Search results

Within the scope of broadening participation and developing diverse talents in STEM leadership, this paper aims to deliver a research study that explores faculty leaders’ caring intelligence as STEM leadership intelligence. STEM leadership intelligence is the knowledge, skills, traits and aptitude essential to effective leadership in STEM education.

A previously developed STEM caring-oriented academic managerial leadership framework (SCAMLF) and a typology of STEM faculty leadership styles were used to thematically analyze the caring intelligence and leadership qualities of STEM faculty leaders. Interview transcripts of 18 STEM faculty leaders at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), provided by the Center for the Advancement of STEM Leadership (CASL), were used as data in this study.

The empirical evidence gained from this study highlighted important themes, descriptors and narratives for exploring caring intelligence and leadership intelligence of STEM faculty leadership in HBCUs.

Although the generalizability of the study is limited because of the sample size, STEM caring was found to be the most common dimension present in the reflections of participating STEM faculty leaders with diverse leadership styles. Implications for future research on STEM leadership intelligence were discussed.

Studying caring intelligence as a form of leadership intelligence provides a new and innovative means of assessing STEM leadership intelligence. Caring intelligence can be employed to predict the mindset, performance and behaviors of STEM faculty leaders.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine how leaders furthered the development of a social enterprise in response to paradoxes. Data on leadership practices were collected through interviews and observations in an Italian Healthcare network over the organization’s first two years. The data indicate that leaders addressed paradoxes in developing several critical resources by using both top-down influence and bottom-up participation. Leaders used top-down practices to further organizational development along a known path when they could leverage technical expertise or a vision to address a source of tension. Bottom-up practices, on the other hand, permitted the discovery of new paths that had not been previously identified. Leaders leveraged such responses where tensions appeared intractable. Implications for managers and organizational development and change practitioners are discussed.

Care is by no means a new topic to those involved in philosophy of education. However, I wish to (re)make the case that we ought to care as educators, despite the many risks and uncertainties. I draw on the work of contemporary philosophers to explore the connection between teaching and care in an attempt to (re)focus our understanding of the why and how we care (the process that brings us to caring action and practices to enhance normative practices of education) and the ethical considerations that accompany such a caring approach in education. I will engage in an exercise of praxis in an attempt to foster teaching that promotes things as they ought to be through Björn Freter's (2017a) conceptual work regarding the “existential experience of and the existential need to exercise care” (p. 5).

Using the framework developed by Freter, I point out that, despite normative uncertainties, educators should engage their concern, volition, and practice in order that what ought to be for students can be sought. How this theoretical exploration of caring is extrapolated into classroom practice is found in a synthesizing of Nicholas Burbules and Susanne Rice's (1992) concept of communicative virtues, Nel Noddings' (2012) work on caring as a relational dialogue, Schmitz, Müllan, and Slaby (2011) thoughts on affective involvement, and Barbara Thayer-Bacon and Charles Bacon's (1996) philosophical investigation into a model of caring educator. I will then humanize my contribution by adding personal testimony and philosophical conceptualization of particular experiences with pedagogical practices of care as an educator in primary, secondary, and tertiary educational settings. I conclude with some discussion on the risks and uncertainties inherent in such an endeavor.

Economists and sociologists have proposed arguments for why there can exist wage penalties for work involving helping and caring for others, penalties borne disproportionately by women. Evidence on wage penalties is neither abundant nor compelling. We examine wage differentials associated with caring jobs using multiple years of Current Population Survey (CPS) earnings files matched to O*NET job descriptors that provide continuous measures of “assisting & caring” and “concern” for others across all occupations. This approach differs from prior studies that assume occupations either do or do not require a high level of caring. Cross-section and longitudinal analyses are used to examine wage differences associated with the level of caring, conditioned on worker, location, and job attributes. Wage level estimates suggest substantive caring penalties, particularly among men. Longitudinal estimates based on wage changes among job switchers indicate smaller wage penalties, our preferred estimate being a 2% wage penalty resulting from a one standard deviation increase in our caring index. We find little difference in caring wage gaps across the earnings distribution. Measuring mean levels of caring across the U.S. labor market over nearly thirty years, we find a steady upward trend, but overall changes are small and there is no evidence of convergence between women and men.

This chapter engages Heidegger’s notion of caring-for-others to consider what it means to care authentically for young students who are struggling to engage in their professional education. While care is commonly understood as an emotive or cognitive state, from Heidegger’s perspective, caring for students is expressed in human action. In “Being and Time”, Heidegger examines how humans care for one another in variable ways in the course of everyday life and distinguishes between “inauthentic” and “authentic” modes of caring. The author critically builds upon Heidegger’s underdeveloped analysis, which articulates a binary between “leaping in” for others (inauthentic modes), and “leaping ahead” of others (authentic modes). From within this conceptual binary, the author argues that authentic care could be mistaken for the educator’s capacity to somehow always care for students in leaping ahead modes, and that such a view leaves little room for the possibility of pedagogic situations that sometimes call educators to leap in for students. Drawing on an Australian youth work lecturer’s story about her experience caring for a student, the author shows how any authentic caring on the educators’ part is predicated on students leaping ahead of themselves, toward their own futural selves as caring professionals in the world.

Although the study of factors that promote employee well-being is not a new research area, the impact of managerial caring and perceived insider status on subjective employee well-being is a relatively new and unexplored area within the management literature. Therefore, this study examined the relationship between managerial caring and subjective employee well-being while considering the mediating effect of perceived insider status. Based on social identity theory, the study hypothesized that perceived insider status mediates the link between managerial caring and subjective employee well-being.

The study analyzed data from 193 employees working across various industries in the United Arab Emirates using Process Macro Model 4.

The findings revealed a positive relationship between managerial caring and employee well-being, which was influenced by the mediating effect of perceived insider status.

The study’s results, which shed light on the process by which managerial caring positively affects employee well-being, provide valuable insights for developing a caring workplace. The findings make a significant contribution to the literature on managerial caring by explaining how the mediating role of perceived insider status influences the relationship between managerial caring and subjective employee well-being.