Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies and team performance: The
mediating influence of job satisfaction
ARTICLE in LEADERSHIP & ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL MARCH 2006
Impact Factor: 0.63 DOI: 10.1108/01437730610657721
CITATIONS
READS
13
336
1 AUTHOR:
John Politis
Neapolis University
17 PUBLICATIONS 276 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies
and team performance
The mediating
influence of job
satisfaction
203
John D. Politis
Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai, UAE
Abstract
Purpose Examines the relationship between the dimensions of self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies, job satisfaction and team performance. It also evaluates the extent to which job satisfaction
mediates the influence of self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies on team performance.
Design/methodology/approach Involves a questionnaire-based survey of employees from a
manufacturing organisation operating in Australia. A total of 304 useable questionnaires were
received from employees who are engaged in self-managing activities. These were subjected to a series
of correlational and regression analyses.
Findings There are three major findings in this research. First, the relationship between
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and job satisfaction is direct, positive and significant.
Second, the relationship between job satisfaction and team performance is positive and significant.
Finally, the results have clearly shown that job satisfaction mediates the relation between
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance.
Research limitations/implications The cross-sectional nature of the study renders it vulnerable
to some problems so that future studies should measure self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies,
job satisfaction and performance using longitudinal data and/or data from multiple sources.
Practical implications The study suggests that organisations emphasising empowerment should
utilise training programs aimed at developing employees self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies that focus on self-assessment, self-reward and self-discipline.
Originality/value The paper is the first to examine self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies
influences through a covariance structure analysis. It also clarifies the mediating affects of job
satisfaction on the self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies/team performance relationship.
Keywords Empowerment, Job satisfaction, Team performance, Self-development,
Leadership development
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Markets are becoming more complex, turbulent, unpredictable and extremely
competitive. In order to succeed in these markets, organisations need to adopt practices
leading to large-scale change. Although there is a number of typical approaches
leading to change, such as transformational change (Burnes, 2001); reengineering
(Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999); and quality management (Dale, 2000), it is suggested that
large-scale change must involve people at a fundamental level. Critical perspective
writings (Grint, 1995; Willmott, 1995) consider the emancipation of employees as
crucial to the success of large-scale change. Consequently, self-management practices
and self-leadership strategies continue to be the topics of interest to practicing
LODJ
27,3
204
managers and researchers (Manz, 1986; Manz and Sims, 1987, 2001; Politis, 2003;
Robbins, 2003; Stewart and Manz, 1995). Although self-leadership strategies are
popular in team development and have been recommended for managerial workshops
(Manz, 1992; McShane and Travaglione, 2003), there has been a gap in the literature
examining how self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies translate into
performance. It may be that self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies have their
initial influence on attitudinal perceptions regarding performance within specific task
domains. That is, the utilisation of self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies may
influence job satisfaction perceptions, which subsequently affect performance. The
objective of this paper is to examine the relationship between self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies, job satisfaction and team performance, and evaluate
the extent to which job satisfaction mediates the influence of self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies on team performance.
Literature review
Self-leadership theory
The literature clearly attests that self-leadership to a large extent overlaps with
self-management because of their common theoretical background (Manz, 1992).
Self-leadership addresses high-powered, right brain activity, and lays the foundation
for effective self-influence and continuous improvement. Self-leadership involves the
influence people exert over themselves to achieve the self-motivation and self-direction
needed to accomplish desirable outcomes (Manz, 1992). Three distinct categories of
self-leadership influence succeeding outcomes: behavioural-focused strategies, natural
reward strategies and constructive thought pattern strategies (Manz, 1986, 1992).
In relation to the behavioural-focused strategies, Manz has developed a theory,
which goes beyond the Banduras (1977, 1982) work of self-control. Manzs (1992)
self-leadership (behavioural focused) theory is an expanded self-leadership
perspective that views employees as possessing an internal self-control system
(Manz, 1979) and engages in self-evaluation processes; self-administer rewards and
punishments in managing their daily activities (Bandura, 1977; Mahoney and
Thoresen, 1974; Manz and Sims, 1980). Self-leadership, with its emphasis on the
behavioural-focused strategies, suggests strategies that are self-discipline oriented to
manage ourselves in doing difficult, unattractive, but necessary tasks. Manz (1992)
labelled these strategies as self-observation, cueing strategies, self-goal setting,
self-reward, self-punishment, and practice.
