Organizational Development - Science topic

Balancing evidence-based practices with the dynamic demands of modern workplaces requires a flexible and adaptive approach. Here are some strategies to achieve this balance:

Staff turnover can result from various factors, including poor job satisfaction, inadequate compensation, lack of career advancement, and ineffective management. To identify specific challenges or opportunities related to HR or organizational development, several methods can be employed. Surveys and interviews can gauge employee satisfaction and pinpoint areas needing improvement. Analyzing turnover rates and exit interviews helps in understanding why employees leave. HR analytics can reveal patterns and trends within the workforce. Additionally, conducting skills assessments and performance evaluations aids in identifying areas for development. Engaging in regular communication with employees and fostering a culture of feedback promotes transparency and allows for addressing challenges promptly. Furthermore, staying updated with industry trends and best practices enables HR to capitalize on emerging opportunities for organizational growth and development.

In the tumultuous era of TURBO FLUX, organizations are compelled to redefine their hierarchical structures, with a strategic emphasis on the pivotal roles of the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and the Chief Learning Officer (CLO). The unprecedented pace of technological advancements and market dynamics necessitates a responsive and adaptive approach. The CTO, as the technology visionary, becomes the linchpin for steering organizations through the complex web of innovation, ensuring that technological strategies align seamlessly with business goals.

Simultaneously, the CLO emerges as a key orchestrator in this transformative journey. In TURBO FLUX, where the only constant is change, fostering a culture of continuous learning becomes imperative. The CLO is tasked with equipping teams with the skills and knowledge essential for navigating evolving landscapes. Through targeted learning initiatives, they empower the workforce to embrace change, fostering a dynamic environment where adaptability is a core competency.

Together, the CTO and CLO form a dynamic duo, redefining the traditional organizational hierarchy. Their collaboration not only ensures technological prowess but also instills a culture of perpetual learning, positioning the organization to thrive amidst the flux. In this era of rapid transformation, the symbiotic leadership of the CTO and CLO becomes the cornerstone for organizational resilience and sustained success.

The article hyperlinked below may be of interest: it references questions that Westerman, Bonnet, and McAfee (2014) itemized for companies to frame, focus, mobilize, and sustain for digital transformation.

I would recommend you tackle this issue from an individual-level perspective.

For example:

Matsuo, M. (2017). Managers’ exploration activities and individual unlearning: The mediating role of learning orientation and reflection. The International Journal of Human Research Management, 31(5), 638–656. 10.1080/09585192.2017.1362022.

Thank you sir Mahfuz Judeh to share the link I must read this article.

Organizational development is a critical and science-based process that helps organizations build their capacity to change and achieve greater effectiveness by developing, improving, and reinforcing strategies, structures, and processes.

There are a few elements in this definition (adapted from Cummings & Worley, 2009) that stand out.

Organizational design has become more crucial over time. Today’s world is characterized by Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity (VUCA). This VUCA world requires new agility from organizations, and organizational development is the means to that end.

Depends upon the structure and culture of the organisations

In addition to Weill and Ross in “IT Savvy," see their "Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution" as well as Ross et al's more recent "Designed for Digital: How to Architect Your Business for Sustained Success" (see my review) https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R33HX594W0I7TL?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

Organization culture consists of values, norm and beliefs.

I have the same question? Did any body find a solution?

Interesting

Ari Happonen thanks

The questionnaire i developed was rejected by my supervisor. And asked me to use the past questionnaire.

Seems that corporate culture must also be considered in order to answer the question. Culture can have a synergistic or countervailing effect on the effectiveness of a given style of leadership.

One way culture could have an effect is by how change or threat is perceived by the organization. Is it seen as an opportunity? Does it trigger post traumatic flashbacks of past events ? Does it open or close the organizational dialog and operations?

I suppose I've added more questions rather than answered yours. But thank you for the provocative question.

Unamuno reportedly said : The truth is not merely the lawful, but rather that which provokes the mind and causes growth.

The Makings of a Successful School Leader

But what makes a successful school leader? How do you become truly effective as a principal or in a leadership position? While there is no one solution to successful school leadership, there are certain strategies, skills, traits and beliefs that many of the most effective school leaders share.

The following traits are common among the most successful school leaders.

1. They Understand the Importance of Building Community

Effective school leaders build and sustain reciprocal family and community partnerships and leverage those partnerships to cultivate inclusive, caring and culturally responsive school communities. This is an essential component of effective leadership and the best leaders know it. To build these community networks it is essential that school leaders are visible in their schools and community, develop trust and create a sense of transparency and shared purpose with parents, staff, community members and students.

