https://www.mdu.se/

Purpose A common component in leadership interventions is the provision of feedback on leadership behaviors. The assumption is that, when there is a discrepancy in this feedback between managers' and others' ratings of leadership, this will increase managers' self-awareness and motivate them to close this gap. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how agreement between managers and their subordinates changes over time as a result of a leadership intervention. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire data were collected from line managers (N=18) and their subordinates (N=640) at pre-intervention, post-intervention and at a six-month follow-up. The managers participated in a leadership intervention that aimed to increase their knowledge and skills related to the leadership behaviors described in the Full-Range Leadership Model. Inter-rater agreement and reliability were calculated to justify aggregating the subordinates' ratings. The managers and their subordinates were grouped according to three agreement categories: in agreement, managers' over-rating and managers' under-rating based on the managers' views of their leader behaviors in relation to their subordinates'. Findings Manager-subordinate agreement on the managers' leadership increased between pre-intervention and post-intervention but then decreased at the six-month follow-up (17, 61 and 44 percent, respectively). Most managers (n=15) changed agreement categories over time, and only three managers remained in the same agreement category throughout. The subordinates' mean leadership ratings changed more than the managers' mean ratings. Originality/value This is the first study to explore how manager-subordinate agreement changes when managers participate in a leadership intervention in a health care context. It shows that an intervention that includes upward feedback, by which managers self-rating of their leadership is compared with their subordinates' ratings, can be an effective way to increase agreement.