22. At the level of individual team

22. At the level of individual team members, ‘productivity’ (‘ratio’ in relation
to number of staff), but not ‘ratio’, ‘change’, or ‘change in productivity,
was significantly related to ‘Engaging with Others’, when the effect of
the nine contextual factors had been taken into account.
No such relationships were found involving either ‘Visionary
Leadership’, or ‘Leadership Capability’.
Relationship between contextual factors and organisational performance:
23. Again, when the data were analysed at the level of individual team
members, it was evident that certain of the contextual factors assessed
had a significant effect on organisational performance.
‘Productivity’ was affected positively by the staff/case ratio, the number
of different staff involved in working with a given service user, whether
the team performed a gate-keeping role, and whether alternatives to
inpatient care were available. Conversely, ‘productivity’ was related
negatively to the age of the team, the amount of medical cover
available, and the proportion of service users presenting symptoms of
psychosis.
Relationship between leadership, contextual factors and organisational
performance:
24. The relationship between leadership, the contextual factors that were
studied, and organisational performance, was examined in two ways,
hierarchical multiple regression analysis and structural equation
modelling. The first of these is designed to determine the relative
strengths of the impact that each contextual or leadership variable has
on the outcome (organisational performance). The second, structural
equation modelling, specified alternative ways in which the different
variables interact both with one another, and with the outcome.
25. Both sets of analysis suggest: (1) that ‘Engaging with Others’ (but not
either ‘Visionary Leadership’ or ‘Leadership Capability’) has a
significant impact on the ‘productivity’ of teams; (2) seven of the nine
contextual variables have a significant impact on ‘productivity’, some
positive, others negative; and (3) that the impact of some of the
contextual factors is greater than the impact of the leadership
behaviours identified as ‘Engaging with Others’.
Put simply, this suggests that, while certain kinds of leadership
behaviour, specifically that characterised as ‘engagement’ does have a
significant effect on organisational performance, contextual factors too
can be demonstrated to have a significant impact. Also, the impact of
some of the contextual factors studied was positive, others negative.
However, when the effects of contextual variables are controlled for,
‘engaging leadership’ does predict/explain additional unique variance