Megan Tschannen-Moran, author and professor of educational leadership at the College of William and Mary, discusses the importance that trust plays in building communities in her book, “Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools.”

Tschannen-Moran explains, “In schools with high levels of trust:

2. They Empower Teachers and Cultivate Leadership Skills

Great school leaders know that they are not running a one-man show; that they cannot do it all alone. They know that they must surround themselves with great teachers and colleagues and not only that, they must fully support teachers and staff by encouraging them to continually learn, develop and perhaps most important, become leaders themselves.

It is no secret that when people are fulfilled and given opportunity for career growth, as well as autonomy and control over their careers, they are more productive, more engaged and more effective overall. In a recent Gallup poll, it was discovered that 31 percent of U.S. teachers are engaged in their work, while 56 percent are not engaged and 13 percent are actively disengaged. These statistics are startling to say the least.

Through offering professional development opportunities and support services to teachers, as well as by creating an environment where teachers are able to experiment, innovate and lead, principals can ensure a healthy environment for educators that will have positive repercussions for students. Another Gallup study found that “highly talented principals on Gallup’s Principal Insight assessment were 2.6 times more likely to have above average employee engagement at the schools they lead three years later.”

In his book, “What Great Principals Do Differently,” Todd Whitaker wrote:

“Great principals focus on improving the quality of the teachers within their buildings. By carefully hiring the best teachers, by supporting their efforts and their ambitions, by holding all staff members to high expectations, and by working to carefully support the individual development of each professional, principals impact student achievement.”

3. They Utilize Data and Resources

Successful school leaders use data, including standardized and school-based assessments, to drive continuous improvement through site-based decision-making for the express purpose of promoting equitable and culturally responsive opportunities for all students. The opportunities that data present are many and the most effective leaders are able to leverage that data to make strategic decisions to benefit their students.

One example of how data can reveal surprising results and help educators implement strategies to improve learning was discussed in an ASCD article:

“Staff members at Canyon View High School wanted to use their data to understand why more than half of the school’s 9th grade students failed the state reading proficiency examination. Working backward through the students’ education experiences to determine the earliest occurrence of a characteristic common to all students who had not passed the exam, the teachers were shocked to see that most of these students had missed up to 30 or 40 days in a 180-day school year when they were 1st graders.”

And according to the Wallace Foundation:

“When it comes to data, effective principals try to draw the most from statistics and evidence, having ‘learned to ask useful questions’ of the information, to display it in ways that tell ‘compelling stories’ and to use it to promote ‘collaborative inquiry among teachers.’ They view data as a means not only to pinpoint problems but to understand their nature and causes.”

4. They Have a Vision and a Plan

The very best leaders are also visionaries. They have a goal that they can unite a team around and a plan to help them get there. Not just that, but they are able to clearly articulate their school vision and goals.

Vision is perhaps one of the most important qualities a leader can have as it provides momentum and direction, not just for the team leader but for each and every team member. Of course, in order for leaders to be successful in pursuing their vision and enacting their plan, they must pair their vision with unrelenting passion. Vision and passion from an effective leader should generate inspiration, motivation and excitement that permeates throughout the school.

In a study published by the UK-based Education Trust entitled “Successful School Leadership,” it was reported that “effective headteachers provide a clear vision and sense of direction for the school. They prioritize. They focus the attention of staff on what is important and do not let them get diverted and sidetracked with initiatives that will have little impact on the work of the students.”

5. They Create Collaborative, Inclusive Learning Environments

Inclusive learning provides all students with access to flexible learning choices and effective paths for achieving educational goals in spaces where they experience a sense of belonging. The best educators know this and prioritize inclusivity, creating safe learning environments that nurture every student. Leaders that prioritize inclusive learning also typically believe that every person can contribute to the greater learning community and therefore they encourage collaboration between faculty as well as students.

“Perhaps the most critical role in successful inclusive schools is the role of the principal,” wrote the Inclusive Schools Network. “The school principal’s active participation is the single most important predictor of success in implementing change, improving services, or setting a new course. The school principal is central to facilitating systemic change and leading faculty to adopt new attitudes and new practices.”

6. They Are Passionate About Their Work

Passion is a critical ingredient for nearly anyone who wants to be successful and happy in their job. But passion is especially important for school leaders, who typically have a great influence on their school’s climate and culture.

