Search results

I begin by examining some ways in which organisations have attempted to improve their recruitment and selection procedures to minimise bias and unfair discrimination, and focus on the assessment centre as a potentially useful technique in this respect, especially for managerial selection. I go on to examine the assessment centre in more detail, including its origins, construction and uses, before discussing the strong evidence for its validity as a selection and assessment procedure. I then describe some recent British innovations in assessment centre design and practice, especially in its use for management and organisation development purposes, before discussing some of my own recent research, in collaboration with Ivan Robertson and Usha Rout, on participants' attitudes towards the use of assessment centres for selection and development purposes, including gender differences in attitudes.

I. INTRODUCTION This study attempts to extend and expand previous research conducted by the Department of Marketing at Strathclyde on the adoption and diffusion of industrial products.

The field of Human Resource Management (HRM) has long recognized the importance of interpersonal influence for employee and organizational effectiveness. HRM research and practice have focused primarily on individuals’ characteristics and behaviors as a means to understand “who” is influential in organizations, with substantially less attention paid to social networks. To reinvigorate a focus on network structures to explain interpersonal influence, the authors present a comprehensive account of how network structures enable and constrain influence within organizations. The authors begin by describing how power and status, two key determinants of individual influence in organizations, operate through different mechanisms, and delineate a range of network positions that yield power, reflect status, and/or capture realized influence. Then, the authors extend initial structural views of influence beyond the positions of individuals to consider how network structures within and between groups – capturing group social capital and/or shared leadership – enable and constrain groups’ ability to influence group members, other groups, and the broader organizational system. The authors also discuss how HRM may leverage these insights to facilitate interpersonal influence in ways that support individual, group, and organizational effectiveness.

There now exists a considerable body of empirical evidence which indicates a positive relationship between good and efficient communication and successful industrial innovation. However, in spite of this, many firms still do not take communication seriously and hence fail to take positive steps to promote the flow of information, both throughout the organization and between the organization and its environment. On the contrary, even those firms which do possess established information departments tend to treat the information function as an ancillary operation. As a consequence, in times of economic stringency, the information department is among the first to feel the axe.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight how organizational leaders influenced the high 2021 turnover rates amid the COVID-19 shutdown.

This paper explores several factors that contributed to employee turnover intention before the pandemic and how unresolved leadership behaviors and toxic organizational cultures exacerbated circumstances that led to what is now known as The Great Resignation of 2021.

This paper suggests that while the pandemic shutdown temporarily paused employee turnover, organizational leaders missed an opportunity to retain their employees by not recognizing and changing factors that led to pre-existing employee turnover intention.

This paper explores solutions to help leaders support and retain current and future employees as the pandemic continues and in the event of futures crises. It offers recommendations for leadership development support to help strengthen leaders in their highly complex roles.

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.

There is only one way of finding out who reads a particular periodical. The readership survey has become the means of sampling the readership of a journal and confirming or modifying editorial opinion regarding the level and status of its readers. With specialized technical periodicals, however, it can be safely assumed that the readership will consist of specialized technicians or technologists—for example, Nuclear Engineering is presumably read by nuclear engineers, and the Muck Shifter by public works contractors. The Times Review of Industry does not have a specialized readership and, without the benefit of a readership survey, it would be difficult to make a hard and fast definition of its readership. The editorial staff are fairly certain that the level of education of their readers is at least grammar school sixth form, possibly with a professional or technical qualification added and there are certainly many graduate readers. There will be among the readers managers of various grades and functions, engineers, research workers and, no doubt, even some company directors who, as we all know, have far too much to read anyway, and a further catagory of reader may well be found among technical journalistic colleagues, etc. We hope they read us because we read them enthusiastically.

OWING to the comparatively early date in the year of the Library Association Conference, this number of THE LIBRARY WORLD is published so that it may be in the hands of our readers before it begins. The official programme is not in the hands of members at the time we write, but the circumstances are such this year that delay has been inevitable. We have dwelt already on the good fortune we enjoy in going to the beautiful West‐Country Spa. At this time of year it is at its best, and, if the weather is more genial than this weather‐chequered year gives us reason to expect, the Conference should be memorable on that account alone. The Conference has always been the focus of library friendships, and this idea, now that the Association is so large, should be developed. To be a member is to be one of a freemasonry of librarians, pledged to help and forward the work of one another. It is not in the conference rooms alone, where we listen, not always completely awake, to papers not always eloquent or cleverly read, that we gain most, although no one would discount these; it is in the hotels and boarding houses and restaurants, over dinner tables and in the easy chairs of the lounges, that we draw out really useful business information. In short, shop is the subject‐matter of conference conversation, and only misanthropic curmudgeons think otherwise.

In the current era, characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), organizations are becoming increasingly more complex and less formal. Consequently, traditional control processes are being replaced by knowledge-sharing processes, informal coordination, and networks. Hence, different leadership theories and methods, which are more in line with these developments, are required. Terms such as “leadership in the plural,” “emergent leadership,” “leadership as a structural and networked phenomenon” reflect changes in how the author understands the phenomenon of leadership and sets the direction for new approaches. This chapter describes four paradigm shifts from the traditional approach to leadership, which highlighted the role of a formal leader who influences a group of followers. The author presents a stream of research emphasizing a relational approach among multiple individuals and reframe leadership as an influence action of many. These influence exchanges result in an emergent influence pattern or a leadership configuration. Nevertheless, the author sought to not “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” therefore the author claims that the formal leader is embedded in this configuration. Building on social network analysis and recently developed methodologies, the author provides a platform for measuring leadership as a many-on-many influence process. The author depicts the research she conducted analyzing advice networks, while aspiring to create a synthesis between the traditional and emergent leadership approaches. At the practical level, to understand and develop leadership in organizations nowadays, the author suggests acquiring a “broad and multi-focal lens” to capture the complexity of leadership.