Search results

The study’s aim was to design and test a leadership development approach using blended learning, to equip leaders for strengthening their own resilience and that of their teams.

A contextualised leadership development intervention was produced and evaluated following the principles of design-based research. Participants were from three organisations that work internationally to address the impact of economic disadvantage. Initial research used the behavioural event interview technique. Online assessment incorporated measures of situational judgement, emotion recognition and attributional style. Validity measures were multi-rater feedback (criterion), and NEO-PI 3 (construct). Individual feedback and a simulation-based peer workshop were followed by a four-to-six month period of experience-driven development and a final peer workshop for consolidating and evaluating learning outcomes.

The online assessment was a valid measure of leaders’ personal resilience resources and their resilience-building capability. Overall, the intervention improved participants’ understanding of, and engagement with, the processes of strengthening individual and collective (team) resilience.

The target sample size for the study was relatively small, to ensure it would be practical to replicate the approach when designing similar interventions for a senior leadership population in other contexts. Significant results provided robust evidence for the validity of the assessment approach. Findings for the workshops and experience-driven development phase were more tentative, but the value of the design iterations was clearly demonstrated.

The leadership development approach is suitable for application in other organisations, if similar principles are followed to produce and evaluate materials relevant to each broad sector context. Roll-out is cost-effective, with relatively few hours of blended or virtual delivery supporting experience-driven learning.

The impact leaders have on the wellbeing of those who report to them is well established, but less has been done to develop and formally evaluate practical, cost-effective interventions to improve this impact. The approach validated in this study can be applied more widely to benefit employee wellbeing as well as performance.

The study developed and evaluated a new approach to preparing leaders for the challenge of building team resilience, an aspect of leadership capability that has been given relatively little attention to date.

The purpose of this review is to evaluate existing learning agility measures and offer recommendations for their use in organizational and scholarly contexts.

This is a general review paper assessing the psychometric qualities of prevalent learning agility measures. Measures were selected based on their predominance and use in the learning agility literature and organizational settings.

Learning agility measurement is an area requiring further research. Multiple conceptualizations of learning agility exist, making the true structure of learning agility unclear. The learning agility measures in the academic literature deviate from learning agility’s traditional conceptualization and require further validation and convergent validity studies. Commercial measures of learning agility exist, but their development procedures are not subjected to peer review and are not widely used in academic research, given the cost associated with their use.

Learning agility is prevalently used in organizational settings and is receiving increased scholarly attention. Various conceptualizations and measurement tools exist, and it is unclear how these theories and measures relate and differ. This paper contributes to practice by providing practical guidelines and limitations for measuring learning agility.

Learning agility was initially conceived as a multidimensional construct comprising people agility, results agility, change agility and mental agility. As the construct has evolved, the dimension structure of the measure has evolved as well. This study addresses a gap in our current understanding of how to conceptualize and measure learning agility.

The purpose of the paper is to afford a comprehensive conceptualization and operationalization of the construct of talent management through an inclusive exploration of conceptual clarifications for existing confusions while developing a complete measuring instrument.

The archival method was adopted together with a systematic review based on Khan et al.’s (2003) five steps of systematic literature review. The systematic review has encircled published research articles between 1982 and 2023 in the human resource management (HRM) arena. A total of 130 articles were initially scrutinized, and 106 were systematically reviewed to conceptualize, operationalize and explore clarifications for confusions and instrument development for talent management.

This study explored conceptual clarifications for existing confusions towards talent management while recognizing definitions that come under the main philosophical schools for the underlying concept of talent. A novel practical definition has been established for talent management while recognizing dimensions, and then certain elements. A comprehensive instrument has been developed to measure talent management.

This study is limited to instrument development in measuring talent management; nevertheless, there is an enormous scope for using the instrument to empirically measure talent management through organizational and employees perspectives linked to diverse global contexts in future studies.

The developed comprehensive instrument is a vibrant contribution to future investigations related to empirically measuring talent management associated with organizational and employee perspectives related to diverse global contexts in winning “war for talent.” This study endows a significant input to the whole frame of HRM knowledge as it resolves existing conceptual ambiguities towards talent management while defining and operationalizing it.