Passionate people have a contagious energy that can greatly affect teacher satisfaction and drive as well as student performance. “All the knowledge in the world can’t make a good leader: It’s the care for the work and the people who collaborate with you that makes the difference,” wrote Forbes. “This is in large part because people want to follow a passionate leader. Someone who cares about not only the cause for which he or she is working, but also the other people who are involved in the effort. Passion for the projects, for the company and for the people involved are key to successful leadership.”

7. They Encourage Risk-Taking

What most educators already know is that failure can be the greatest teacher. Just as teachers should encourage risk-taking amongst their students in order to spur growth, truly effective leaders encourage risk-taking amongst their subordinates and colleagues by creating a supportive environment that rewards not just successful ideas or initiatives but effort as well, no matter the outcome.

“Failure is required for learning, but our relentless pursuit of results can also discourage employees from taking chances. To resolve this conflict, leaders must create a culture that supports risk-taking,” wrote the Harvard Business Review. “One way of doing this is to use controlled experiments — think A/B testing — that allow for small failures and require rapid feedback and correction. This provides a platform for building collective intelligence so that employees learn from each other’s mistakes, too.”

8. They Lead by Example

We’ve all heard the saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Of course, the irony is that actions are much more telling than words. Leaders who lead by example position themselves as tremendous role models for not only the students in their school or district but for colleagues and parents as well. A leader that leads by example almost always receives respect and admiration, without which he or she will find little luck in leadership. As philosopher and physician Albert Schweitzer once said, “Example is not the main thing in influencing others; it is the only thing.”

9. They Persevere – Staying with a School for at Least Five Years

Change, while good, can also be disruptive when it occurs too frequently. In the case of school leadership, it has been documented that frequent turnover results in a negative school climate, which in turn has a negative effect on student performance.

“Committed and effective principals who remain in their schools are associated with improved schoolwide student achievement. As a corollary, principal turnover is associated with lower gains in student achievement,” reported the Learning Policy Institute. “Principal turnover has a more significant negative effect in high-poverty, low-achieving schools — the very schools in which students most rely on their education for future success. The negative effect of principal turnover suggests that principals need time to make meaningful improvements in their schools. One study found that it takes, on average, 5 years of a new principal leading a school for the school’s performance to rebound to the pre-turnover level.”

The best leaders, therefore, are willing to commit to a school and persevere despite the obstacles or challenges. After all, realizing a vision doesn’t happen overnight; true transformation takes time. A leader’s commitment displays not only passion but dedication, which can have a tremendously positive effect on school culture.

10. They Are Lifelong Learners

Perhaps the most important of all qualities that a school leader can possess is the unquenchable thirst for knowledge. As John F. Kennedy said, “leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.” The best leaders, no matter what industry they work in, know they will never know it all. They are humble in their knowledge yet confident in their abilities. They’re endlessly curious individuals who never stop questioning, and learning. The Harvard Business Review put it perfectly when they said:

“It takes a real sense of personal commitment, especially after you’ve arrived at a position of power and responsibility, to push yourself to grow and challenge conventional wisdom. Which is why two of the most important questions leaders face are as simple as they are profound: Are you learning, as an organization and as an individual, as fast as the world is changing? Are you as determined to stay interested as to be interesting? Remember, it’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”

The report also quotes the noted writer and professor John Gardner, who observed, “The best leaders I’ve gotten to know aren’t just the boldest thinkers; they are the most insatiable learners.”

It is hard to think of an industry where constant learning is more applicable than education.

To be a successful and effective leader is no easy feat. Yet, effective school leaders are desperately needed in thousands of schools and educational institutions across this country and around the world. As Kenneth Leithwood stated in a Hechinger Report, “Indeed, there are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned around without intervention by a powerful leader.”

If you want to find out the degree or intensity of HR Analytics being practiced by a particular set of organizations, it is possible to develop a self-administered questionnaire which consists of instruments measuring various types of HR Analytics (percentages, ratios, metrics, etc at functional level, strategic HR level, and strategic level). After that, in order to get clarifications and further details it is possible to conduct interviews with a selected group of HR Managers.

