Search results

Organizations can effectively apply a variety of strategies for leading and accelerating desired change. As a practical illustration, this article evaluates an organizational change effort within the United States’ Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), analyzing the restructuring of its worldwide school system through Kotter’s accelerators for leading change. A cornerstone of DoDEA’s effort was the creation of three Centers for Instructional Leadership (CILs), whose mission is to improve student achievement by developing educational leadership and supporting instructional excellence. The development of DoDEA’s CILs presents a valuable case for understanding the leadership necessary for successful organizational change, particularly in light of Kotter’s model.

Adult agricultural leadership programs (ALP) train people to address the needs of a diversifying society with pressing social, economic, environmental, and political challenges. Additionally, these programs offer transformative learning experiences that lead to a greater capacity of current and prospective leaders to become change agents in their communities. In a profession where vitality, strength, and perseverance are fundamental, the agricultural industry needs leaders who remain aware of the foundational knowledge contributed by their predecessors. At the same time, it also necessitates innovation that may revolutionize the agricultural industry for decades to come. In this mixed-method study, we asked participants of a state-based ALP to complete the Loyola Generativity Scale (N=48) that measures generative concern, with higher scores indicating stronger generative concern. Survey results (N=48) indicated average overall generative concern. However, there was a considerable variation among participants, scores ranging from 45 to 77. To understand the range of attitudes, we conducted interviews (N=11) with ALP participants. Generativity Theory provided the foundation of our qualitative analysis. We identified how participants are acting generatively in their leadership roles by promoting the sustainability of agriculture through social engagement, capitalizing on opportunities for teaching and learning, and expanding social capital through intergenerational professional networks. From this research, scholars and practitioners will gain a more nuanced understanding of how this ALP is facilitating generative leadership among today’s leaders so they may continue transforming their industry by connecting generational cohorts through the transmission of experience, knowledge, and expertise.

This paper aims to investigate the extent to which three subgroups – people with mental health conditions, people belonging to sexual minority and gender groups and Indigenous peoples – have been “left behind” by countries implementing the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

A general review of electronic bibliographical databases to provide an overview of smoking prevalence among the three groups and interventions designed specifically to reduce their smoking rates.

Although explanations and specific rates differ, two trends are consistent across all three groups. First, information reported in the past two decades suggests that smoking prevalence is disproportionately high among people with mental health conditions, and in the rainbow and indigenous communities. Second, most cessation programmes are targeted at majority politically dominant groups, missing opportunities to reduce smoking rates in these minority communities.

There is a general dearth of data preventing detailed analysis. Better data collection efforts are required. Trials to identify effective smoking reduction interventions for marginalised groups are needed.

It is socially unjust that these groups are being systematically ignored by tobacco control initiatives. A failure to equitably reduce tobacco harms among all groups across society has contributed to the perceived concentration of smoking in some subgroups. The increasing stigmatisation of people who smoke then adds a marginality, compounding the negative effects associated with belonging to a marginalised group. Ongoing marginalisation of these groups is an important determinant of smoking.

Cross-case analysis of neglected subgroups with disproportionately high smoking rates suggests social marginalisation is a shared and important determinant of smoking prevalence.