Search results

We examine how Emotional and Social Competence (ESC) data measures how well a leader positively attracts or repels others. It is believed that leaders with high emotional and social competence are more skilled at building positive interpersonal relationships with their employees and translates to increased employee engagement.

Individuals denoted as leaders in their respective organizations took a 66-question self-reported survey (ESC) that measured their current emotional and social competency levels. Direct reports of these leaders took a 62-question self-reported assessment that measured constructs of employee engagement. The leaders then commenced participation in a program (PDT) that focused on building their emotional and social competency levels. After completing the program (PDT) both the leaders and their direct reports retook their respective surveys and the scores were compared to the pre-program (PDT) results.

Results indicate that ESC scores increased by 8.21%, with a similar increase in employee engagement of 5.62%. Another key finding was how quickly the group bonded during the first two meetings.

As corporations move from a hierarchical to a self-managed team organizational structure, this program provides an evidence-based model of how to increase the ESC scores of leaders, leading to an increase in employee engagement and retention. The process-designed methodology incorporates a “use inspired” research framework, offering applications to study the impact of a leader’s emotional social competence on employees feeling a higher sense of membership, empowerment, and purpose.

The paper seeks to show that the strategic types of service marketers (e.g. Prospectors, Defenders or Analyzers) match the types of success measures that they use to evaluate new services.

A theory is developed to show why service marketers of different strategic types use different success measures for the evaluation of new services. Using responses from 202 financial services marketers, strategic types are shown to relate in theoretically expected ways with the importance ratings of the categorized success measures.

Notable relationships among strategic types and their success measure are identified. Prospectors, for example, attach greater importance to growth performance measures, consistent with the growth orientation of their service development programs. Defenders, on the other hand, attach more importance than Prospectors to efficiency performance measures, which relate to their programs' efficiency orientation. Analyzers, interestingly, place more emphasis on objectives‐based performance measures, including strategic fit, than Prospectors.

The sampling frame purposely contains only US financial services firms; as such, future research may build upon this single‐industry, single‐country study.

Academic success literature generally disregards the strategic types of respondents in measuring the success of service development programs. Practitioners, however, seek performance measures that are consistent with their firm's business strategy. This study provides a categorization of the most important success measures as appropriate to different strategic types.

The service success literature has often dealt with the question of “what causes success?” and has rarely confronted, head‐on, the question of “what is success?”. This paper addresses this critical research gap.

The aim of this paper is to clarify distinct aspects of firm culture, delineate its effects on performance outcomes, and to examine culture intensity on theoretic grounds with attention to its effects and limits.

The study analyzes a data set of 2,657 individual cases that are empirically aggregated into 302 organizational units. Its operationalization of culture intensity derives from distinct culture theory. Hypothesized relations are examined via structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression analysis.

Structural equation modeling results show culture relates positively to cooperation, coordination, and performance. Hierarchical regression analysis results show intensity influences cooperation and coordination directly and does not moderate culture's relations with those outcomes.

The large scale empirical study of a broad diversity of firms has advantages over smaller and more targeted studies of lesser generalizability.

Firms with cultures of higher intensity can enhance performance indirectly by driving cooperation and coordination directly.

Culture entails shared values and touches the human side of a firm. Managers can promote a firm's culture to enhance cooperation and coordination outcomes within that firm which, in turn, influence firm performance.

This study distinguishes culture from climate on conceptual grounds. Climate strength, an analog of culture intensity, is known to moderate climate's relations with outcomes. By contrast, this study shows that culture intensity has a main effect on outcomes, in line with culture's distinct theoretic bases.