My attempt to answer the question is more of an opinion and especially linking it to the Kenyan context. Social transformation has been happening and it is not about to end rather accelerate. This way organizations have to wake up to this reality and put in place strategies if at all they intend to remain in business. The invention of Mobile money transfer popularly referred as Mpesa for instance has taken every banking institution back to the drawing board. It is not about the shared the organization anymore, rather the 'customers' and in the case of Kenya the youth that are the majority. Another contextual example in my view is the unprecedented Degree choices for the 2018/19 University intakes. Going by the data from the Kenya Universities and Colleges Central placement service, most of the declared degree programs by the 34 public universities in kenya hardly attracted 35% applicants. To me the question that begs; why? Simply put, the universities are not meeting the customer expectation..... These two examples depict a clear disconnect between organizations and their supposed clients who majority being of different generations from those running the organizations. This way, organizations have no option but strategize to inculcate the generational expectations of the clients into the respective organizational cultures and as such a clear corporate culture - a shared value proposition.

my advise is to use articles and research papers more in your research rather than theoretical textbooks alone 

Dear Tirintetaake,

The attached may be useful for you. Best wishes!

I have  a questionnaire about a admenistrative empowerment. If you won't I can give it  to you.

Absolutely agree with @Izak Wilhelmus van der Merwe!

1) There are many software products that help visualization of workflows and process mapping including information ones (simple example is MS Visio).

2) Lean methodology is not just a set of tools, it's a way of thinking and many companies apply it to improve their efficiency. Try to remove PDCA (a typical lean tool) from ISO standards, and there will be no common base for integration of management system, incl. ISO 27001. Information Security Management Systems ;)

3) Sure - I can not imagine how a company will be transformed into digital without correct process planning.

Of course, some of the tools may be modified, some of them will not be applicable, or new will appear, but from my point of view, the philosophy will not be radically changed.      

The most important factor is likely to be the CO2 price. The lower the CO2 price, the more economic the EOR project becomes. If somebody pays to get rid of CO2 (negative CO2 price), then even better.

The concept is that the CO2 injected undergroud during CO2-EOR operations (the net amount, after allowing for recycled CO2) stays underground for tens and hundreds of thousand years (see for example the Weyburn CO2 research project results, http://www.ieaghg.org/docs/general_publications/weyburn.pdf, or http://ptrc.ca/+pub/document/Summary_Report_2000_2004.pdf ).

If a CO2 emission tax  valorizes any CO2 safely stored away more that the cost of capturing and transporting it, then CO2 becomes price-negative. I hope to see this soon, worldwide.

Yes I find but not the Robbins questionnaire

Bezrukova, K,. Thatcher, S.M.B., Jehn, K. A., & Spell., C. S. 2012. The effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 97: 77-92.

Many key factors were mentioned by the experts in this forum and, certainly, government policies could greatly affect a firm's performance.

One reference with some measures:

Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417-433.

Responses to this question probably lie at the intersection of branding, the use of social media, and strategic communication. Articles on these subjects are at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265006667_New-Age_Branding_and_the_Public_Sector, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292615977_Social_Media_and_the_Public_Sector, and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266476992_Communications_for_Development_Outcomes, respectively.

thank you sir.

My dear I hope my attached paper be interested for you about measure social capital in organizations.

best wishes 

Miriam,

These papers may help

is it me or are almost all responses off topic and boiler plate philosophy?

As a practicing management consultant, I would say independent directors help by : 1. Asking the right questions- they do not have an axe to grind or a stake to think of, so they can be unbiased; 2. Provide advice based on their knowledge and experience; 3. Leverage their network to further the cause of the organization as required; 4. Provide valuable oversight.

I suggest you look for articles on such (and other behaviours) by directors on the board. You could in the next step explore the relation between such behaviours by independent board members and firm performance.

There is no need to limit ourselves to two-choice arguments à la Holacracy vs. Teal: polarized thinking removes options from reality. In all likelihood, as regards organizational configurations, a "paradigm-changing phenomenon" will take a while to emerge if it ever does; however, there is a real chance of increased hybrization. (Hierarchy, market, and network forms of organization are not mutually exclusive: in fact, only in rare cases does one form triumph over others.) On Networked Organizations, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266477071_On_Networked_Organizations, may be of interest.

As people have commented, organizational  culture has an enormous impact on how people the second is to explore literature related to3mbrace, or not, change.  As the saying goes, culture eats strategy for breakfast. Even if management does all the *right things* in terms of things like trsining, for exsmple, if the culture works against change, such as squashing innovation, autocratic communication, etc., change readiness and action will most likely be sub-optimsl.  I agree very much with the idea that people don't resist change so much as resist being cganged, and one of the biggest drivers of culture is leadership apptiaches.  

Two things to consider are, one, whether the type of change has any influence on change readiness.  For examp,e, transformational change, in which the need for change is clear, but the end state is not or less clear, generates considerable ambiguity, and that is much harder on people - employees or management, than more straightforward chaange.  

