Search results

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of rural superintendent’s talk on the perceived outcomes of principal communication competence and organizational communication satisfaction. More specifically, this study explored whether the source credibility dimensions of goodwill, competency and trustworthiness had a greater impact on the perceived outcomes when mediated by motivating language (ML) than not.

Direct and indirect paths between superintendent and principal communication were modeled, analyzed and evaluated using descriptive and inferential methods, including R version 3.6.1 with the lavaan package and the Sobel mediation test.

Research findings indicated the importance of superintendent talk and motivating language theory (MLT) that, when combined, constitute the medium of superintendent practice and enable a superintendent to execute their roles and duties. Additionally, the authors found the dimensions of goodwill and competency had the most significant impact on the two outcomes mediated by ML. This finding indicates that principals are calling for a more empathetic and interactive form of credibility than the long-established form of credibility based on expertise and stewardship. Finally, as the authors call for an expanded role from the community in research, scholarship and implementation of MLT, they suggest due to the lack of significance in trustworthiness mediated by ML, future research into trustworthiness and trust.

This study’s value is to increase understanding of educational administration scholars of MLT and its power to influence employee and organizational outcomes and highlight a reframing of superintendent credibility away from say and do agreement and expertise and stewardship.

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to engage the field of leaders, practitioners, organizational trainers, and scholars into the idea that leader talk and the implementation of Motivating Language Theory takes ability. It takes thought and intentionality. It goes beyond just the use of the three leadership languages known as the Motivating Language Constructs that are so often written about in Motivating Language Theory research as “Motivating Language” when indeed they are not.

The conceptual approach behind this quick primer is to take previous research in Motivating Language Theory and refine and expand the work centered around Motivating Language Ability in order to bring greater attention and focus to Motivating Language and the necessary skills leaders need to bring it about.

The findings of this conceptual paper explicitly highlight levels of leader talk and Motivating Language usage and provides ideas and strategies for the implementation of Motivating Language Ability.

The research implication of this conceptual paper is to assist scholars in clarifying their use of Motivating Language in research as there are times when researchers will identify Motivating Language in their research but not have Motivating Language as a significant variable.

The practical implication of this conceptual paper is to provide guidance and information to practitioners in the field on content that is critical for leader and organizational development.

The value of this conceptual paper is that it builds off of research already published and adds additional clarification and emphasis to an understudied and discussed element of Motivating Language Theory and leader talk in general.

This conceptual paper aims to add context and support to the field of Motivating Language Theory around the area of change and transformation. With this paper, the direction and shape of the change within the field of Motivating Language Theory for practitioners and scholars alike has been expanded.

The design and approach of this conceptual paper is to expand upon the existing literature to create a new framework for organizational learning and a new model for leadership development to support change and change leadership through the integration of Kotter’s Stages of Change, Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model, and Motivating Language Theory. The “methodology” is the infusion of the W. Author & S. Colleague Four-Frame-MLT model with the Bolman & Deal and Kotter – Four-Frame model into one seamless MLT supported/driven Four-Frame change model.

The findings of this conceptual paper are in the form of an integration table that integrates the Bolman and Deal (2021) Kotter Stages of Change and the Four Frames with Motivating Language Forms and Constructs based upon ideas and assertions (guidance) from the Kotter (2007) article. These findings highlight the three concrete steps of the infused model (1) identify the appropriate Stage of Change, (2) select the best frame or frames that address the stage of change, and (3) utilize the appropriate MLT form (action) and construct (language) to execute the change effectively.

The originality of this conceptual paper is in the fusion of Kotter’s Stages of Change, the Bolman and Deal Four-Frames, and Motivating Language Theory. The three components have not been brought together before this paper. In terms of value, this conceptual paper creates an opportunity for those in the real world to have a useful framework to explore change, action/communication, and leadership. For those in academic positions, this paper creates a new starting point for exploring motivating language theory and change.

The purpose of this article is to provide support for leader improvement, development, and learning as well as provide a twenty-first century training program that meets the needs of all organizations and employees within the context of motivating language (ML) and through the framework of a trending self-initiated training practice referred to as self-mentoring (SM).

The approach of this paper is to merge the robust and well-generalized ML model with the emergent SM model around a set of guided questions to create a framework for training.

The integrated findings of the ML and SM models create a process for training that supports a well-developed organizational system, as well as a system that is void of systematic elements for leader development.

The implications call for expanded scholarship in the ML model and SM as tools for leadership and organizational development (OD).

Continued training in the ML model for leaders and application of SM as an institutional vehicle for training.

This is the first paper bringing ML and SM together.

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to increase the leadership and organizational effectiveness concepts presented by Simon Sinek in his 2009 book “Start with Why” by connecting them to Motivating Language Theory and presenting the integrated framework within a double-loop organizational and developmental learning model.

The approach of this conceptual paper is to link Sinek’s concepts WHY/HOW/WHAT with Motivating Language Theory’s constructs Meaning-Making Language/Empathetic Language/Direction-Giving Language to support deeper implementation as well as maximize implementation of WHY/HOW/WHAT through implementation of the higher-level variable Motivating Language. Additionally, this conceptual paper expands upon Sinek’s discussion of process and outcomes through the illustration of a double-loop organizational learning and development model that highlights data-driven decision-making, working from the inside-out organizational processes, and the connection between outcomes and reflection to improve organizational work.

