Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-g96hj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-30T12:48:58.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Effective Leader Behaviors in Regularly Held Staff Meetings

Surveyed vs. Videotaped and Video-Coded Observations

from Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2015

By
Marcella Hoogeboom  and
Celeste Wilderom
Edited by
Joseph A. Allen ,
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock  and
Steven G. Rogelberg
Joseph A. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Steven G. Rogelberg
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Get access

Summary

Abstract

In this chapter, we report on two studies that took an exploratory behavioral approach to leaders in regular staff meetings. The goal of both studies, which used a still rarely deployed observation method, was to identify effective behavioral repertoires of leaders in staff meetings; we specifically examined how video-observed instances of effective leader behavior differ from group members' perceptions of effective leader behavior. One study found that members attribute more relation-oriented and fewer task-oriented behaviors to an effective leader while their actual behavioral repertoire is predominantly made up of task-oriented behaviors. Study 2 explored whether followers' ratings of a transformational leadership style can be explained by the coded leader behaviors actually shown in the meetings. We found that this perceived style was significantly explained by both “individualized consideration” and (task-oriented) “delegating” leader behavior. In the discussion we reflect on the findings of both studies and sketch some practical implications. A number of conclusions further aim to contribute to the productivity of meetings in work-unit settings.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 381 - 412
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, J. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Manager-led group meetings: A context for promoting employee engagement. Group & Organization Management, 38, 543–569. doi: 10.1177/1059601113503040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295. doi: 10.1016/S1048–9843(03)00030–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwater, L., Wang, M., Smither, J. W., & Fleenor, J. W. (2009). Are cultural characteristics associated with the relationship between self and others' ratings of leadership? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 876–886. doi: 10.1037/a0014561CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. doi: 10.1348/096317999166789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baran, B. E., Rhoades Shanock, L. R., Rogelberg, S. G., & Scott, C. W. (2012). Leading group meetings: Supervisors' actions, employee behaviors, and upward perceptions. Small Group Research, 43, 330–355. doi: 10.1177/1046496411418252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire sampler set: Technical report, leader form, rater form, and scoring key for MLQ Form 5x-short. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207–218. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.88.2.207CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. doi: 10.1037/1089–2680.5.4.323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033–2909.107.2.238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, 62, 229–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1744–6570.2009.01137.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bono, J. E., Hooper, A. C., & Yoon, D. J. (2012). Impact of rater personality on transformational and transactional leadership ratings. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 132–145. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.89.5.901CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brand, M. (1976). Watch what you're doing: Learning to cope with behavior problems through video simulation. Music Educators Journal, 63, 50–53. doi: 10.2307/3395097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L.M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 245–272. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cox, D. (1987). Motives for private income transfers. Journal of Political Economy, 95, 508–546. doi: 10.1086/261470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (2007). Shadowing and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297–311. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–256. doi: 10.1016/S1048–9843(99)00018–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293–310. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.89.2.293CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Schoel, L. C., Russell, J. E. A., & Poteet, M. L. (1998). Reactions of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 427–448. doi: 10.1016/S1048–9843(98)90010–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378–382. doi: 10.1037/h0031619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, S. L., & Cone, J. D. (1980). Current issues in direct observation. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 313–338.Google Scholar
Foti, R. J., & Luch, C. H. (1992). The influence of individual differences on the perception and categorization of leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 55–66. doi: 10.1016/1048–9843(92)90006–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.73.4.695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. doi: 10.1037/0033–295X.94.3.319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of “nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1234–1248. doi: 10.1037/a0012875CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387–397. doi: 10.1037/h0027347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoogeboom, A. M. G. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., Nijhuis, J. H. E., & Van Den Berg, P. T. (2011, August). Leader values, style and behavior during meetings: Triangulated evidence of effective leadership. Paper Presented at the OB division of the Academy of Management Meetings, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Galanes, G. J. (2003). In their own words: An exploratory study of bona fide group leaders. Small Group Research, 34, 741–770. doi: 10.1177/1046496403257649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.64.4.349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.89.5.755CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.89.1.36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, S., Cortina, J., Ruark, G., LaPort, K., & Nicolaides, V. (2014). The role of organizational leaders in employee emotion management: A theoretical model. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 563–580. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1979). Fictions, factions, and functions of behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 10, 629–654. doi: 10.1016/S0005–7894(79)80066–0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriesberg, M. (1950). Executives evaluate administrative conferences. Advanced Management, 15, 15–17.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1987). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72–107. doi: 10.1037/0033–2909.87.1.72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, R. G. (1977). Functional leadership behavior: Measurement and relation to social power and leadership perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 114–133. doi: 10.2307/2391749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378. doi: 10.1016/0030–5073(84)90043–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In Hunt, J. G., Sekaran, U., & Schriesheim, C. (Eds.). Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 104–121). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425. doi: 10.1016/S1048–9843(96)90027–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2012). Some “technical challenges” of video analysis: Social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative Research, 12, 255–279. doi: 10.1177/1468794112436655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luong, A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2005). Meetings and more meetings: The relationship between meeting load and the daily well-being of employees. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 9, 58–67. doi: 10.1037/1089–2699.9.1.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2003). 360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical analysis suggests a winning combination. Human Resource Management, 42, 243–256. doi: 10.1002/hrm.10083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50–60. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1372–1395. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, T. J., & Lord, R. G. (1991). An exploration of cognitive demands in group interaction as a moderator of information processing variables in perceptions of leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 821–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1559–1816.1991.tb00445.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, L. (1994). Japanese and American meetings and what goes on before them: A case study of co-worker misunderstanding. International Pragmatics Association, 4, 221–238.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53, 873–900. doi: 10.1111/j.1744–6570.2000.tb02421.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naidoo, L. J., Kohari, N. E., Lord, R. G., & DuBois, D. A. (2010). “Seeing” is retrieving: Recovering emotional content in leadership ratings through visualization. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 886–900. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, C. T., & Littlepage, G. E. (1992). Impact of meeting procedures on meeting effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6, 361–369. doi: 10.1007/BF01126771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noldus, L. P. J. J., Trienes, R. J. H., Hendriksen, A. H. M., Jansen, H., & Jansen, R. G. (2000). The Observer Video-Pro: New software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 197–206. doi: 10.3758/BF03200802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nye, J. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (1991). The effects of prototype-based biases on leadership appraisals: A test of leadership categorization theory. Small Group Research, 22, 360–379. doi: 10.1177/1046496491223005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K. Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58. doi: 10.1016/1048–9843(94)90005–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.), (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peus, C., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Situation-based measurement of the full range of leadership model: Development and validation of a situational judgement test. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 777–795. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.88.5.879CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rackham, N., & Morgan, T. (1977). Behavior analysis in training. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Reid, J. B. (1982). Observer training in naturalistic research. In Hartmann, D. P. (Ed.), Using observers to study behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rienks, R. (2007). Meetings in smart environments: Implications of progressing technologies (Doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G. (2006). Meetings at work. In Rogelberg, S. G. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 474–475). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C. W., & Shuffler, M. (2010). Employee satisfaction with their meetings: A unique predictor of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49, 149–172. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2006). “Not another meeting!” Are meeting demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 86–96. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.91.1.83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogelberg, S. G., Scott, C. S., & Kello, J. (2007). The science and fiction of meetings. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48, 18–21.Google Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., Shanock, L. R., & Scott, C. W. (2012). Wasted time and money in meetings: Increasing return on investment. Small Group Research, 43, 236–245. doi: 10.1177/1046496411429170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romano, N. C., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2001, January). Meeting analysis: Findings from research and practice. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2001.926253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, J. A., & Gottlieb, B. H. (2007). Development and initial validation of a measure of supportive and unsupportive managerial behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 186–203. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriesheim, C. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Schriesheim, J. F. (1979). The effect of leniency on leader behavior descriptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 1–29. doi: 10.1016/0030–5073(79)90042–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, H. B. (1989). The meeting: Foreground/background. In Schwartzman, H. B. (Ed.), The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities (pp. 309–314). New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schyns, B. & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J. B. (1990). A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management. Academy of Management Review, 15, 626–645. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1990.4310830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 959–978. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrondrick, S. J. & Lord, R. G. (2010). Implicit leadership and follower theories: Dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, and leader-follower processes. In Hodgkinson, G. P. & Ford, J. K. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–34). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Smith, R. L., McPhail, C., & Pickens, R. G. (1975). Reactivity to systematic observation with film: A field experiment. Sociometry, 38, 536–550. doi: 10.2307/2786366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239–1251. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1989). Person memory and judgment. Psychological Review, 96, 58–83. doi: 10.1037/0033–295X.96.1.58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stentz, J. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Matkin, G. S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1173–1183. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 73–84. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1744–6570.2006.00725.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Weide, J. G. (2007). An explorative video-study of the behaviors of effective middle managers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Tilburg, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wherry, R. J., & Bartlett, C. J. (1982). The control of bias in ratings: A theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35, 521–551. doi: 10.1111/j.1744–6570.1982.tb02208.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 33–48. doi: 10.1080/135943299398429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 15–32. doi: 10.1177/107179190200900102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the managerial practices survey. In Clark, K. E., & Clark, M. B. (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 223–238). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, P. H., Bolhuis, J. E., Willemsen, A., Meyer, E. S., & Noldus, L. P. J. J. (2009). The Observer XT: A tool for the integration and synchronization of multimodal signals. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 731–735. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.3.731CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×