Two, take a look at the literature around the strengths paradigm.  If HRD is focused around bui,ding employee strengths rather than fixing weakness (which does not mean ignoring weaknesses ) then you are more likely to improve the degree to which people will embrace chsnge.  See work by David Cooperrider, Diana Whitney really using appreciative inquiry and appreciative leadership approaches to change.  Also see work by Fred Luthans on psychological capital.  Strong levels of psy cap in an organization can have a large impact on the degree to which people embrace change.

I suggest you to watch this video in TED:

Here are some articles that may be useful for you:

Shaima, 

This is an interesting question and I was quite pleased to read the variety of answers in this thread. Corporate entrepreneurship usually refers to the development of new ideas and opportunities within large or established businesses. Corporate entrepreneurship is an umbrella term that can house a wide variety of entrepreneurship concepts, including entrepreneurial orientation.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on the other hand is the degree to which a firm is entrepreneurial and has been studied for a vast array of firms (e.g. startups and large corporations). 

I hope that helps.

Sorry to not have an answer for you - but perhaps you can point me to the source on Melville's Model of virtual teams?  Thanks!

Having worked in both the public (Banking) and private sectors (IT) in the last thirty odd years, I want to share an important difference in approach in both kinds of organizations:

In the public sector, I found that the employee and the management viewed each other with a long term perspective. The employer invested in the training of the employee, preparing her for senior positions, using planned job-rotations, and planned role based trainings. Expensive trainings were arranged for, at national and international institutes of repute, if defined for a particular role and position, for all such position holders.

In the private sector, both employee as well as management viewed each other with a short term perspective, and indeed average job tenure in the private sector was usually far less than in the public sector. The training in private sector was within strict budgets, need-based, more dynamic, being at times project based, or for a particular technology. Expensive trainings were often given as part of incentives, or as a reward and recognition.

You will find a comparison between training practices at public and private sector banking organizations at:

I suggest you read the article The Road to Commitment by Ron Koller and me. We have found that before anyone will make any change, such as teachers accepting and following a new curriculum, that he/she must believe in the change. Four questions each teacher will likely ask and need to answer positively before they believe in the change are: Is this change good for me? Is this change good for my students? Is this change good for our school? Will our school leadership continue to champion and lead this change or will the leadership abandon the work that is necessary to make this change?

We have a paper on change management:

So probably not helpful problems rather than solutions..... however, Having worked as a business profession within an SME, not just studying them, there are many non-tangible aspects that employees add to the business or tasks for them to complete to facilitate job completion that will be missed as part of most metrics. So although you maybe get a tangible figure for productivity that may tell a story (output/resource input), that snapshot will be insufficient on its own. I think productivity as a term is to broad to measure with any accuracy. I think you need to draw down further in my opinion. A firm can mass produce and look effective, but at what quality, how many returns? etc. 

Articles on this can be found in the Directory of Open Access Journal located at DOAJ.  As I just pointed out in another response information can be found in several other open access journals by simply searching for Train The Trainer or Train the Trainer Models.   I have compiled a listing of open educational resources in case you do not have access to paid databases.  My list is located at Open Educational Resources

Interesting differentiation - I appreciate the clarification. There seems to be an interesting parallel between foundations at various levels. Starting with foundations for structures - they must be inter-connected to be useful. Similarly, on another level, assets must be interconnected to be effective (must be able to draw on funds, access organizational efficiency, etc.). And, for mental models, the same is also true.

There is a study using "integrative complexity" that shows a correlation between managerial success and the level of structure of their mental models. That is to say, when we have mental models whose concepts are more complex and interconnected, we have a better understanding of the world, and are therefore able to make better decisions and be more successful.

reference provided in the attached paper.

Hi, 

for everybody, who is interested in this topic: I just got an email from Prof. Molina. He created EgoNet, which also can connect Ego-Networks to a whole network. And there might be no limit how many ego-networks you want to combine. It maps the networks using the names, but there is no possibility to map them using the attributes of the nodes, which would be really cool... 

Read this manuscript. Chapter 3 from my book on Structural Equation Modeling using Amos.

Motivational/Transformational leadership creates a culture of motivation, inspiration, and development of employees, so that the leader can gain the confidence and assurance of subordinate managers/employees to achieve mission, vision, and objectives of the organisation, and ultimately achieving overall organisational performance.