According to Manz (1992), self-observation describes the extent to which employees
can (or try to) keep track of the progress of their work, or are aware of their own work
performance. Cueing strategies represent the extent to which employees use physical
cues to remind themselves of their important tasks. Self-goal setting represents the
extent to which employees provide self-direction using personal goals. Self-reward
represents the extent to which employees influence themselves using rewards at both a
physical and mental level. Self-punishment represents the extent to which employees
correct their undesirable behaviours through the feeling of guilt when they fail to do
something. Finally, practice represents the extent to which employees improve
themselves through the process of practicing an activity before performing it. Manz
(1992) has drawn on the literature of self-control, self-regulation and self-management
(Manz, 1983, 1986; Manz and Sims, 1980, 1989; Thoresen and Mahoney, 1974) and
Considering job satisfaction has deep roots in various theories of motivation, including
the content and process theories and equity theory (Dunford, 1992), the writings are too
numerous to be listed in this paper. Among the plethora of these writings it is
acknowledged that there is an important connection between leadership and the
subordinates satisfaction and performance (Wall et al., 1986). Bass (1985, 1990) argued
that transformational leadership through the creation of meaning for employees,
results in an increased motivation and job satisfaction.
In relation to the initiating structure leadership, a study by Johns (1978) using 232
union employees found a small positive correlation between the leaders initiation of
structure and the subordinates job satisfaction. However, one study specifically
emphasised self-management leader behaviour influences on job satisfaction.
Cohen et al. (1996) found that the Manz and Sims (1987) self-management leader
behaviours (self-management, self-rehearsal and self-criticism) positively influenced
overall job satisfaction (average correlation r 0:28; p , 0:01: But Manz and Sims
(1987) self-management scales contain certain themes, such as encouraging
self-observation, encouraging self-goal setting, encouraging rehearsal and reducing
habitual self-punishment patterns, common to those measured by Manzs (1992)
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume
that the factors representing self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies will be
predictive factors of job satisfaction. This relationship represents the following
hypothesis.
H1. Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies have a direct, positive effect on
the level of job satisfaction.
The mediating
influence of job
satisfaction
205
LODJ
27,3
206
self-leadership
Method
Participants and procedures
Sample. Data were obtained from employees closely linked to manufacturing
operations and included plastics process workers, assembly workers, engineers,
quality inspectors, maintenance technicians, stores and dispatch handlers, production
controllers, clerical staff, and first line supervisors. All respondents were full-time
employees and volunteered to participate in the study. Three hundred and four useful
questionnaires were received from the survey; yielding an 81.5 per cent response rate.
Twenty-one returned questionnaires (5.6 per cent) were excluded from the sample
because they were incomplete. The sample is predominantly male (94.1 per cent), with
only 5.9 per cent females. The vast majority of employees (94.1 per cent) were engaged
in day shift activities. There is a wide range of ages represented in the sample with 22.8
per cent being in the 31-35 age group. The majority of the respondents (62 per cent) had
a technical college associate diploma and craft/technical certificates, and 17.5 per cent
had university qualifications. They had a range of tenure from 6 months to 41 years,
with 75.4 per cent in the range of 1-10 years and only 12.2 per cent had tenure with the
organisation over 15 years.
Analytical procedure. The proposed hypotheses were tested using covariance
structure analysis. Covariance-based structures are exemplified by software packages
such as LISREL, EQS and AMOS. The analysis of moment structures (AMOS, Version
5) software (Arbuckle, 2003) was used for the factor analysis (measurement model) and
for the regression analysis (structural model). The combination of factor analysis and
regression analysis is known as causal modelling (Hair et al., 1995) or structural
equation modelling (SEM). Following the recommendations of Sommer et al. (1995), a
measurement model was developed and then, with this held, a structural model. Using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) the factorial validity of the measurement models
was assessed. Given adequate validity coefficients of those measures, the number of
indicators in the model was reduced by creating a composite scale for each latent
variable (Politis, 2001, 2005).
