Search results

The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered public health vulnerabilities worldwide, particularly in the hard-hit USA. US public health professionals, regardless of role, may need to exercise leadership in both planned and unexpected situations. This model of practice outside of traditional roles, known as Public Health 3.0, requires adaptive leadership – a systems approach to making progress on complex challenges. Educational programs should improve students’ adaptive leadership competency to prepare them for the public health workforce. This paper aims to provide an educational framework for implementing adaptive leadership instruction for undergraduate students.

This paper used experiential and traditional instructional strategies and adaptive leadership competencies to develop a semester-length leadership course for undergraduate students in health, nursing, social science, business and education. Adaptive leadership principles were learned and practiced, preparing students for systemic challenges through the lens of Public Health 3.0. Competencies were assessed pre- and post-semester.

Of 248 students, 72% were health professions majors. Students reported pre-post scores on 29 measures of competency, interest, learning and behavioral change. Quantitative evaluations identified statistically significant improvement in all domains. Additional quantitative feedback indicated improvement on the three Kirkpatrick levels of evaluation assessed (reaction, learning and behavior).

Tiered evaluation methods indicated that this leadership course enhanced participants’ self-reported adaptive leadership learning and competency, as well as intention and ability to translate learning into practice. A broad spectrum of competency development is needed for students entering practice in the Public Health 3.0 era, particularly related to pandemic response.

The debate about corporate purpose is a recurring one that has re-emerged today. What should be the guiding principles of business: the pursuit of profit or a contribution to public interest? We trace key elements in this debate in Britain and America, from the interwar years, when John Maynard Keynes and Adolf Berle made important contributions, to the 1970s, when events ushered in a return to laissez-faire and the rise to dominance of the shareholder primacy model of corporate governance and purpose, to today. Both the earlier and the current debates are centered around whether we see business institutions as strictly private entities, transacting with their suppliers, workers, and customers on terms agreed with or imposed upon these groups, or as part of society at large and therefore expected to contribute to what society deems to be its interests. Whether current developments will ultimately produce a shift in corporate purpose akin to the one that followed the Second World War remains to be seen. But the parallels to the interwar debates, and the uncertain economic, political, and social environments in which they took place, are striking. Our objective is to see what might be learned from the past to inform the current direction of thought concerning capitalism and corporate purpose.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

School principals have been criticized for their inaction in dealing with incompetent or low‐performing teachers. Bandura’s self‐efficacy theory suggests that principals’ beliefs in their own efficacy regarding the tasks of the evaluation may affect their motivation to perform the tasks of supervision. This survey of elementary and middle school principals suggests that principals place high value on the task of evaluating low‐performing teachers and believe that they are well equipped to do so. The data also suggest that the principals believe that they are adequately addressing the problems of poor performance, suggesting a need for research to determine why principals do not share perceptions of unapprised incompetence.

Prevailing patterns of dispersed share ownership and rules of corporate governance for UK listed companies appear to constrain the ability of managers to make credible, long‐term commitments to employees of the kind needed to foster effective labour‐management partnerships. We present case study evidence which suggests that such partnerships can nevertheless emerge where product market conditions and the regulatory environment favour a stakeholder orientation. Proactive and mature partnerships may also be sustained where the board takes a strategic approach to mediating between the claims of different stakeholder groups, institutional investors are prepared to take a long‐term view of their holdings, and strong and independent trade unions are in a position to facilitate organisational change.