Search results

Higher education research is replete with discussion of boundaries imagined as structural constraints in need of removal or circumvention. But, while foregrounding national–transnational frameworks, leadership strategising and institutional structures, the scholarship is subdued about how boundaries are actually dealt with at ground level. How do practitioners come together, day by day, across higher education boundaries; and what is required for desirable practices to be nurtured? It is on this issue, and in particular the theorisation of this issue, that this chapter will focus.

This chapter presents and develops a relational working framework, based on the work of Anne Edwards. We highlight three core concepts (common knowledge, relational expertise and relational agency), disaggregating each into constituent features. We then apply the framework to reinterpret previously published empirical studies, to demonstrate its broad applicability. We argue that the framework usefully conceptualises how practitioners work with others across boundaries; that it helps us to notice how many boundaries are, in fact, routinely permeated; and that it usefully highlights important aspects of local practices that are easily obscured.

In this chapter, we discuss the Change Laboratory as an intervention-research methodology in higher education. We trace its theoretical origins in dialectical materialism and activity theory, consider the recommendations made by its main proponents and discuss its use in a range of higher education settings. We suggest that the Change Laboratory offers considerable potential for higher education research, though tensions between Change Laboratory design recommendations and typical higher education contexts require consideration.

A growing body of research outlines how to best facilitate and ensure methodological rigor when using dictionary-based computerized text analyses (DBCTA) in organizational research. However, these best practices are currently scattered across several methodological and empirical manuscripts, making it difficult for scholars new to the technique to implement DBCTA in their own research. To better equip researchers looking to leverage this technique, this methodological report consolidates current best practices for applying DBCTA into a single, practical guide. In doing so, we provide direction regarding how to make key design decisions and identify valuable resources to help researchers from the beginning of the research process through final publication. Consequently, we advance DBCTA methods research by providing a one-stop reference for novices and experts alike concerning current best practices and available resources.

Through his call to “reverse the lens” in leadership, Shamir (2007) helped trigger the emergence of followership theory as a new field of study in leadership research. While followership theory brings exciting new opportunities to leadership studies, it also introduces theoretical and conceptual challenges for researchers. In this chapter we address these challenges by showing how followership can be positioned fully within the leadership construct. We extend Shamir’s (2007) call for a balanced view in leadership by showing how followership theory adds new perspectives on the ways in which we can study leadership as a dynamic, fluid, relational process. The alternative views we present (e.g., position, role, identity, constructionist, and co-creation) approach leadership study from a range of paradigmatic perspectives that allow us to more fully capture the behaviors, interactions, relational dynamics, and processes through which leadership and followership are created and constructed. We conclude by reflecting on Shamir’s legacy as a scholar, and the contributions he made through his willingness to not only open his mind, but also to constructively challenge alternative perspectives and views.

This study aims to address three important but under-researched questions in the trust and negotiation literature: What do negotiators do to determine the trustworthiness of a potential business partner? What trust criteria motivate their search and help them interpret the information their search reveals? Whether there are systematic cultural differences in search and criteria, and if different, why?

This study used qualitative methodology. The data are from interviews with 82 managers from 33 different national cultures in four regions of the world identified by cultural levels of trust in negotiation and tightness-looseness. Interviews focused on how negotiators determined the trustworthiness of potential business partners in intracultural negotiations.

Analyses revealed four search activities negotiators use to gather information about a potential business partner: due diligence, brokerage, good will building and testing; and five criteria for determining the trustworthiness of a new business partner: respect, mutual values, competence, openness and professionalism. Quotes illustrate how these search activities and criteria manifest in different cultures.

This study used multiple cases to build a longitudinal picture of the process. It did not follow a single case in depth. The study focused on identifying cultural central tendencies at the same time recognizing that there is always variability within a culture.

Knowing what is culturally normative allows negotiators to anticipate, interpret and respect their counterpart’s behavior. Such knowledge should facilitate trust development.

This study provides an in-depth understanding of cultural similarities and differences in the process of trust development in negotiating new business relationships.

During my early years as a junior high school librarian, I was frequently beseiged with requests for heart‐throbbing love stories and mysteries. However, as the years passed and the divorce rate increased, I began to encounter students who specifically asked for books about “mean stepparents” or “families where there are problems.” I initially wondered whether these new entreaties emanated from a small minority or from a more substantial cross‐section of the school population. Several well‐received book talks concerning the impact of divorce and a few discreet inquiries regarding the number of single‐parent families at my school convinced me that a general need existed.

The purpose of this study is to test the relationships of learning, organizational commitment and talent retention across managerial generations in Europe.

Hypotheses are developed to explain the influence of learning and organizational commitment on talent retention across generations. A total of 1,666 European managers completed a survey on these issues. Depending on year of birth, they were categorized into four generational cohorts. Their answers were analyzed with statistic procedures.

Findings reveal that younger generations are less willing to remain in the same organization and have lower organizational commitment. The youngest generations (Early and Late Xers, born 1960 and after) show stronger learning orientation and lower organizational commitment than older generations (Early and Late Boomers, born 1946‐1959). Learning orientation predicted the intention to remain in the same organization for Early Xers and Late Xers. Organizational commitment mediated this relationship. For Late Boomers and Early Xers, it mediated the relationship between specific leadership development intentions and intention to stay.

Managerial, job‐related learning is confirmed as an important antecedent for the intention to stay/leave one's current organization. The differential meaning of learning and commitment across generations needs to be better understood in order to develop effective strategies for the retention of talent in all generations. In particular, differences in the psychological contract between organizations and their managers need to be understood.

The findings suggest an approach of generation‐specific HR practices for talent retention.

The study is one of the first to date to address leadership development and learning orientation in the context of talent retention, as well as one of the first to address the discussion of generational challenges in Europe and across the specific population of people in managerial roles.