Try The Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees: Results of a Survey of Public-Sector Workplaces The Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees by Eaton and Nocerino on: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0019-8676.00166/abstract;jsessionid=29C6C8EDF8966769C6AFDD2B4878F67F.f01t02

Also

Training and development report by UK CIPD on http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/271CD424-507C-4E4A-99B6-1FAD80573E4A/0/traindevtsurvrept05.pdf

Sorry, that was supposed to be Bruce Chatwin

I would say the following are critical success factors for a sustainable organization in the modern business environment:

1. Thoughtful and workable strategy

2. Customer-centricity

3. Insightful talent management

4. Focus on innovation

5. Flexibility as an important value

6. Change leadership

7. Focus on High Performance Work System & people engagement

8. Alignment of all functional areas

9. Speed (that is higher than the speed of change i business environment)

Folks,

It appears to my mind that we are mixing two very different concepts- leadership and management. Equating leadership to management may produce very misleading results, in determining  university management

Vecchio (2006) and Shaskin and Shaskin (2004) suggest that real leadership in organization devolves not on organizational structure, but out there, based on competence, trust and the use of influence, not authority and power conferred by regulatory specification or organizational structure, necessarily.This may presuppose that some managers may be leaders while some may not be leaders.

A university is a huge bureaucracy that works on positions of authority with very defined roles and authority levels. Subordinates obey instructions not because they trust and appreciate the superior, but they must carry it out as a day job or vacate their positions. True leadership gets people to do things because they are convinced and pursued that it must be done for the group good-without coercion

Leadership may therefore not necessarily coincide with management, and may be found at different levels of the strata of management ,or even in the lower ranks. Measuring leadership is therefore an uphill task, even though some work has been done over the years  to measure leadership

Some of the proposed leadership measuring scales developed  include:

a)Leadership Skills inventory scale( Karnes and Chauvin, 1985)

b) Least Preferred worker scale ( Peters et al.1985)

c) Leader member exchange scale (Graen et al.1982; Klein and Kim, 1998)

d)Multi-factor leadership questionnaire ( Bass and Avolio, 1985)

e) Leadersship practices Inventory( Posner and Kouzes, 1993)

What need to be noted with any, and every one of these scales of leadership measurement may be as follows:

a). None has a universal answer to measuring leadership. Some measure leadership quality by trait method, while some measure the degree of bonding and acceptability of the leader by group members

b). Some of the scales are better suited for identifying leadership in small groups and some in larger ones. In the same vein, some are better predictors of leadership in manual work than in clerical work

c) Despite empirical findings in support of some of them they are relatively poor predictors of leadership quality and behavior over time

Perhaps, I confused the waters the more . Sorry

References

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1985). The multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Graen, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and job satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131

Kinicki, A., & Vecchio, R. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor-suborinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organisational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 75-82.

Klein, H., & Kim, J. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints, leader-member exchange, and goal commitment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 88-95

Peters, L., Hartke, D., & Pohlmann, J. (1985). Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership: An application of meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, March, 274-285.

Posner, B., & Kouzes, J. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Leadership Practices Inventory - updated. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 191-198.

Posner, B., & Kouzes, J. (1994). An extenstion of the Leadership Practices Inventory to indovidual contributors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(4), 959-966

Sashkin, M. & Sashkin, M.G.(2004) Leadership that matters. The critical factors for making a difference in people’s lives and organizations’ success. Benin City. Nigeria: Gospel Press and Literature Int.

Vecchio, R.P(2006) Organizational behavior: core concepts.6th edition. Mason. OH: South Western.

Vecchio, R., & Gobdel, B. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.

Maybe one of my papers could help :-)

Thanks Syeda. Our core business is E&P.  This year can not attend the Oil&Gas HR Forum, but will keep eyes on this

You may be interested to the articles; Regards, Katarzyna

Alina M. Waite , (2013),"Leadership's influence on innovation and sustainability", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Iss 1/2 pp. 15 - 39; link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-09-2013-0094

Müge Leyla Yıldız, Esra Dinç Özcan, Organizational Climate as a moderator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Creativity, International Journal of Business and Management Vol. II (1), 2014

Mariacristina Piva, Enrico Santarelli, Marco Vivarelli, The skill bias effect of technological and organisational change: Evidence and policy implications; doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.11.005

Kearney, A., Harrington, D., Kelliher, F. 2013. Exploiting managerial capability for innovation in a micro-firm context, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Iss 1/2 pp. 95 - 117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0122

 Hunter, S. T. Cushenbery, L. 2011.  Leading for Innovation: Direct andIndirect Influences, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(3): 248–265, DOI: 10.1177/1523422311424263

Some papers or books such as:

Gregory, B. T, Harris, S. G, Armenakis, A. A, & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: a study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 673–79. doi. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.021.