As a test of the measurement and the structural models, a mixture of fit-indices was
employed to assess model fit. The ratio of x 2 to degrees of freedom (x 2/df) has been
computed, with ratios of less than 2.0 indicating a good fit. However, since absolute
indices can be adversely affected by sample size (Loehlin, 1992), three other relative
indices, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and
the Tucker and Lewis index (TLI) were computed to provide a more robust evaluation
of model fit (Tanaka, 1984; Tucker and Lewis, 1973). For GFI, AGFI and TLI,
coefficients closer to unity indicate a good fit, with acceptable levels of fit being above
0.90 (Marsh et al., 1988). For root mean square residual (RMR) and root mean square
error approximation (RMSEA), evidence of good fit is considered to be values , 0.05;
values from 0.05 to 0.10 are indicative of moderate fit and values . 0.10 are taken to be
evidence of a poorly fitting model (Browne and Cudeck, 1993).
Results
Measurement models
The variables measured on the survey are the self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies, job satisfaction and team performance.
Independent variables. Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies were assessed
using Manzs (1992) 18-item questionnaire. The theory posits six dimensions of
self-leadership behaviour (e.g. self-observation, cueing strategies, self-goal setting,
self-reward, self-punishment and practice). The instrument employees a five-point
response scale (1 does not describe me at all; 5 describes me very well). A CFA of
all SLQ1 items was conducted to check for construct independence. The six-factor
model corresponding to that proposed by Manz (1992) was fitted to the data. The fit
indices of GFI, AGFI, TLI, RMR and RMSEA were 0.89, 0.84, 0.87, 0.07 and 0.08,
respectively, suggesting a poor model fit. It appears that certain factors should be
combined and solutions examined with fewer factors. A series of CFAs were, therefore,
performed by considering a hierarchy of competing models, from a simple null model
The mediating
influence of job
satisfaction
207
LODJ
27,3
208
of zero common factors through to from one-, two-, three-, four-, five-, and six-factor
solutions. Substantial gains in model fit were obtained by moving from a four- to
five-factor solution. The fit indices of GFI, AGFI, TLI, RMR and RMSEA were 0.94,
0.91, 0.96, 0.04 and 0.05, respectively, suggesting that this five-factor model fits the
data fairly well. The x 2 to degrees of freedom ratio is below the recommended value of
2.0 x 2 =df 1:80 suggesting that the five-factor model provides good fit. Thus, the
data supported the independence of five factors, the first being the factor of
self-observation (four items, mean 3.91, a 0:74; which consists of its original
items and one item from cueing strategies, and the factors of self-goal setting (three
items, mean 3.81, a 0:78; self-reward (two items, mean 2.81, a 0:91;
self-punishment (three items, mean 3.63, a 0:82; and practice (three items,
mean 3.43, a 0:83: Three items dropped from further analysis due to cross
loading and/or poor loading of the order of, or , 0.11.
Dependent variables. Job satisfaction was assessed using Warr et al. (1979) 15-item
job satisfaction scale (JSS). Among the plethora of job satisfaction instruments the
selection of Warr et al.s (1979) JSS is justified for a number of reasons: first, the
questionnaire is easy to complete by unsophisticated respondents and its psychometric
properties are acceptable. Second, the scale has been previously tested on a sample of
blue-collar workers (Warr et al., 1979), which generally satisfies the needs of this study.
Third, it is short and it is easy to administer. Finally, its scoring is simple. Responses to
the 15 items were made on seven-point scale with response options from definitely
satisfied to definitely dissatisfied. JSS measures two distinct job satisfaction
variables: intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction. A CFA of all JSS
items was conducted in order to check for construct independence. A two-factor model
corresponding to that proposed by Warr et al. (1979) was fitted to the data. The fit
indices of CFA, AGFI, TLI, RMR and RMSEA were 0.93, 0.90, 0.89, 0.05 and 0.05,
respectively, suggesting that this model fits the data fairly well. The x 2 to degrees of
freedom ratio is below the recommended value of 2.0 x 2 =df 1:78 suggesting that
the two-factor model provides good fit. Thus, the data supported the independence of
two factors, namely, intrinsic job satisfaction (six items, mean 4.83, a 0:79; and
extrinsic job satisfaction (seven items, mean 4.64, a 0:73: Two items were
dropped due to cross loading.
