Search results

Traditional paradigms of leadership have celebrated decisive top-down control and analytical decision making. But times are changing. The world is becoming more connected, complex, fluid, and interdependent.

Leading people in this age requires empathy, collaboration, curiosity, and creativity. It’s more about designing elegant solutions than mandating feasible ones. It’s more about becoming optimistic beacons of change than authoritative custodians of the status quo. The leaders of tomorrow are not commanders, they are innovators; and in that, they have a natural ally in designers – the poster children of innovation.

This chapter focuses on how leadership can leverage tools and frameworks usually associated with design to innovate, solve complex problems, motivate teams, inspire people, and nurture the next generation of leaders. It discusses design methodologies – user-focused design, lean, design thinking – as potential approaches to optimizing organizational leadership. We elaborate these ideas through real-world examples.

The chapter also offers actionable tips and techniques that designers use to respond empathetically and elegantly to complex human needs, which are rooted deeply in behaviors and attitudes, governed by complex interactions, and therefore, hard to grapple through a purely analytical approach.

It debunks the myth that leaders need to be creative similar to designers to apply Design Thinking. Applying design approaches and practices to organizational leadership is not just about its leaders becoming more creative. It is definitely not about the person at the top coming up with the grand answer. It is a collaborative effort that brings people from all levels together in pursuit of a common goal.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

Why employees stay or leave their organization in Republic of Korea (South Korea) can be better understood by taking into account the idiosyncratic institutional and cultural contexts. In this chapter, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of employee turnover research in South Korea and discuss its implications for research. Specifically, we explain how employee turnover decisions may be affected by the characteristics of South Korean labor market (duality, polarization, and intergenerational issues) and cultural environments (collectivism, high power distance, and high-performance orientation). The review shows that organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and on-the-job embeddedness are three key mechanisms explaining employee turnover in South Korea. Building upon the review, we conclude the review by suggesting future research directions: (a) examining turnover behavior as a key outcome, (b) developing a theoretical framework for social identity and embeddedness, and (c) understanding intergenerational issues.

Within the last two decades, entrepreneurship education has become institutionalized in Germany. It is offered as a stand-alone program or as part of a business degree, combining academic knowledge, practical skills, and personal development to enhance the entrepreneurial success of university graduates. While entrepreneurship education has experienced similar growth worldwide, its emergence in Germany is closely tied to the country’s political and economic developments. The significance of entrepreneurship education for a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem and contemporary economic policy has been instrumental in advancing its academic recognition. This chapter provides a historical analysis of the academization of entrepreneurship in Germany. It explores the recursive and often idiosyncratic processes involving state and financial institutions, companies, and universities that have created, respecified, and mutually reinforced a subdiscipline and field of study. Academic entrepreneurship knowledge successively not only became relevant for starting a business but also for employment within the entrepreneurial infrastructure and beyond. This chapter follows a chronological order, highlighting three key stages in the academization of entrepreneurship education. First, the academic, financial, and political roots (I) of entrepreneurship up until the 1970s. Second, it explores the transformation (II) of entrepreneurship into a viable policy alternative and the challenges faced in establishing complementary research and education in higher education institutions during the 1980s. Finally, it sketches the institutionalization (III) of entrepreneurship as a central driver of government economic policy, allowing for the late bloom of entrepreneurship education and research at universities around the turn of the millennium.

The study examines health care inequities in viral load testing among hepatitis C (HCV) antibody-positive patients. The analysis predicts whether individual and census tract sociodemographic characteristics impact the likelihood of viral load testing.

This a study of 26,218 HCV antibody-positive patients in Orange County, California, from 2010 to 2020. The case data were matched with the 2017 American Community Survey to help understand the role of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics in testing for viral load. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict the probability of ever testing for HCV viral load.

Thirty-six percent of antibody-positive persons were never viral load tested. The results show inequalities in viral load testing by sociodemographic factors. The following groups were less likely to ever test for viral load than their counterparts: (1) individuals under 65 years old, (2) females, (3) residents of census tracts with lower levels of health insurance enrollment, (4) residents of census tracts with lower levels of government health insurance, and (5) residents of census tracts with a higher proportion of non-white residents.

This is a secondary database from public health department reports. Using census tract data raises the issue of the ecological fallacy. Detailed medical records were not available. The results of this study emphasize the social inequality in viral load testing for HCV. These groups are less likely to be treated and cured, and may spread the disease to others.

This chapter is unique as it combines routinely collected public health department data with census tract level data to examine social inequities associated with lower rates of HCV viral load testing.

The study of the diffusion of innovations into libraries has become a cottage industry of sorts, as libraries have always provided a fascinating test-bed of nonprofit institutions attempting improvement through the use of new policies, practices, and assorted apparatus (Malinconico, 1997). For example, Paul Sturges (1996) has focused on the evolution of public library services over the course of 70 years across England, while Verna Pungitore (1995) presented the development of standardization of library planning policies in contemporary America. For the past several decades, however, the study of diffusion in libraries has tended to focus on the implementation of information technologies (e.g., Clayton, 1997; Tran, 2005; White, 2001) and their associated competencies (e.g., Marshall, 1990; Wildemuth, 1992), the improvements in performance associated with their use (e.g., Damanpour, 1985, 1988; Damanpour & Evan, 1984), and ways to manage resistance to technological changes within the library environment (e.g., Weiner, 2003).