Griffin, M., Neal, A., & Neale, M. (2000). The contribution of task performance and contextual performance to effectiveness: Investigating the role of situational constraints. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3), 517-533. doi. 10.1111/1464-0597.00029.

Hartnell, C. A, Ou, A. Y, & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–94. doi. 10.1037/a0021987.

Kahya, E. (2008). The effects of job performance on effectiveness. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39 (1), 96-104. doi. 10.1016/j.ergon.2008.06.006.

Kwantes, C. T., & Boglarsky, C. A. (2007). Perceptions of organizational culture, leadership effectiveness, and personal effectiveness across six countries. Journal of International Management, 13, 204-213. doi. 10.1016/j.intman.2007.03.002.

Mitchell, R., Parker, V., & Giles, M. (2011). When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness. Human Relations, 64(10), 1321-1343. doi. 10.1177/0018726711416872.

Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.

Robertson, I. T., Callinan, M., & Bartram, D. (2002). Organizational effectiveness: the role of psychology. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, LTD;

Walton, E. J., & Dawson, S. (2001). Manager’s perceptions of criteria of organizational effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 173-199. doi. 10.1111/1467-6486.00233.

Wiener, Y. (1988). Forms of value systems: a focus on organizational effectiveness and cultural change and maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 534-545. doi. 10.5465/AMR.1988.4307410.

Yilmaz, C., & Ergun, E. (2008). Organizational culture and firm effectiveness: An examination of relative effects of culture traits and the balanced culture hypothesis in an emerging economy. Journal of World Business, 43(3), 290‐306. doi. 10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.019.

Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: Wiley. Or his new book, see Octavio.

 Good luck!

Thiago Nascimento

Hi Jeevan,

I should tell you this as an entrepreneur and a field researcher that anxiety at work is very relative. Therefore, if you happen to do a case study in various environments (in different companies or within different departments of a company) perhaps your results would be different from case to case.

Therefore, if you insist that they are very relative, you need to do situation analysis to understand the cause-and-effect relation, or run a critical/mega analysis research to generalize the hypothesis.

Thank you Ashutosh for your comments, do you know of any articles/research in this area?

The qualitative and quantitative research paradigms are complementary and used together can  produce a more complete understanding of the organizational culture. See:   Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural Assessment Methods by YAUCH C. A. and STEUDEL H. J, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 4, October 2003 465-481, DOI: 10.1177/1094428103257362. Personally, I found "interpretive" methodologies and methods better suited for a dynamic view of organizational culture. I prefer to "observe" interactions, role modelling, physical spaces and artefacts and to "listen" to gossiping and stories within organizations. Corporate culture  can be looked at as a network of conversations:how employees see the world and how they talk about it to themselves and others shape the environment of an organization.  Gossip particular  is "more than just idle chatter: it is the key to navigating social worlds” (Winerman 2006, p. 57). It can be a potent tool for forging alliances and ostracising others (Dingfelder, 2006). Trading information and opinions is not trivia, it carries with it trust and intimacy (Stambor, 2006) and helps employees developing trusting relationships and fostering social bonds (see Gianesini G. (2009). Building relationships in the workplace. Organizational Culture and Psychologically Healthy Workplaces, VDM Verlag)  

I agree. The balanced Scorecard model given by Kaplan and Norton  , yeah it does talk about measuring the sales and brand together. It may be contradictory , but I hold a belief that until and unless we have a good brand value and past performance ( in case of startups it may differ) , it is very unlikely that we will get a good sales. In my view sales is directly proportional to Brand performance. Quoting Kaplan " The balanced scorecard includes financial measures that tell the results of actions already taken. And it complements the financial measures with operational measures on customer satisfaction, internal processes, and the organization’s innovation and improvement activities—operational measures that are the drivers of future financial performance. The balanced scorecard allows managers to look at the business from three important perspectives.  It provides answers to three basic questions:

Hari and Marie,

Please find both files. I have attached both of them. 

Measuring the impact of communication policies can include:

Audience perception measurements including factors such as:

Change in behavior, The objective of most internal communication is to change the attitudes and behaviors of employees. Therefore, it is valuable to identify and measure factors such as:

Communication measurement should enable Internal Communicators to quantify the impact of communications on business objectives. For example:

I would say the following in this regard:

--Communication of vision to employees & their buy-in of the vision

--Employee commitment

--Leadership effectiveness

--Communication effectiveness

--Employee care

--Sense of accountability for results

--Customer centricity

--Customer satisfaction

--Growth and survival

--Organizational learning & innovation

I have taught in France, Ukraine and the US, and know from experience that faculty in each nation have some similar, and some different, assumptions that they bring to teaching. Also, colleges and universities are complex, and different in ways from other organizations. So one part of the answer for you will be toaddress the dynamics in Georgia, and not assume that what works somewhere else will fit your needs.

