Search results

Research examining the influence of organizational factors on entrepreneurial tendencies and performance within organizations is scarce. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of organizational structure and work autonomy on entrepreneurial tendencies, locus of control and performance.

Data were obtained online using validated self-report questionnaires in a sample of 181 currently employed individuals.

The results showed organizational structure components to be related to work autonomy and performance, but not to individual-level variables. However, work autonomy related to entrepreneurial tendencies and locus of control, indicating potential indirect effects of organizational structure on individual-level variables via work autonomy. Entrepreneurial tendencies and locus of control were positively related to performance.

Whilst the mediating effect of a number of individual-level traits has been examined in the past, very little research has looked at how organizational factors may influence entrepreneurial tendencies. Fostering entrepreneurial tendencies in employees may facilitate corporate entrepreneurship and performance within organizations.

This is a thought-leader interview with psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic on his insights into the implications for our humanity of the AI age.

A thought-leader interview

The interview highlights six maladaptive human tendencies that are at risk of being amplified in the age of AI and what we can do to mitigate them

The interview examines the latest thinking on the topic.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship of the Five-Factor Model Personality Disorder (FFM PD) count technique to industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) criteria. In this vein, the present research sought to extend previous studies (e.g. De Fruyt et al., 2009) by eliminating common method variance, and by including several objectively assessed IWO criteria, namely, managerial level, intelligence, and creativity.

In total, 1,659 working adults reported their managerial level in their organization, and completed two intelligence tests, a measure of creativity, and a measure of the Big Five personality traits in an assessment centre. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.

Results showed that the FFM PD counts were significantly associated with each IWO criteria. Results also show that specific linear combinations of Five-Factor Model facets can explain a larger proportion of the variance in these criteria. Finally, normative benchmark values are provided and validated for personnel development contexts in the UK.

Because the FFM PD score-distributions were limited to one assessment setting (medium stakes) only, the use of proposed benchmarks may not be appropriate for other contexts.

Considering the mounting evidence in the area, assessing dark side traits is likely to be desirable for organizations – particularly in selection and development settings.

This study is the first to demonstrate the validity of the FFM PD count technique in relation to objectively measured IWO criteria.

The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of the need to understand the differences between management and leadership within the project environment.

First stage research involved data analysis from forum, workshops, group to one, one to one interviews. Second stage research involves a five‐year PhD study undertaken by the author.

The paper highlights the need not only to understand the difference between project management and leadership, but also to use this differentiation in the identification, assessment and development of project services providers and as an integral part of organisational and people development for all companies involved in sponsoring, supporting or delivering projects.

The premise is that the emphasis needs to be on project leadership to achieve a successful project

The paper includes research within a specific industry based on identification of a market niche.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether managers at different levels differ in terms of ability and personality.

Assessment centre results for over a thousand managers on two cognitive and two non‐cognitive tests were subject to analysis of variance.

Non‐manager specialists scored highest on one ability test, but lowest on the other. Senior managers had highest Expressed Inclusion and Control scores but lowest Wanted Inclusion and Control scores. Non‐managers were found to be most diligent and dutiful.

Level is inevitably confounded with age and experience, which may impact onto the individual difference variables making it difficult to accurately attribute causality.

It is important to use psychometric test data to help in selection of all managers. Different levels require different profiles.

An exploration of individual differences in a large sample of managers that may relate to promotion to senior management levels.

The current study aims to investigate the extent to which personality and demographic variables contribute to motivation and job satisfaction as defined by the two‐factor theory.

A total of 202 fulltime workers completed three questionnaires measuring their personality, work motivation and satisfaction.

Results demonstrate that between 9 and 15 per cent of the variance in motivation is accounted for by demographic variables and the Big Five personality traits. In line with previous findings (Judge et al.), conscientiousness and job status were both significant predictors of job satisfaction, and between 11 and 13 per cent of the variance was accounted for by personality and other demographic variables.

This study was restricted to self‐report measure. It never took into consideration other potential confounds like a person's job history, level and responsibilities. It also showed personality factors accounted for very little evidence of the variance.

Implications are discussed in terms of attempts to improve employee attitudes without considering the effects of individual differences. An acknowledgement that individual differences can affect the success of an intervention, may contribute to the design of effective work reorganisation schemes that are better suited to the employees they seek to benefit.

The value of this paper was that it looked at how personality and demographic factors may influence a person's work satisfaction.

As an adult-learning practitioner, I am intrigued by the process of helping learners, especially leaders, develop through the affective domain. Although leaders in my experience often comprehend the lexicon of emotional intelligence (EI), incorporating EI for leadership developmenthasprovenelusive.WhileresearchsuggestsEIisdifficulttodevelopinpeople,this paper argues that leaders can do so by tapping into a higher mental and emotional state, and that such mindfulness practices can enhance leaders’ EI. Findings suggest that (a) EI positively impacts leadership effectiveness, (b) mindfulness can serve as a method for growing EI, and (c) mindfulnesscanenhance thepracticeofleadership. Thepaperoffersrecommendationsforadult- learning practitioners who create EI- and mindfulness-based training and provides directions for future research.

There has been a decades-long debate in the leadership development field about the validity and efficacy of strengths-based assessment. This debate is not about recognizing the value in “a conversation about what’s right with people […] we were tired of living in a world that revolved around fixing our weaknesses”. Most agree that there is value in building on strengths.

The debate is fueled by psychologists, recognized experts in understanding human performance who dismiss Gallup – and other strengths-based leadership firms – who falsely promote the assertion “what’s more, we had discovered that people had several times more potential for growth when they invest energy in developing strengths instead of correcting weaknesses”. This is not true – no matter how aggressively strengths-based firms market this notion.

Strength-based approaches, especially as an exclusive approach, is overtly blind to the critical fact that most people show a mix of strengths and weaknesses – performance drivers and derailers – and the whole mix interacts. So besides missing the intended mark of increasing a professional’s skills in leadership, teamwork and communications, there are significant costs to this approach that vary from missed opportunities to downright dangerous.

Stanford Business School Professor Jeffrey Pfeiffer drives this point home in his book Leadership BS, a bruising critique of the leadership development industry. Pfeiffer correctly states that the leadership development industry is driven more by marketing and sales imperatives than the application of peer-reviewed scientific studies – which a century ago transformed the medical model and led to the successful eradication of many diseases. Unfortunately, the leadership development industry is driven by marketing and sales imperatives instead of good science. In fact, this may only accelerate in the future as many top assessment firms have been bought by public companies – often in the staffing industry – that seek ways to increase their earnings, focused more on shareholder returns than the science of performance.