Editorial

Citation

Gimson, A. (2015), "Editorial", Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 29 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-08-2015-0069

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Volume 29, Issue 6

Anne Gimson

Anne Gimson is the Editor of DLO, based at Strategic Developments International Ltd, Abergavenny, UK. E-mail: anne.gimson@googlemail.com

The developing role of leadership and development and the profession’s willingness to change has been the subject of much debate in recent years, with research indicating that the profession is slow in adapting and up-skilling itself to more effectively tackle the significant and rapid shifts in the organizational world. Our Viewpoint from Jeremy Gray (pp. 3-6) addresses one aspect of this head on, as he lambasts what he calls the “con-artists and corporate trainers” of the organizational world. I do not doubt that his strong opinions will elicit some equally strong reactions!

The need to constantly learn, adapt and innovate at a speed that matches the volatility of this global business world is a challenge not just for the L&D profession. Josh Hodge and Vanessa Ratten offer a useful summary of how developing capabilities in improvisation (bringing planning and execution stages together) can increase employee’s levels of creativity and flexibility (pp. 7-9). As well as providing a simple model, they explore four key factors – two individual and two organizational – that need to be in place to get the most from the process.

Gary Cole takes another well-known process – feedback – and provides a practical synopsis of why and how we should be using feedback in organizations (pp. 10-12). The ratio of positive to negative feedback required to maintain motivation is a particularly welcome reminder.

One formal context for feedback is, of course, the 360 degree process and Paul Lawrence reports on his research conducted over two programmes (pp. 13-16). The differences between the first 360 process and the second (where learning from the first was applied and changes made), are significant and the resultant best practice model could be useful in any organization. The aspect that resonated most strongly for me is the fact that people need to revisit things over time in an appropriate setting (e.g. with a coach) to make progress on behavioural change.

In “Making leadership development more effective” (pp. 20-22), we explore the relationship between people’s psychological reaction to training and any relationship with changes in their leadership behaviour. Whilst based on a single programme, the results suggest that changes in “positive affect” (subjective experience of positive moods) were the measures most reliably associated with changes in behaviour.

Reviewing a more conceptual piece, “Taking workplace learning back to school” (pp. 23-25) takes us on a journey, via Harry Potter, into the activities within a family residential unit in Australia. The framework proposes four dimensions of workplace learning – time, space, body and material.

Returning to the unstable environment in which all organizations now operate, our last four articles shed some light on the plethora of choices organizational leaders have as to what type of leadership will work most effectively.

First, Saniya Chawla and Usha Lenka provide us with their perspective on “resonant leadership”, where the leader focuses on trust, co-operation, creating an environment conducive to learning and providing the impetus for change (pp. 17-19).

“Designing the perfect leader” summarizes a study of educational leaders in New York (pp. 26-28). The researchers’ question addressed whether “professional” or “personal” leadership behaviours had the greatest impact on the willingness of employees to co-operate. As you might guess, the results did not indicate “either/or”, but suggested that both are needed. However, the biggest transformative effect on organizational performance came from personal leadership.

The enigma of how to lead successful change across international boundaries and cultures is examined in “Joined up approach to global leadership” (pp. 29-31). Under the umbrella term Global Strategic Change, four important variables are defined – context, distance, time and focus – and the examination of cultural contingencies is included as the third stage of a four-stage change process.

In this final issue for the year, a lot of attention has been given to how we best survive in our “VUCA” (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world. We will continue to bring you the latest thinking as we move into the New Year and hope that the journal will continue to help deepen your skills and capabilities to adapt and thrive in this sea of impermanence. On behalf of the whole DLO team, I wish you a healthy, peaceful and prosperous 2016.