I have found that most organizations need several things to increase motivation. People need to be listened to, people at all levels. They need to be part of the change process. Neither bottom up or top down solutions will be sufficient – both are needed. Deming’s advice, take the fear out of the workplace, is still essential.

The classic organization development approach begins with action research, a means for listening to and then involving participants in the change process. This can be very effective.

The Socio-Economic Approach to Management (SEAM), which has 40 years of research history in over 1300 organizations of all kinds works on two fronts – how to involve people is respectful and effective ways, and how to make sure that the organization is as efficient as it can be financially. Part of the SEAM insight is that standard accounting does not factor in many hidden costs, which in Europe now add up to 20,000 euros per employee. The process of involving all employees in reducing hidden costs and improving management practices has made SEAM a model worth considering when it comes to change. You can see more at www.stthomas.edu/seam

Diversity of workforce at all levels at organisational, corporate, regional or national level is always shock absorbing and makes it resilient.

Personal characteristics rather refer to dispositions, while individual ones are everything that is stated to profile the study sample including personal characteristics as well if needed. For example, individual characteristics may include age, gender, health status, addictions, qualification, marital status, etc.

We recently released a book of the same name that hold impressive data as an organisational disruptor.See;

Share, Don't Take the Lead

Zac Henson

In book: Share Don't Take The Lead, Chapter: !, Publisher: Information Age Publishing,Inc., Editors: Craig L.Pearce, Charles C.Manz, and Henry P.Simms, Jr, pp.3-14

Edit

ABSTRACT Share, Don't Take the Lead is a book that offers an alternative perspective on leadership. The philosophy of shared leadership is straightforward: Leadership does not derive solely from position, authority, or hierarchy. Instead, leadership is something that can be executed by anyone who has the best knowledge or skill to undertake the leadership necessary in any given situation. Shared leadership is especially relevant, for example, in empowered teams where shared leadership can be initiated from any team member at any time, depending on the needs of the moment and the capabilities of the individuals. But the notion of shared leadership is also appropriate in a larger context. For example, an individual lower in the hierarchy can provide leadership if that person is best qualified to exercise it. Shared leadership also shows how hierarchical leaders with formal authority can use empowerment to develop leadership in others. This book tells the tales of how multiple trail blazing organizations used shared leadership to build high performance. The notion of shared leadership seems to contradict many of the bedrock ideas of efficient management and effective organizations. A typical first reaction is, "It'll never work here!" Yet, the organizations that "get it" and implement this new powerful approach tend to be more innovative and to out-perform their "nay-sayer" competitors. In fact, shared leadership is one of the most important ideas to hit business in recent years-our recent feature article about shared leadership in the Wall Street Journal is testimony to that. Shared leadership can provide a way for companies to increase productivity, quality, and flexibility while meeting the competitiveness challenge. Share the Lead provides new insights and information about how to push the organizational envelope to new frontiers.

In order to measure innovation (product, process, and organizational innovation), one has to look at how the organization structure of the department.

I have done some research on the topic. You may find this interesting. Find a link attached herein.

What Management Style is Considered Best for a Team-Based Organization and Why?

Let me know your viewpoints, if any.

Thanks

Brian

In a functional organization the resources and employees do what the boss says. In a process organization the boss is the customer and all resources and people work for the customer directly. In functional organizations bosses replace customers and they decide what is right to do in order to satisfy the customer requirements. In a process organization; bosses and people are to service the customers. Then what is matrix organization?. Matrix organziations are a mixed of both. Nevertheless, the criteria to manage the resources and people must be very clear. If the criteria is process then all resources and people must follow directly customer requirements. Empowerment, participation, commitment and decision making directly for customer are right features. But if the criteria is functions, then all resources and people must be follow the hierarchical bosses. Bosses will think what is right for servicing customer requirements with resources and people organization. Decision making is centralized, resources and people are to service to the organization hierarchy and lack of commitment and participation are present. The ideal situation is to combine both extremes, fucntional for short term profitability and process for long term customer satisfaction. Matrix is the right solution, some areas oriented to hierarchy and others to customers, but all with the same spirit: satisfy customer requirements a little better each day.