The findings of this conceptual paper are motivating language theory can enhance and extend Sinek’s organizational and leadership assertions, and the creation of a double-loop organizational learning and development model provides greater clarity and insight to Sinek’s initial concepts presented in Start with Why. These findings provide practitioners greater tools and resources for implementation in the field as well as continue to provide scholars with an ongoing thread of connections and applications of Motivating Language Theory.

The originality of this conceptual paper builds off Sinek’s assertion that communication is vital to leaders and organizations by giving it context and specificity in the form of a well-established leadership and organizational communication theory.

The purpose of this conceptual paper is twofold, i.e. first, to elevate an assumption of Motivating Language Theory (MLT) – walk and talk congruence – to the level of antecedent variable serving as a prerequisite to the implementation of Motivating Language (ML) and second, to explore the components of walk and talk congruence (Behavioral Integrity and Credibility) to understand how they are vital in the establishment of trust at the organizational level which is the key lever for ML to be strategically implemented.

The approach is cross-disciplinary, as it utilized MLT from the field of business; applied in the field of education with research from educational researchers; and for the purpose of utilization by organizations, leaders, and scholars from all fields.

The findings are leadership communication matters and is how leadership gets done, ML makes a difference to employees and organizations, trust is a critical factor in organizational success, Credibility is all that stands between a leader’s believability or not, and Behavioral Intergrity is the key determiner in walk and talk alignment.

The implications for researchers are new research opportunities in the ML field.

The implications for practitioners are clear in terms of how to maximize leader effectiveness and organizational trust/citizenship, increase employee and organizational outcomes and drive leadership development.

The value of this paper is to both the practitioner and scholar in terms of application and deepening of the field.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate the Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Four Frames of Reframing Organizations with the Mayfield and Mayfield (2018) Motivating Language Theory so that those who lead organizations can better do so and those who guide the improvement and development of organizations can better prepare organizational managers/leaders.

Through the fusion of the Four-Frames Assumptions and Motivating Language Categorical Forms into one integration table, linkages and connections between the two frameworks are identified.

The findings of this work provide a “voice” to the Four Frames of Reframing Organizations and extend the field Motivating Language Theory as the medium of leader praxis.

The implications for researchers are new opportunities for research and teaching.

The implications for those in the field are new opportunities for leader development and training leading to improved outcomes for employees and organizations.

This is the first integration of the Four-Frames and Motivating Language Theory extending and enriching both fields.

The management of children′s literature is a search for value and suitability. Effective policies in library and educational work are based firmly on knowledge of materials, and on the bibliographical and critical frame within which the materials appear and might best be selected. Boundaries, like those between quality and popular books, and between children′s and adult materials, present important challenges for selection, and implicit in this process are professional acumen and judgement. Yet also there are attitudes and systems of values, which can powerfully influence selection on grounds of morality and good taste. To guard against undue subjectivity, the knowledge frame should acknowledge the relevance of social and experiential context for all reading materials, how readers think as well as how they read, and what explicit and implicit agendas the authors have. The good professional takes all these factors on board.

LOOKING BEFORE AND AFTER : BEFORE Opening, as we do, a new volume of THE LIBRARY WORLD, especially as with it we reach the venerable age of sixty‐one, does suggest retrospective and prospective view. The magazine is the oldest amongst independent library journals, though others existed before 1899 in different forms or under other titles than those by which they are known to‐day. When at the end of last century it was felt that utterances were needed about libraries, unfettered by uncritical allegiance to associations or coteries, librarianship was a vessel riding upon an official sea of complacency so far as its main organisation was concerned. It was in the first tide, so far as public libraries were concerned, of Carnegie gifts of buildings, not yet however at the full flood. The captains were men of the beginnings of the library voyage; who were still guided themselves by the methods and modes of the men who believed in libraries, yet feared what the public might do in its use of them. Hence the indicator, meant to show, as its name implies, what books were available, but even more to secure them from theft, and to preserve men and women from the violent mental reactions they would suffer from close contact with large numbers of books. There were rebels of course. Six years earlier James Duff Brown has turned his anvil shaped building in Clerkenwell into a safeguarded open access library in which he actually allowed people, properly vetted, to enter and handle their own property. This act of faith was a great one, because within a mile or so some 5,000 books had been lost from the Bishopgate Institute Library, which has open shelves, too, not “safeguarded”. Brown's “cave of library chaos” as a well‐known Chairman, who by one visit was convinced of its good sense and practicability, called it, focused the attention of scores of librarians—so much so that Brown had to beg them to keep away for about a year, so that the method might be better judged after sufficient trial. It also focused the attention of the inventors of the indicator, who, presumably, had more than a benevolent interest in its sales. So there was war against this threat and for several years this childish contention raged at conferences, in private conversations amongst library workers, and in letters to the press aimed to convict Brown and all his satellites of encouraging dishonesty, mental confusion and other maladies public. Hence Brown, L. Stanley Jast, William Fortune and others initiated this journal to teach librarians and library committees how libraries were to be run. That, in extreme brevity, is our genesis. For sixty years it has encouraged voices, new and old, orthodox or unorthodox, who had something to say, or could give a new face to old things, to use its pages. Brown was its first honorary Editor, and with some assistance in the later stages remained so for the thirteen years he had yet to live. Nearly every librarian of distinction in his day has at some time or other contributed to these pages. So much of our past may be said and we hope will be allowed.