Team performance was assessed using both non-financial and financial
measures. The non-financial measure of team performance was assessed using
Crouchs (1980) five-scale of Crouchs behavioural inventory instrument. Responses
to the five items were made on seven-point scale with response options from
definitely agree to definitely disagree. The five-item scale resulting from the
CFA of this study showed a good internal reliability coefficient (five items,
mean 5.37, a 0:83:
Finally, the financial measure of team performance[1] was assessed using a
composite scale made from quality, schedule and profit (three items, mean 91.1,
a 0:76: External team leaders of the self-managing teams reported the level of
performance for each indicator schedule, quality and profit as a per cent of target
value over the previous six months. Given adequate validity of above measures, the
number of indicator variables was reduced by creating a composite scale for each
latent variable (Politis, 2001, 2005). As a result of the CFAs, the theoretical model to be
tested contains the variables shown in Figure 1.
Job satisfaction
variables
Team
performance
Job Satisfaction
(Warret al. 1979)
Team Performance
Self-observation
Self-goal setting
Extrinsic Job
Satisfaction
Self-reward
Non-financial Team
Performance
(Crouch, 1980)
Financial Team
Performance [1]
Self-punishment
Practice
The mediating
influence of job
satisfaction
209
Figure 1.
Summary of variables
used in the paper
Meana
SD (s)
Reliability
estimate a
Loading
l sa
Error variance
u a 2(1 2 a)
0.74
0.78
0.91
0.82
0.83
0.53
0.65
1.14
0.79
0.81
0.100
0.120
0.127
0.136
0.135
0.79
0.73
1.07
1.09
0.302
0.435
0.83
0.76
1.08
13.4
0.237
47.88
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities
and l and u estimates
LODJ
27,3
Job satisfactio
variables n
Team
performance
Selfobservation
1 = .34**
210
3 = .28**
Intrinsic
job
satisfaction
Self-goal
setting
4 = .32**
5 = .21*
7 = .27**
Selfreward
10 = .27***
Non-financial
team
performance
12= .32***
11 = .32***
2 = .29**
6 = .36***
Extrinsic
job
satisfaction
Selfpunishment
Overall team
performance
13 = .26**
8 = .30***
9 = .22**
Practice
Figure 2.
Structural estimates for
the hypothesised modela
also contains the dependent variables of intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job
satisfaction, non-financial team performance and overall team performance.
The analysis revealed that the structural model of Figure 2 fits the data well,
with x 2 8:7; df 12; x 2 =df 0:72; GFI 0:97; AGFI 0:95; TLI 0:97;
RMR 0:049; and RMSEA 0:08: Figure 2 shows results of hypotheses testing using
SEM. Standardised path estimates (gs) are provided to facilitate comparison of regression
coefficients. It should be noted that only significant regression coefficients are reported.
As predicted, four of the five self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies had
positive effect on intrinsic job satisfaction, largely supporting H1. Specifically,
self-observation, self-goal setting, self-reward and self-punishment are significantly
and positively related to intrinsic job satisfaction g1 0:34; p , 0:01; g3 0:28;
p , 0:01; g5 0:21; p , 0:05; and g7 0:27; p , 0:01;, respectively). Contrary to our
prediction, practice had no effect on intrinsic job satisfaction. Furthermore, the five
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies had positive effect on extrinsic job
satisfaction, supporting H2. Self-observation, self-goal setting, self-reward,
self-punishment and practice are significantly and positively related to extrinsic job
The mediating
influence of job
satisfaction
211
LODJ
27,3
212
Discussion
The aim of this study was to:
.
extend the field of leadership research by investigating the relationship between
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies, job satisfaction and team
performance; and
.
evaluate the extent to which job satisfaction mediates the influence of
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies on team performance.
Path modelling analyses examined the structural relations in the proposed model and
whether an alternative structural representation was justifiable. Covariance structure
analysis provided strong support for the relations shown in the model of Figure 2. The
GFI of 0.97 revealed that the model of Figure 2 accurately reproduced the observed
covariances. (Note: alternative models to that of Figure 2 resulted to worse model fit.)
The relationships derived from the model indicate that self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies enhance job satisfaction, which in turn affects
performance. This finding is consistent with previous research on the positive affects
of leadership on job satisfaction (Wall et al., 1986; Cohen et al., 1996; Bass, 1990). The
current results extend previous research findings by Prussia et al. (1998) and Cohen et al.
(1996). Prussia et al. (1998) supported the relationship between self-leadership,
self-efficacy and performance, but these authors did not examine the affect of the specific
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies on job satisfaction. Yet, Cohen et al. (1996)
did not examine the mediating effects of job satisfaction on the self-management
behaviour/performance relationship. The findings of the current study:
.
confirmed the previously unexplored relationship between self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies and job satisfaction; and
.
contributed to the understanding of the mediating effects of job satisfaction on
the self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies/team performance
relationship.
