interviews with 31 global leaders and 59 Chinese managers in six MNCs’ China organizations. Analysis subsequently revealed that global leaders rely upon twelve key constructs to define global leadership capability and potential. These are: creative, drive to improve, communication skill, collaborative style, charisma, professional knowledge and experience, visionary, cross culture, flexibility, confidence, team development and emotional intelligence. Crucially however, half of the global leaders’ key constructs were not identified as important to Chinese managers; furthermore, most of the missing constructs resonate with charismatic and transformational leadership characteristics, indicating a gap between the two groups’ leadership concepts. Subsequently, both groups of leaders’ leadership constructs were compared with their respective companies’ Leadership Competency Frameworks. The results again revealed gaps, suggesting reliance upon headquarter-developed leadership frameworks to communicate leadership expectations and develop local leaders is either deficient, or inappropriate. The global leaders and Chinese managers’ perspectives on Chinese managers’ career barriers were also explored, with the evidence indicating that perceptions of both groups are influenced by their own cultural assumptions. As the global leaders’ perspectives aligned with their own leadership constructs but Chinese managers were not aware of the importance of those constructs, it seems to support the contention that a bias may exist when global leaders evaluate Chinese managers’ leadership capability and potential.

This study conducted a bibliometric analysis for the purpose of identifying the crucial leadership constructs that best explain and/or define effective educational leadership in two decades (1990-2000 and 2001-2010). The study reviewed top authors in educational leadership and analyzed their top cited works to identify leadership constructs which were (a) unique to leadership works within the 1990-2000 decade, (b) unique to the 2001-2010 decade, and c) similar or different between the two decades. The study found that the leadership constructs did evolve and shift during the study period and addressed the changing demands of individuals, educational organizations, and the external environment. Crucial educational leadership constructs were the product of the efforts of researchers in educational leadership to promote effective school leadership, improve learning outcomes and student performance, and create beneficial organizational results. The findings of the study highlight the potential impact and benefit of the continually upgrading and refreshing the understanding, training, and preparation of current and future school leaders.

Leadership is a problematic topic at universities and it is therefore difficult to isolate a leadership theory that is applicable to Heads of Department (HODs). The manner in which HODs construe their leadership roles is the focus of this research project and the study is conducted from a constructivist perspective The university context in which HODs lead is explored in the literature overview. Definitions of leadership, general leadership theories and leadership issues in academe are investigated. The research findings are integrated into a leadership model for HODs, consisting of constructs (leadership behaviours, actions and values) and elements (leadership situations). The following contributions are made by the study: * The variety roles an HOD has to fulfil is confirmed by the study. However, this study indicates that leadership is interwoven with everything an HOD undertakes. * HODs construct their roles uniquely, but in general terms most HODs consider academic and scholarly work (own and that of the department) as part of the leadership role they fulfil. Leadership at HOD level at university incorporates both managerial and leadership ideas. * HODs consider their leadership environment to have qualities of the following known university environments: collegial, enterprise, bureaucratic and corporate. * This study identifies eight leadership themes with reference to the leadership role of an HOD at university; providing academic guidance, being a figurehead, determining the strategy and positioning the department, liaising with internal and external stakeholders, being a change agent, being a general manager, and being involved in student and staff relations. The following leadership themes can be added to the current body of literature: being a figurehead, own scholarly profile, as well as being involved in staff and student relations. Leadership at academic departments is at the heart of everything in which an HOD is involved. Leadership is thus becoming indispensable at academic departments at university. / Industrial & Organisational Psychology) / D. Com. (Consulting Psychology)

Leadership is a problematic topic at universities and it is therefore difficult to isolate a leadership theory that is applicable to Heads of Department (HODs). The manner in which HODs construe their leadership roles is the focus of this research project and the study is conducted from a constructivist perspective The university context in which HODs lead is explored in the literature overview. Definitions of leadership, general leadership theories and leadership issues in academe are investigated. The research findings are integrated into a leadership model for HODs, consisting of constructs (leadership behaviours, actions and values) and elements (leadership situations). The following contributions are made by the study: * The variety roles an HOD has to fulfil is confirmed by the study. However, this study indicates that leadership is interwoven with everything an HOD undertakes. * HODs construct their roles uniquely, but in general terms most HODs consider academic and scholarly work (own and that of the department) as part of the leadership role they fulfil. Leadership at HOD level at university incorporates both managerial and leadership ideas. * HODs consider their leadership environment to have qualities of the following known university environments: collegial, enterprise, bureaucratic and corporate. * This study identifies eight leadership themes with reference to the leadership role of an HOD at university; providing academic guidance, being a figurehead, determining the strategy and positioning the department, liaising with internal and external stakeholders, being a change agent, being a general manager, and being involved in student and staff relations. The following leadership themes can be added to the current body of literature: being a figurehead, own scholarly profile, as well as being involved in staff and student relations. Leadership at academic departments is at the heart of everything in which an HOD is involved. Leadership is thus becoming indispensable at academic departments at university. / Industrial and Organisational Psychology) / D. Com. (Consulting Psychology)