Search results

Companies affected by California’s cap-and-trade legislation are allotted certain credits for production that can be used or sold and can purchase additional credits from the state, which become a revenue source to be used for activities that reduce carbon emissions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate who ultimately pays for this program, its effectiveness in reducing carbon emissions in accordance with established goals, and the related effectiveness to advance social, economic, and environmental equity.

The methodology used for this research is secondary data analysis, triangulating three sources: California’s Climate Change Investment Reports, 2019-2021; repositories maintained by the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the California Air Resources Board; and a review of the literature and websites from other professional sources which addressed, directly and indirectly, the topics and questions explored in the study.

Key findings include evidence of enhancing social and environmental equity but ineffectiveness in reducing carbon emissions in accordance with state goals. Furthermore, the program displays evidence of economic inequity as it demonstrates characteristics of regressive taxation and an inability of low-income persons to acquire electric vehicles due to high costs.

The research effort is unique in that no other academic efforts were located which attempt to examine the cap-and-trade program’s effectiveness in attaining its goals.

Knowledge about the prevalence and impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) is pivotal to trauma-informed approaches, yet the impact of ACEs training is rarely investigated. This study reports a qualitative investigation of police perceptions of ACEs training in relation to conceptualisations of ACEs and trauma-informed working, practical applications of ACE knowledge and service-level support.

Four focus groups were conducted with 29 police officers, who had participated in an ACEs-awareness training. Based on the qualitative data, themes were generated using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2019).

Analysis generated seven themes, conceptualised into three domains of conceptual understanding, police culture and operationalising ACEs.

The sample is limited to Scottish police officers and is ethnically non-diverse. Further evaluation of higher quality interventions is warranted.

The study highlighted that a lack of conceptual framework, officer concerns and police culture may present barriers to officers incorporating ACEs knowledge into their day-to-day work. Future trainings should address these issues to achieve maximum benefits.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first in-depth qualitative study of police officers' perceptions of ACEs training. Focus groups facilitated the expression of cultural norms. The results provide insight into tailoring trauma-informed interventions in police in future, as well as raising broader service-level issues.

Strategy & Leadership contributing editors interviewed researcher Jim Collins. Collins is author of two influential books: Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies co‐authored with Jerry Porras, and Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don’t. Some key points Collins makes are: The transition from good to great all began with a Level 5 leader. The essence of Level 5 leadership is having an ambition for the cause of the work‐the outcome, the company, the organization‐above the self; also, at the same time, having the ferocious, frightening, terrifying willfulness to act upon that ambition. Most Level 5 leaders understand that their report card only comes in when their successor succeeds. In most cases, but not all, their successors were even more successful than they were. That’s different from the comparison cases, where a number of the executives defined their success in terms of their successor failing. All the good‐to‐great CEOs said “I am not going to answer the ‘What to do’ question until I’ve got the right people. And we will not determine where to drive this bus until we decide who should be on the bus, who should be off the bus, and who should be in what seat.” In the comparison companies, you have leaders who often came in with “the what” and then tried to get everybody to go there, whereas the good‐to‐great companies had leaders who began with the “who” and then figured it out from there. The idea that you first get the right team and only later figure out where to drive the bus is absolutely contrary to what everyone learned in business school. The great companies understood what they could absolutely be the best in the world at. And also, “If we can’t be the best in the world at it then we shouldn’t be doing it.” They wanted to have a profound understanding of their economics and how to fundamentally change them. And they put a high premium on things that they were very passionate about.

For half a century, experts have offered leaders a standard model of how to transform organizations. It involves unfreezing them, developing a clear picture of the future, managing to make the picture a reality, and then changing systems to support the new ways. However, studies have shown that transformation does not always follow this script. This paper aims to look at four alternatives.

This paper reviews more than 50 well documented transformations and compares them to both the standard model and non‐mainstream ideas about transformation

The paper offers a guide to five distinct, reproducible ways of radically altering organizations: the standard model process (“holism”), transformation through the ambidextrous form, transformation through acquisition/restructuring, the Collins “Good‐to‐great” process, an improvisational transformation process. Hybrid approaches are discussed.

Providing a comprehensive guide to corporate transformation is a problematic undertaking. The authors could not review every case study of transformation, so they cannot say with certainty that their list of documented transformation methods is all‐inclusive. However, their survey gave them good reason to believe these are the five best‐documented transformation processes.

The paper explains the important advantages of each approach to transformation that make it appropriate for particular purposes.

When organizations need radical change, leaders need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of all five well‐documented alternative paths to transformation.

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual model describing potential relationships among transformational leadership, charisma, credibility and organizational performance.

This paper is conceptual, based on a review of current transformational leadership, charisma and credibility literature.

The authors present a model where credibility is an antecedent of transformational leadership; transformational leadership has a positive effect on organizational performance; and charisma positively moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance.

A model to integrate credibility into transformational leadership research is proposed.

This paper considers credibility as an important attribute of transformational leadership, and thus credibility may have significant implications for practitioners in leadership development strategies.

Currently, there is a lack of research on the role of credibility in leadership. The authors discuss the importance of measuring leader credibility and generating a credibility scale.

The purpose of this study is to identify and explore what leadership characteristics constitute humanistic leadership in the South Korean context. Moreover, this study examines how these leadership characteristics are connected to Korean culture.

Based on the information gathered from semi-structured interviews and other sources, including books, case study articles and news articles, this study captures a more comprehensive perspective of Mr. Kook-Hyun Moon, the former CEO of Yuhan–Kimberly.

The key characteristics of Mr. Moon's humanistic leadership that are identified in this study are: respect for all mankind, benevolence (seeking the greater good), sincerity (building trusting relationships with stakeholders) and continuous learning and innovation (developing self and others). These key characteristics set Mr. Moon apart from other leaders and are connected to the fundamental values and philosophies of Korean culture.

This study contributes to the current leadership literature by identifying and exploring Mr. Moon's humanistic leadership characteristics that enable him to gain respect and contribute to communities and society in the South Korean context. This study also finds that the humanistic leadership characteristics of Mr. Moon reflect three major attributes of Korean culture: the ideology of the Dangun mythology, the principle of Neo-Confucianism in Korea and jeong – an indigenous cultural concept in Korea (these attributes will be discussed in detail in the South Korean values and philosophies section). Such reflection suggests that investigating how humanistic leadership characteristics are connected to local cultural roots is important to enhance the understanding of humanistic leadership.