Search results1 – 7 of 7
The present study examines leader development as one of the potential outcomes for mentors and investigates whether the provision of mentoring contributes to developing…
The present study examines leader development as one of the potential outcomes for mentors and investigates whether the provision of mentoring contributes to developing mentors' leader identity and leader self-efficacy.
Relying on a quasi-experimental design, data were collected at four points in time over eight months from a mentor (n = 46) and an equivalent nonmentor group (n = 25). Participants in the mentor group were volunteer mentors from a doctoral mentoring program that was implemented at a large Canadian university.
Participants in the mentor group experienced a more positive change in leader identity and leader self-efficacy, compared to the participants in the nonmentor group. Further analysis of the participants in the mentor group suggests that the extent to which mentors provide career and psychosocial support explains the growth rate in the development outcomes.
By documenting benefits of mentoring for mentors, program administrators may be able to recruit mentors who are more engaged in the process. In addition, they can encourage their members to volunteer as mentors to gain leader development outcomes.
This longitudinal study connects the areas of mentoring and leadership development. While the majority of mentoring studies focus exclusively on mentoring outcomes for protégés, the present study shows that mentoring can benefit mentors as well.
In their articles on “Innovation in Organizations: A Multi-Level Perspective on Creativity,” Robert Sternberg, along with Jane Howell and Kathleen Boies, broach a critical…
In their articles on “Innovation in Organizations: A Multi-Level Perspective on Creativity,” Robert Sternberg, along with Jane Howell and Kathleen Boies, broach a critical question bearing on the nature of creativity in organizational settings. Why is creativity in organizations so difficult even though organizations say they want creativity? In the present chapter, we examine some likely sources of this paradox and the ways one might go about resolving this paradox. Subsequently, we discuss directions for future research.
This chapter on Mumford and Hunter's chapter “Innovation in Organizations: A Multi-Level Perspective on Creativity” (this volume) describes both its contributions and…
This chapter on Mumford and Hunter's chapter “Innovation in Organizations: A Multi-Level Perspective on Creativity” (this volume) describes both its contributions and limitations to the development of a cross-level theory of innovation. To resolve some of the cross-level paradoxes highlighted by Mumford and Hunter, we propose five variables that operate at multiple levels including trust, social identity, mental models, networks, and time, and formulate some new multi-level propositions. Future directions for innovation theory development and research are also discussed.
The purpose of this paper is to propose a model in which work centrality, locus of control, polychronicity, preference for gender‐role differentiation, and perceived…
The purpose of this paper is to propose a model in which work centrality, locus of control, polychronicity, preference for gender‐role differentiation, and perceived social support were expected to vary between nations and to be associated with general perceptions of absence legitimacy and self‐reported absenteeism.
Data were collected from 1,535 employees working in ten large multinationals organizations, mostly in the consumer products and technology sectors located in nine countries.
The explanatory variables differed significantly across countries, as did perceived legitimacy, responses to absence scenarios, and self‐reported absence. The variables of interest, as a package, partially mediated the association between country and one dimension of legitimacy and country and the scenario responses.
Although absenteeism from work is a universal phenomenon, there is very little cross‐cultural research on the subject. This study has implications for filling this critical research gap. Limitations of this research are the use of convenience sampling and self‐reported absence data.
From a practical standpoint, this study demonstrates that organizations which attempt to develop corporate‐wide attendance policies that span national borders should take indigenous norms and expectations concerning absenteeism into consideration. Additionally, in an increasingly mobile global workforce, how does an individual who has been socialized in a nation where absence is generally viewed as a more legitimate behavior behave in a nation where it is viewed as less so?
This study illustrates the value of the legitimacy construct for studying absenteeism, both within and between nations. It also illustrates the value of building models incorporating variables that accommodate both cross‐national variation and individual differences within nations.
Jay Barney is a Professor of Management and holds the Bank One Chair for Excellence in Corporate Strategy at the Max M. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University. He received his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University, and his master's and doctorate from Yale University. He taught at the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA and Texas A&M University before joining the faculty at Ohio State in 1994, where Professor Barney teaches organizational strategy and policy to MBA and Ph.D. students.
Man has been seeking an ideal existence for a very long time. In this existence, justice, love, and peace are no longer words, but actual experiences. How ever, with the American preemptive invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent prisoner abuse, such an existence seems to be farther and farther away from reality. The purpose of this work is to stop this dangerous trend by promoting justice, love, and peace through a change of the paradigm that is inconsistent with justice, love, and peace. The strong paradigm that created the strong nation like the U.S. and the strong man like George W. Bush have been the culprit, rather than the contributor, of the above three universal ideals. Thus, rather than justice, love, and peace, the strong paradigm resulted in in justice, hatred, and violence. In order to remove these three and related evils, what the world needs in the beginning of the third millenium is the weak paradigm. Through the acceptance of the latter paradigm, the golden mean or middle paradigm can be formulated, which is a synergy of the weak and the strong paradigm. In order to understand properly the meaning of these paradigms, however, some digression appears necessary.