David G. Altman’s research while affiliated with Center for Creative Leadership and other places

The purpose of this study was to contribute to the limited body of knowledge of antecedents to supervisor support by utilizing the ecology model to explore the biographical information that differentiates highly supportive supervisors from those who are less supportive. We analysed qualitative biographical data from 65 supervisors rated as highly supportive and 63 supervisors rated as less supportive by their subordinates, comparing and contrasting their personality characteristics, work experiences, and life experiences. We found that highly supportive supervisors were more likely to see themselves as being warm and sociable, to think that their communication and leadership skills were their key strengths, and they were more involved in a variety of social and professional groups than less supportive supervisors. Supportive supervision is one way organizations can inexpensively work to build the job skills, abilities, and the interpersonal skills of organizational members. On the basis of the findings of this study, we propose some ways in which an organization can hire and develop supervisors to be more supportive. Practitioner points Utilizing the ecology model as a framework, potential antecedents to supervisor supportiveness are examined. Implications for research and practice related to developing and selecting for supportive supervision are discussed.

A key theme from the previous commentaries is that the business case for developing supportive supervisors needs to be stronger for organizations to make the investments necessary to develop supportive supervisors. There are time constraints and other practical considerations for those in the role of supervisor that may get in the way of supportive supervision unless supervisor support is recognized as a valuable business expense (Ellinger, 2013; Zeni, MacDougall, Chauhan, Brock, & Buckley, 2013). As such, in our response to the commentaries, we present the findings of an additional analysis based on the data from our original sample that examine the relationship between supportive supervision (as rated by subordinates) and supervisor performance and promotability (as rated by the supervisor's boss). We provide evidence that highly supportive supervisors are seen as more promotable and as better performers than are supervisors who are less supportive. Having empirical evidence that shows that upper‐level leaders believe that supportive management contributes to the performance of supervisors is important because upper‐level leaders are the ones making decisions in organizations about what is valued and promoted.

Purpose – The theoretical and practical criticality of self-talk for leader success receives extensive multidisciplinary discussion, without a great deal of empirical research given the challenge of assessing actual self-talk. The purpose of this paper is to advance research and theory on self-leadership by examining leader self-talk and its relationship to effectiveness and strain. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 189 senior executives’ self-addressed, future-oriented letters were collected. The executives wrote these letters to themselves for their own personal development; thus, the language used represented a form of naturally occurring self-talk. Two types of self-talk were coded: constructive and dysfunctional. Supervisor and direct report ratings of leadership of others and creativity and self-ratings of job strain were collected. Findings – Extensive variability among leaders in constructive self-talk was found. Exemplars of constructive and dysfunctional self-talk are presented. Constructive self-talk positively related to effective leadership of others and creativity/originality as evaluated by subordinates and superiors and was negatively related to job strain. Dysfunctional self-talk related negatively to creativity/originality. Originality/value – In addition to illustrating the types of self-talk used by leaders, research is extended by providing some of the first empirical evidence of how leaders’ free-flowing thoughts are related to their effectiveness and their overall well-being, lending direct support to a principal proposition from the self-leadership framework.

There are a lot of opinions about who Millennials are, what they think and value, and how they will behave as they grow older and gain more experience in the workforce. The relatively sparse empirical research published on Millennials is confusing at best and contradictory at worst. As noted in this article and others in this special issue, however, there are a few topics including work attitudes, long-term health outcomes, and personality factors on which we have reasonably solid data to inform us about current and likely future behavior of Millennials. We address the importance of context for understanding behavior of people in different generations, a subject often missing from the discussion of generational similarities and differences. There are implications for practitioners of what we know and for how context affects behavior. We make suggestions for how practitioners can use the data available to inform decisions they make about working with Millennials. Finally, we discuss the importance of new directions of research on generational differences to help both practitioners and the research community better understand the realities of generational similarities and differences and rely less on urban myths or stereotypes. KeywordsMillennials–Generations–Generational differences–Health–Technology–Generation gap–Leadership

