Search results

The significance of organizational culture (OC) pervades all workplaces, extending even to health systems. While numerous studies have examined the perceptions of OC among nurses and physicians, there is a notable gap in understanding the perspectives of non-patient-facing health system employees. This study aims to fill this void by investigating the perceptions and drivers of OC among non-patient-facing personnel within health systems.

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, starting with a 31-question survey disseminated to health system employees through trade organizations to capture diverse perspectives on OC. Subsequently, employees were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. A total of 23 interviews were conducted to explore the underlying factors shaping employees’ perceptions of OC.

A total of 67 surveys were completed, with 61 used in the analysis. The results revealed a predominantly positive outlook, highlighting the significance of supportive leadership and involvement in decision-making processes. The qualitative analysis identified four key themes: effective communication and transparency, coordinated teamwork, supportive leadership and the impact of external factors like the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Effective leadership should prioritize open communication, employee autonomy and involvement in decision-making. These strategies foster a culture of trust, accountability and engagement, enhancing employee morale and job satisfaction while promoting a collaborative and innovative work environment conducive to long-term success and growth.

This research examines the often-overlooked perspectives of non-patient-facing health system staff, providing valuable insights and strategies for leaders to improve OC and create a more positive, inclusive and supportive work environment.

The purpose of this paper was to undertake a comprehensive review of Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model. Included was a brief discussion on the additions that have been suggested by critics attempting to make it more responsive to training practitioners’ needs as well as researchers’ inquiries. Also included is a contrast of Kirkpatrick’s model with the expanded model offered by Holton (1996) and a discussion of several key areas of agreement with his model as well as areas of concerns with Holton’s criticism of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. This article also discussed the relationship of two key factors, not widely examined in the transfer of training literature that could impact the transfer of training to the workplace, namely trainee attributes and the supervisory role in training transfer as affected specifically by a manager’s degree of transformational leadership. A model depicting the balance between these two factors on training transfer was presented in an attempt to assist training professionals seeking to further understand the effects of this interaction on training transfer. Several recommendations were suggested to help training practitioners. Finally several recommendations were given for future studies.

This research assesses the Know, See, Plan, portions of the Know, See, Plan, Do (KSPD) model for curriculum design in leadership education. There were 3 graduate student groups, each taught using 1 of 3 different curriculum designs (KSPD and 2 control groups). Based on apre- test, post-test design, students’ performance was measured to assess their knowledge, and application skills of the course material. Results indicated MBA students taught based on a KSPD curriculum (Group 1) performed significantly better than students in the two control groups on 3 post-test dependent measures designed to capture the effectiveness of the Know, See, Plan curriculum design model, (basic leadership information (K1), recognition of leadership concepts in practice (S1), and developing a plan of action (P1)). Group 1 also performed significantly better on all 3 post-test measures than they performed on the 3 pre-test measures. The non-MBA control group (Group 2) improved significantly from pre-test to post test on P1 but not on S1 or K1. The MBA control group (Group 3) had no significant changes in performance from pre-test to post-test on any of the three dependent measures. These findings are discussed in terms of their support for the KSPD model and in regard to limitations of this study.

The paper investigates the effects of global value chains (GVCs) and technological innovation on exports. The paper builds a new dataset from two database, the EORA and the OECD stan database. Using a pooled OLS and a two-stage quantile regression technique on a sample of 8 OECD countries, the results suggest that the effects of GVCs participation are heterogeneous across countries. We find that at the aggregate level, GVCs and forward participation are negatively associated with exports growth. However, we only find evidence of a positive effect of backward participation on exports in the case of France and Germany. At the disaggregated level, we find that: (a) an increase in GVCs participation in low technology intensive sectors is positively associated with exports’growth; (b) an increase in GVCs participation in high technology intensive sector is negatively correlated with exports’growth. The findings stress the importance of GVCs as a driving channel for subdue economic growth in low technological sectors.

In this chapter, I propose an integrative framework for theorizing and empiricizing about talent management, based on the notion of “talent philosophies.” I believe that current debates about whether talent management should be inclusive or exclusive create the risk that our field will become fragmented, thereby undermining its social-scientific legitimacy. Nonetheless, this debate is absolutely correct in identifying the tensions between inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent management as a phenomenon. This, however, creates issues for talent management as a construct for scientific inquiry, as we need clear definitions and measures to create a cumulative body of research as a community. I propose that the solution lies in an expansion of our vocabulary as talent management researchers and identify four constructs that can help us structure and categorize our collective work: giftedness, talent, potential, and strength. Each of these constructs map logically onto different talent philosophies and talent management practices. In establishing “unity in diversity,” I believe talent management could finally make the transition into a more mature field of academic inquiry – although clearly phenomenon driven – characterized in equal parts by construct clarity, rigor, and relevance.

This study examined the leadership development of MBA students enrolled in an Organizational Behavior course. Students enrolled in either an in-class section or a section that included an intensive, outdoor training component called Leadership on the Edge. Results from Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (2003) showed that students in the outdoor training section demonstrated greater improvements in leadership practices over the course of the semester. Reflective comments from students in the outdoor section indicated it was a transformative personal experience that is unlikely to be emulated in a classroom. Implications for leadership educators are discussed.

We present a framework for understanding the relationship between individual differences in leaders’ motivations and their engagement in leader development, and we empirically test that framework across three different operationalizations of engagement, demonstrating that the motivation to develop as a leader (MTDL) is distinct from other motivational constructs (specifically, motivation to lead and motivation to learn) and that MTDL differentially predicts engagement in leader development. Finally, we provide evidence that motivation and engagement mutually reinforce each other in a virtuous spiral during leader development.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of firm-, finance- and country-specific indicators to the performance of companies under the COVID-19 outbreak.

The study uses a regression performance model for enterprises during the COVID-19 crisis. The investigation is based upon a data set of 5,730 firms from 13 countries collected by the World Bank through enterprise surveys. The author combined the analysis of traditional performance measurements with the testing of relatively novel variables.

This study confirms the significance of multiple factors for company performance: sector, size, participation in exports and market demand for firms’ products. Robust financing solutions during the coronavirus pandemic period include equity contributions, followed by firms’ cash balances and debt. Support by a government, however, has not yet been confirmed as a significant source of finance. This paper also suggests the importance of country-specific factors for the performance of enterprises, including the level of economic development and the corporate governance infrastructure.

The research outcomes might assist regulatory bodies, policymakers and companies in their formulation of public and corporate governance strategies concerning future emergency preparedness and responses.

This paper is among the first empirical studies in the management realm that addresses the impact of COVID-19 on company performance, with cross-national empirical data.