Search results

This paper aims to assess the importance of maximizing resources in an institution to promote knowledge management (KM) practices, namely, leadership, information technology (IT) and KM. The relationship among them was analyzed. Previous studies’ relating aspects of KM were concerned about the industry; however, the academic institution has not received much attention. Therefore, to address this in an academic setting, the authors developed research model by focusing on an academic institution.

The authors used structural equation modeling to check the research prototype with a sample of 160 respondents. The respondents were heads of departments, lecturers and general employees. In addition, the authors used SPSS to measure demographic, non-response bias and generate descriptive statistics.

The findings of this research show that the leadership style with path goal theory and IT are elements that support KM program in university setting. The results of hypothesis are displayed in Figure 2, including examining factors that influence of path goal theory, technology and KM program. In other hand, path goal theory had a positive influence on KM program (c = 0.13, p < 0.05), and IT had a positive influence on KM program (c = 0.20, p < 0.05).

Finally, the authors are not to claim that this will be suitable in many academic institutions and organization types. In this study, the authors tested or checked existing leadership style in university, then suggest/explain to University what style of leadership currently they have and suggest to them how this style may support knowledge sharing practice in University. While the strength of this study provides an opportunity to explore the KM program of an academic institution, limitations do exist above. Therefore, this statement needs to be investigated and validated further.

The findings of this research may help companies and workers to initiate sharing knowledge or to encourage knowledge sharing in University. In addition, managerial staffs/officers are supposed to make standardization or regulation to encourage workers’ participation for transferring their knowledge. In this aspect, company needs create such as training or formal/informal meeting to make their workers more confidence to communicate each other.

The authors have combined various aspects, namely, KM, leadership style and social media tools, to solve the obstacle of knowledge sharing practices.

This paper aims to examine the validity of contingent reward and its relationship to extra effort and to further advance understanding of the leader/follower performance reward relationship.

The concept of contingent reward has largely remained unchanged since 1985. Consequently, the items of contingent reward were examined in terms of their content validity that was guided by transactional leadership theory, re‐formulated path‐goal theory of leadership, and negotiation theory. Three new contingent reward factors were identified (i.e. framing, clarifying, and rewarding). These were examined using one‐factor congeneric measurement models. Valid factors were identified using a high‐order confirmatory factor analysis to further confirm the structural validity of the three new factors of contingent reward. Finally, structural equation models were calculated to examine the relationships among contingent reward factors and extra effort.

Three distinct factors of contingent reward were identified and their relationships with extra effort was consistent with the integrative negotiation strategies where each factor formed part of a negotiation process. Contingent reward (framing) initiates the negotiation process and directly loads on contingent reward (rewarding and clarifying); contingent reward (framing) did not directly load on to extra effort. Contingent reward (rewarding) supports the negotiation process by loading directly on contingent reward (clarifying). The negotiation process is completed with contingent reward (clarifying) directly loading on extra effort. These three contingent reward factors form a simple negotiation process that highlights several important aspect of the leader/follower reward performance relationship.

This study uses a cross‐sectional design that means that its findings may not be generalisable to other populations. However, the findings of this study should encourage researchers to appreciate that common leadership behaviour, like contingent reward, may have more complex interrelationships with outcome factors such as extra effort than previously expected.

Leaders should view their use of contingent reward behaviours in terms of a process rather than simply exhibiting a single clarifying contingent reward type behaviour. In other words, leaders need to establish the boundaries (i.e. framing), acknowledge involvement (i.e. rewarding), and then elucidate mutual outcomes (i.e. clarifying). This process should enable leaders to negotiate greater flexibilities and create more momentum within their leader/follower performance reward relationships.

This paper challenges the foundation ideas and empirical pedigree of contingent reward and incorporates advances in theories such as the reformulated path‐goal theory and interpret the behaviours in a broader multi‐disciplinary context, i.e. integrative negotiation strategies.

All of us who have taught leadership to either our regular business students or to attendees in continuing education courses have probably covered the situational view of this “management function”. Both the basic management texts and the texts on organisational behaviour note the advantages of the situational view over the earlier trait and behavioural theories. Further, all the colleagues I have talked to seem to agree that the situational view is more valid, realistic, and practical than either of the earlier views.

The purpose of this study is to review the literature on liminal leadership, present a comprehensive perspective of it compared to other types of leadership, propose a conceptual framework of liminal leadership and provide a case on how liminal leadership addresses modern workplace issues in the ever-changing and competitive global environment.

This research is conceptual in nature. For this, the authors searched literature on organizational and leadership theories of liminality within organizational settings and analyzed various leadership perspectives to develop a construct of liminal leadership.

The comparative analysis revealed different and/or similar characteristics of liminal leadership with other types of leadership theories. On the basis of the comparative analysis, a synthesis of liminal leadership and a proposed conceptual framework to pursue future studies of liminal leadership are provided.

First, the notion of liminal leadership is emerging; few have been conducted to investigate the concept. Therefore, the authors’ approach to compose the theoretical background of liminal leadership is limited. Second, they drew a logical framework of leadership components a liminal leader might use from chosen leadership theories which had some kinship and likeness to liminal leadership. However, the comparative analysis of the relationship is limited because of the conceptually based nature of analysis. Third, the proposed model of liminal leadership is tentative and conceptual in nature. Empirical studies are needed to verify the psychometric structure and reliability of the model.

Despite its importance and a sense of urgency, almost no discussion on liminal leadership or liminality can be found in the field of HRD. The limited knowledge associated with liminal leadership places high value on the results of this study. This paper will provide a seminal base that may stimulate future human resource development (HRD) scholars. The purpose for this study is to contribute a conceptualization of liminal leadership as it applies to the field of HRD as leading and facilitating organizational changes.

Leadership is one of the most complex and multifaceted phenomena to which organisational and psychological research has been applied. An evolutionary developmental perspective is used to create an evolutionary tree of leadership theory and reveal the path along which it has evolved. Nine evolutionary eras are identified, and requirements for a tenth era of leadership theory are discussed. These eras provide a broad framework for researchers and practising managers to categorise existing, and evaluate future, theories.

Leadership theory has little value if it cannot be applied to real world situations. A summary review of the literature on leadership theory is provided here first. A disguised real case concerning Ted Shade, a Vice‐President at Galactic Chips, Inc. is then provided which describes a manager who is extremely task‐oriented. The case analysis follows. It includes questions and answers which connect leadership theory to case specifics and requires learners to analyze the case using differing leadership models.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate final projects in a freshman leadership course (combining grounding in leadership theories with a service-learning component) to determine what students learned about leadership, themselves as developing leaders, and leading in the civic community, and how deeply they learned these concepts. Students found situational leadership theories, team leadership theories, and leadership principles (Drath, 2001) most relevant to their experiences. Personally, students learned about themselves as individuals, leaders, team members, and community members. Civically, students learned how to apply leadership theories, work in teams, and about the community as a system. In terms of depth of learning, based on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, students were able to identify, describe, and apply concepts and to some extent analyze and synthesize them. These findings suggest that using service learning to help students learn about both the theory and practice of leadership is a viable alternative.