The tobacco industry remains a formidable influence in thwarting tobacco control efforts, in part because industry leaders have raised policymaker and public concern about how tobacco control might negatively impact tobacco farmers. In this study, we interviewed a random, stratified sample of 528 tobacco farmers in the Southeast and 991 U.S. residents about issues related to tobacco farmers. We found that a majority of the U.S. public expressed the belief that U.S. taxpayers subsidized tobacco farmers. This belief, combined with the strong opposition to tobacco farmer subsidies (15 percent thought there should be subsidies), likely play a role in public attitudes toward tobacco farmers. At the same time, however, we found reasonably strong public support for efforts to help tobacco farmers transition to new enterprises, although the public underestimates tobacco farmer interest in diversification. For example, two of three Americans believe that the government should help farmers make a living other than growing tobacco and over half thought that taxpayers should help pay for such programs. These data illustrate potential common ground for elected officials to consider as they attempt to concomitantly address the needs of farmers and the interests of the public. Ultimately, if the interests of tobacco farmers can be made clearly to the general public, and vice versa, pro- health and pro-farmer policies might well become a reality.

Sustainability remains a key challenge in public health. The perspective article by Fagen and Flay adds to our understanding of technical factors associated with sustaining health interventions in schools. In this commentary, the Fagen and Flay article (2009) is considered within the broader literature on sustainability. By taking a broad view, public health theory and practice might be advanced further. Fagen and Flay illustrate that we have much to learn about sustainability. Questions for future research include: (a) what can we put into place at the systems level to ensure that the short-term efficacy of interventions have a fighting chance to be sustained? (b) considering the challenges inherent in sustainability, what are realistic goals against which to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions found effective in the short-term? and (c) what theories, methods, and strategies in fields outside of public health can be drawn upon to improve work in public health?

To examine tobacco farmers' attitudes toward tobacco control, public health, and tobacco manufacturers in order to determine the extent to which rapidly changing economic conditions have influenced North Carolina tobacco farmer attitudes in ways that may provide tobacco control advocates with new opportunities to promote tobacco control policies in tobacco-dependent US communities. We used data from a longitudinal sample of North Carolina tobacco farmers across 5 waves of data collection (1997-2005) (baseline N = 749 farmers). Generalized linear mixed models were used to examine changes in attitudes toward tobacco control and tobacco manufacturers, controlling for economic dependence on tobacco, and demographic factors. Over the study period there was reduction in tobacco farmers' perceptions of threat from tobacco control initiatives. These changes in attitude may signal an opportunity for successful tobacco control activity in traditionally tobacco-dependent states and rural communities.

Assisting tobacco farmers to transition to non-tobacco alternatives is a key element of comprehensive tobacco control's end-game strategy and specifically required by the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC). We examine the historical relationship between tobacco manufacturers and tobacco farmers in the United States, where the duration of the relationship has been longest and use information obtained to inform possible end-game strategies for tobacco control advocates working with tobacco farmers in developing countries. Tobacco Documents obtained under the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) provide evidence of conflicts between tobacco manufacturers and tobacco farmers. Findings support WHO FCTC articles aimed at helping developing country tobacco farmers adversely affected by tobacco control efforts and highlight difficulties in discouraging tobacco cultivation as long as it remains relatively profitable. We conclude that successful end-game strategies should take a long-term approach aimed at building alliances with tobacco farmers and at creating mechanisms for tobacco farmer investment in local infrastructure.

Changing political and economic forces in 1 tobacco-dependent state, North Carolina, demonstrate how the interplay between these forces and public health priorities has shaped current allocation of Master Settlement Agreement funds. Allocation patterns demonstrate lawmakers’ changing priorities in response to changes in the economic climate; some of the agreement’s funds targeted to tobacco farmers appear to reflect objectives favored by tobacco manufacturers. Funds earmarked for health have underfunded youth tobacco prevention and tobacco control initiatives, and spending for tobacco farmers in North Carolina has not lived up to the rhetoric that accompanied the original agreement. We discuss the implications of these findings for future partnerships between public health advocates and workers as well as tobacco control strategies.