Search results

Positivist deductive research on transformational leadership brings along with it 25 years of researcher presuppositions. Such research not only suggests that a transformational leader’s influence is unidirectional but also that transformational leadership theory is a universal theory. In this chapter, I inductively seek to examine board-executive director interactions, free from the shackles of existing theory.

The current chapter uses an inductive research approach to the collection and analysis of the empirical material. By being open to surprises in the empirical material, I am able to explore behaviors and relationships, while analyzing a specific context – the nonprofit board-executive director relationship.

The current study finds evidence that individualized consideration in a governance model frequently occurs in the opposite direction. Despite organizational documents promoting a hierarchical structure, evidence of top-down, collegiality, and bottom-up individualized consideration suggests hierarchical boundaries are commonly crossed in the decision making process.

Results of this exploratory study suggest that in a governance context, hierarchical actors do not fit neatly into the boxes defined by 30 years of research on transformational leadership theory, suggesting that the leadership process is more complex than portrayed by current dichotomizations. The findings provide support for recent criticisms of transformational leadership theory.

The findings of this chapter provide evidence of the benefits of eliciting input from organizational actors at multiple hierarchical levels. The empirical evidence provides practitioners with a fresh perspective on board roles and relationship, diverging from the traditional structural prescriptions.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with tools to help change their organizational culture. Specifically, this chapter investigates the importance of leadership in understanding and changing culture within organizations and explores different change management models to effectively change culture within organizations. This chapter summarizes tools from the Leadership and Change Management literature, including findings from the author’s studies, and best practices from a variety of industries.

Tools are provided so that readers can target leadership changes in preparation for cultural change. Leadership behaviors at the top of an organization are discussed using the full-range leadership model, with a specific focus on understanding, developing, and harnessing transformational leadership behaviors within an organization. Leadership at the top of an organization is complemented with a discussion of the importance of middle leadership throughout the organization including a model to understand and develop those behaviors. The chapter ends with seven different approaches to structuring and managing change that organizations can adopt to improve the probability of driving successful change in their organizations.

For organizations seeking to develop or improve their safety culture, these tools provide a roadmap for harnessing the needed leadership behaviors and organizational tools to effectively make change. By understanding and applying these tools, organizations can find success in their culture change initiatives faster and with fewer problems.

We argue in this chapter that quantitative techniques alone cannot enable appropriate verification of the levels in which a construct should be defined and validated. We propose a process model that takes advantage of qualitative and quantitative methods when specifying and measuring the level(s) of analysis in construct development. The model implies that operationalizing a construct and its measurement should involve both qualitative and quantitative methods. Level specification begins with induction of constructs and continues with qualitative or quantitative operationalizations that are verified through the convergence of using triangulation and aggregation tests. Construct development continues until the level of analysis is accurately specified. We provide a theoretical example of construct development from the leadership literature and an empirical example to represent the verification process.

In this introductory chapter of volume 32 of Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, we provide an overview of the considerations of intensive, individualized interventions and preview the 10 chapters in the volume. We asked chapter authors to consider the full scope of delivering such learning and behavioral interventions – describing tiered systems of support, identifying students who require intensive and individualized interventions, presenting elements associated with such interventions, and identifying specific examples of intensive and individualized interventions.

For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.

The quantitative literature on levels of analysis emphasizes identifying the level of a construct as a confirmation rather than a discovery process. Based on the comments we received from Parry and Gephart we integrate some of their ideas regarding discovery in our earlier model to augment the verification process associated with construct validation. However, we also emphasize the need to use structure even with qualitative methods, given the nature of the level verification process. We begin by discussing their specific comments as well as our reactions to these comments. We then discuss the ideas of theoretical sampling, discovery and levels of abstraction, and include an example to demonstrate the utility of using a “discovery”-oriented approach to level specification for construct validation. Finally, we provide a brief conclusion for our reply.

Evaluation of any given student's responsiveness to intervention depends not only on how effective the intervention is, but also whether the intervention was delivered as intended as well as in the appropriate format and according to the most useful schedule. These latter elements are referred to as treatment integrity and treatment intensity, respectively. The purpose of this chapter is to define and describe how treatment integrity and intensity can be incorporated in the evaluation of outcomes associated with individualized intervention delivery.

Identification, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of scientifically supported and effective-practice methods are fundamental and crucial elements of an effective educational program for all children and youth, including learners with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). To be sure, there is an unambiguous link between use of interventions and supports that have empirically supported merit and positive school and post-school outcomes. This chapter examines progress in the wide-scale adoption of evidence-based methods with learners with ASD. We also offer recommendations for advancing effective-practice initiatives and discuss trends and themes connected to effective-practice use with students with ASD.

In this chapter, we integrate recent theories on followers’ self-concept and transformational leadership theory in order to develop a conceptual framework for understanding the exceptional and diverse effects transformational leaders may have on their followers. We propose that transformational leaders may influence two levels of followers’ self-concept: the relational and the collective self thus fostering personal identification with the leader and social identification with the organizational unit. Specific leader behaviors that prime different aspects of followers’ self-concepts are identified, and their possible effects on different aspects of followers’ perceptions and behaviors are discussed.

This comment provides a discovery-oriented reading of grounded theory which supplements the verification-oriented approach to level specification. I address how grounded theory can be used to discover new constructs, to surface properties of constructs, to validate constructs, and to enhance understanding of levels of analysis of constructs. Two approaches to the integration of qualitative and quantitative data in grounded theory are discussed: the linking approach and computer-aided interpretive textual analysis. The comment shows how multi-level constructs can be developed from real life interaction using discovery oriented grounded theory.