These findings have implications for both research and management practices.
From a research perspective, this study is the first to examine self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies influences through a covariance structure analysis.
By analysing latent variables to assess the constructs of interest, the present study
avoided measurement bias inherent in single indicator models (James et al., 1982).
The mediating
influence of job
satisfaction
213
LODJ
27,3
214
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.S. and Brett, J.M. (1982), Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models and Data,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Johns, G. (1978), Task moderators of the relationship between leadership style and subordinate
responses, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 319-25.
Judd, C.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1981), Estimated the Effects of Social Interventions, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996), Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81, pp. 36-51.
Loehlin, J. (1992), Latent Variables Models, Erlbaum, Hillside, NJ.
McShane, S. and Travaglione, T. (2003), Organizational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim,
McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Sydney.
Mahoney, M.J. and Thoresen, C.E. (1974), Self-control: Power to the Person, Brooks/Cole,
Monterey, CA.
Manz, C.C. (1979), Sources of control: a behaviour modification perspective, Proceedings:
Eastern Academy of Management, pp. 82-8.
Manz, C.C. (1983), The Art of Self-leadership: Strategies for Personal Effectiveness in Your Life
and Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. (1986), Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in
organizations, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 585-600.
Manz, C.C. (1992), Mastering Self-leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1980), Self-management as a substitute for leadership: a social
learning theory perspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 361-7.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), Leading workers to lead themselves. The external
leadership of self-managing work teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32,
pp. 106-29.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1989), Superleadership: Leading Others to Lead Themselves,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2001), The New Superleadership: Leading Others to Lead
Themselves, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., New York, NY.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988), Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory
factor analysis: the effect of sample size, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 391-410.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Politis, J.D. (2001), The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management,
The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 354-64.
Politis, J.D. (2003), QFD: the role of various leadership styles, The Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 181-92.
Politis, J.D. (2005), Dispersed leadership predictor of the work environment for creativity and
productivity, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 182-204.
Prussia, G.E., Anderson, J.S. and Manz, C.C. (1998), Self-leadership and performance: the
mediating influence of self-efficacy, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 19,
pp. 523-38.
Robbins, S.P. (2003), Organisational Behaviour, 10th ed., Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
The mediating
influence of job
satisfaction
215
LODJ
27,3
216
Roberts, K.H. and Glick, W. (1981), The job characteristics approach to task design: a critical
review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 193-217.
Sommer, S., Bae, S-H. and Luthans, F. (1995), The structure-climate relationship in Korean
organisations, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 23-36.
Spreitzer, G., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain, Journal
of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 679-704.
Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1995), Leadership for self-managing work teams: a typology and
integrative model, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 747-70.
Tanaka, J.S. (1984), Some results on the estimation of covariance structure models, Dissertation
Abstracts International, Vol. 45, p. 924B.
Thoresen, C.E. and Mahoney, M.J. (1974), Behavioural Self-control, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
New York, NY.
Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973), The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis, Psychometrika, Vol. 38, pp. 1-10.
Wall, T.D., Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P.R. and Clegg, C.W. (1986), Outcomes of autonomous
workgroups: a long-term field experiment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 280-304.
Warr, P.B., Cook, J. and Wall, T.D. (1979), Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes
and aspects of psychological well-being, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 129-48.
Willmott, H. (1995), The odd couple? Reengineering business process, managing human
resources, New Technology Work and Employment, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 89-98.
About the author
John D. Politis is pioneering Faculty and Subject Co-ordinator of the Bachelor of Engineering
Management Programs, Faculty of Business and Engineering, Higher Colleges of Technology,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is also the Chair for the Engineering Management Program.
John has earned a PhD in Management from University of Technology, Sydney, Australia; a
Master of Business Administration from Century University, USA; a Graduate Certificate on
Online Education and Training from the Institute of Education, University of London; a
Graduate Certificate in Enterprise Management from Swinburne University of Technology,
Australia; a Master of Science (Mechanical) from Aristotelion University, Greece; and a Bachelor
of Engineering from the University of Melbourne, Australia. John D. Politis can be contacted at:
John.Politis@hct.ac.ae