Purpose Although the systemic approach to the leadership concept seems to fit well into our modern complex and dynamic work environment, only little research has been conducted to define and assess systemic leadership. In this study we therefore developed and assessed criterion validity of the multidimensional systemic leadership inventory (SLI, Sülzenbrück & Externbrink, 2017). Methodology We conducted two cross-sectional survey among managers and employees of various organizations (N = 143 and N = 150). Results We found a robust five-factor structure of the SLI, comprising systemic thinking, self-knowledge, solution-oriented communication, creating meaning and delegation. Regarding criterion validity, a significant positive correlation of systemic leadership was found with affective commitment, while a significant negative correlation with emotional strain in occupational contexts occurred. These overall positive outcomes for employees were not undermined by negative personality traits of the employee (Machiavellianism), while strong growth need strength further enhanced positive effects on affective commitment. Limitations Since all variables were measured as self-reports, common method variance could limit our findings. Practical Implications Systemic leadership is a very promising new approach for leaders to ensure committed and less strained employees. Value Systemic leadership, especially in terms of a leaders’ understanding of organizational and private systems influencing work behaviour of all members of an organization, is a promising novel leadership model suitable to address challenges of complex and dynamic work environments.

Abstract Sometimes, policing requires a quick and correct assessment of potentially hazardous situations. The training of tactical gaze control and visual attention, and its positive impact on efficient shoot/don’t shoot decisions in police cadets’ use of firearms has recently been demonstrated. On this basis, we designed an individual videobased police firearms training that was grounded on the Four-Component Instructional Design Model (4C/ID). We shifted toward an individual blended learning approach where we applied an intervention training focused on situational awareness, tactical gaze control, and visual attention. In a preregistered lab experiment, N = 45 senior police officers were randomly allocated to the intervention training or an active control training that resembled a traditional police firearms training. Both groups watched a self-produced educational video before proceeding to the practical training in our indoor firing range. In a pre- and post-test, they engaged in realistic shoot/don’t shoot video scenarios. Both groups did very well regarding decision-making, the optimal muzzle position, and the tactical conduct to keep both eyes open before shooting. Although both groups performed on a comparable level in the pre-test’s shoot scenarios, the intervention group significantly improved their response times and time until the first hit. Overall, we were able to provide an adapted, didactically based police firearms training that supplements current standards. We demonstrated that experts are still susceptible to innovative training concepts and therefore substantiate the recommendation to devote more attention to approaches that emphasize the importance of situational awareness, tactical gaze control, and visual attention in police firearms training.