Suchergebnisse

Whether natural, human-made incidents and wars, each crisis possesses unique and complex operational environment and requires strong leadership capabilities to implement response actions. Accordingly, every-day leadership practice, leadership self-development is encouraged and leadership development programmes are implemented across nations and institutions to develop leadership capabilities of military and first responders for crisis and emergency situations. However, assessing real leadership capabilities is often a difficult task as criteria for evaluation are neither standardized nor agreed. The previous studies admit that there are no universal instrument to assess leadership capabilities, moreover, leadership assessment is usually designed for long-term directions and self-development instead of leadership assessment in the field. Accordingly, we aim of this paper is to compare instruments and practicesfor leadership capabilities assessment of military and first responders for crisis and emergency situations. The paper fills a gap by comparing two separate streams of leadership capabilities assessment: an assessment of leadership (self)-development that is designed for team cohesion in a long-term and assessment of leadership capabilities that are essential for short-term actions during crisis and emergency situations.

Whether natural, human-made incidents and wars, each crisis possesses unique and complex operational environment and requires strong leadership capabilities to implement response actions. Accordingly, every-day leadership practice, leadership self-development is encouraged and leadership development programmes are implemented across nations and institutions to develop leadership capabilities of military and first responders for crisis and emergency situations. However, assessing real leadership capabilities is often a difficult task as criteria for evaluation are neither standardized nor agreed. The previous studies admit that there are no universal instrument to assess leadership capabilities, moreover, leadership assessment is usually designed for long-term directions and self-development instead of leadership assessment in the field. Accordingly, we aim of this paper is to compare instruments and practicesfor leadership capabilities assessment of military and first responders for crisis and emergency situations. The paper fills a gap by comparing two separate streams of leadership capabilities assessment: an assessment of leadership (self)-development that is designed for team cohesion in a long-term and assessment of leadership capabilities that are essential for short-term actions during crisis and emergency situations.

Whether natural, human-made incidents and wars, each crisis possesses unique and complex operational environment and requires strong leadership capabilities to implement response actions. Accordingly, every-day leadership practice, leadership self-development is encouraged and leadership development programmes are implemented across nations and institutions to develop leadership capabilities of military and first responders for crisis and emergency situations. However, assessing real leadership capabilities is often a difficult task as criteria for evaluation are neither standardized nor agreed. The previous studies admit that there are no universal instrument to assess leadership capabilities, moreover, leadership assessment is usually designed for long-term directions and self-development instead of leadership assessment in the field. Accordingly, we aim of this paper is to compare instruments and practicesfor leadership capabilities assessment of military and first responders for crisis and emergency situations. The paper fills a gap by comparing two separate streams of leadership capabilities assessment: an assessment of leadership (self)-development that is designed for team cohesion in a long-term and assessment of leadership capabilities that are essential for short-term actions during crisis and emergency situations.

Whether natural, human-made incidents and wars, each crisis possesses unique and complex operational environment and requires strong leadership capabilities to implement response actions. Accordingly, every-day leadership practice, leadership self-development is encouraged and leadership development programmes are implemented across nations and institutions to develop leadership capabilities of military and first responders for crisis and emergency situations. However, assessing real leadership capabilities is often a difficult task as criteria for evaluation are neither standardized nor agreed. The previous studies admit that there are no universal instrument to assess leadership capabilities, moreover, leadership assessment is usually designed for long-term directions and self-development instead of leadership assessment in the field. Accordingly, we aim of this paper is to compare instruments and practicesfor leadership capabilities assessment of military and first responders for crisis and emergency situations. The paper fills a gap by comparing two separate streams of leadership capabilities assessment: an assessment of leadership (self)-development that is designed for team cohesion in a long-term and assessment of leadership capabilities that are essential for short-term actions during crisis and emergency situations.

Innovation is important for the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to peace and justice, as well as strengthening defence and security institutions. In view of innovation and the creation of an innovative environment, the influence of leaders not only on the innovativeness of employees, but also of the organization as a whole, is considered one of the most prospective areas of future research. This article explores the influence of leadership behaviour (support for innovation, delegating, intellectual stimulation, and rewards) of top (sample size N = 275) and middle (sample size N = 891) management on the innovative behaviour of military officers. The empirical validation of the selected four leadership behaviours is based on the methodology of quantitative sociological research—a questionnaire. Research results show that strong and statistically significant correlation relationships were established at the level of top managers (commanders) between such factors as Intellectual Stimulation and Delegating, Rewards and Delegating, Delegating and Support for Innovation, as well as Support for Innovation and Rewards. Meanwhile, for middle-level managers (military officers) two strong relationships were found between such factors as Rewards and Delegating, and Delegating and Support for Innovation. Analysis of the compatibility of opinions showed that although commanders and military officers both appreciate the leadership behaviours of the top and middle management of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, it was also found that commanders are more positive about the opportunity to offer new ideas at their military unit. Furthermore, they are more positive about the statement that leadership grants them the right to take decisions and implement them, and they are also more positive about taking the initiative, when they feel support for innovation. The identified difference in the leadership behaviours of top and middle management leads to the conclusion that, at different hierarchical levels of leadership, innovative behaviour of subordinates is influenced differently in the innovation promotion process in the Lithuanian Armed Forces.

Innovation is important for the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to peace and justice, as well as strengthening defence and security institutions. In view of innovation and the creation of an innovative environment, the influence of leaders not only on the innovativeness of employees, but also of the organization as a whole, is considered one of the most prospective areas of future research. This article explores the influence of leadership behaviour (support for innovation, delegating, intellectual stimulation, and rewards) of top (sample size N = 275) and middle (sample size N = 891) management on the innovative behaviour of military officers. The empirical validation of the selected four leadership behaviours is based on the methodology of quantitative sociological research—a questionnaire. Research results show that strong and statistically significant correlation relationships were established at the level of top managers (commanders) between such factors as Intellectual Stimulation and Delegating, Rewards and Delegating, Delegating and Support for Innovation, as well as Support for Innovation and Rewards. Meanwhile, for middle-level managers (military officers) two strong relationships were found between such factors as Rewards and Delegating, and Delegating and Support for Innovation. Analysis of the compatibility of opinions showed that although commanders and military officers both appreciate the leadership behaviours of the top and middle management of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, it was also found that commanders are more positive about the opportunity to offer new ideas at their military unit. Furthermore, they are more positive about the statement that leadership grants them the right to take decisions and implement them, and they are also more positive about taking the initiative, when they feel support for innovation. The identified difference in the leadership behaviours of top and middle management leads to the conclusion that, at different hierarchical levels of leadership, innovative behaviour of subordinates is influenced differently in the innovation promotion process in the Lithuanian Armed Forces.

Innovation is important for the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to peace and justice, as well as strengthening defence and security institutions. In view of innovation and the creation of an innovative environment, the influence of leaders not only on the innovativeness of employees, but also of the organization as a whole, is considered one of the most prospective areas of future research. This article explores the influence of leadership behaviour (support for innovation, delegating, intellectual stimulation, and rewards) of top (sample size N = 275) and middle (sample size N = 891) management on the innovative behaviour of military officers. The empirical validation of the selected four leadership behaviours is based on the methodology of quantitative sociological research—a questionnaire. Research results show that strong and statistically significant correlation relationships were established at the level of top managers (commanders) between such factors as Intellectual Stimulation and Delegating, Rewards and Delegating, Delegating and Support for Innovation, as well as Support for Innovation and Rewards. Meanwhile, for middle-level managers (military officers) two strong relationships were found between such factors as Rewards and Delegating, and Delegating and Support for Innovation. Analysis of the compatibility of opinions showed that although commanders and military officers both appreciate the leadership behaviours of the top and middle management of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, it was also found that commanders are more positive about the opportunity to offer new ideas at their military unit. Furthermore, they are more positive about the statement that leadership grants them the right to take decisions and implement them, and they are also more positive about taking the initiative, when they feel support for innovation. The identified difference in the leadership behaviours of top and middle management leads to the conclusion that, at different hierarchical levels of leadership, innovative behaviour of subordinates is influenced differently in the innovation promotion process in the Lithuanian Armed Forces.

Innovation is important for the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to peace and justice, as well as strengthening defence and security institutions. In view of innovation and the creation of an innovative environment, the influence of leaders not only on the innovativeness of employees, but also of the organization as a whole, is considered one of the most prospective areas of future research. This article explores the influence of leadership behaviour (support for innovation, delegating, intellectual stimulation, and rewards) of top (sample size N = 275) and middle (sample size N = 891) management on the innovative behaviour of military officers. The empirical validation of the selected four leadership behaviours is based on the methodology of quantitative sociological research—a questionnaire. Research results show that strong and statistically significant correlation relationships were established at the level of top managers (commanders) between such factors as Intellectual Stimulation and Delegating, Rewards and Delegating, Delegating and Support for Innovation, as well as Support for Innovation and Rewards. Meanwhile, for middle-level managers (military officers) two strong relationships were found between such factors as Rewards and Delegating, and Delegating and Support for Innovation. Analysis of the compatibility of opinions showed that although commanders and military officers both appreciate the leadership behaviours of the top and middle management of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, it was also found that commanders are more positive about the opportunity to offer new ideas at their military unit. Furthermore, they are more positive about the statement that leadership grants them the right to take decisions and implement them, and they are also more positive about taking the initiative, when they feel support for innovation. The identified difference in the leadership behaviours of top and middle management leads to the conclusion that, at different hierarchical levels of leadership, innovative behaviour of subordinates is influenced differently in the innovation promotion process in the Lithuanian Armed Forces.