Leadership, at its best, leverages other people’s full potential The L.E.A.D. program follows neither the old command‐and‐control style of management nor the more laissez faire…
Abstract
Leadership, at its best, leverages other people’s full potential The L.E.A.D. program follows neither the old command‐and‐control style of management nor the more laissez faire approaches that have emerged. Instead, L.E.A.D. begins with a clear mandate for managers to leverage their people to their highest levels of achievement, as individuals and as a group. The first step involves leveraging employee judgment, then fully engaging them in their work by respecting the psychological contract implied in employment, aligning all employee efforts by clarifying context, and finally developing individual capacity by coaching and mentoring. The L.E.A.D. process can spell the difference between truly outstanding achievements vs. run‐of‐the‐mill practices that achieve far less.
Details
Keywords
Today's conventional wisdom says that hierarchy is inherently bad. Recent evidence suggests that many organizational structures are excessively layered and autocratically managed…
Abstract
Today's conventional wisdom says that hierarchy is inherently bad. Recent evidence suggests that many organizational structures are excessively layered and autocratically managed. We are led to believe that individual motivation and group initiative have been stifled and that cross‐functional fiefdoms of Byzantine proportions have been created. These signs and symptoms of “bureausclerosis” are felt to be at the root of the inefficiencies in work systems and corporations. In particular, CEOs are increasingly frustrated by their inability to depend on their people to implement their strategic intentions reliably and effectively.
The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the theory building of transformative university by delivering two conceptual models for legitimizing entrepreneurial university…
Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the theory building of transformative university by delivering two conceptual models for legitimizing entrepreneurial university with a transformative role in quadruple helix for sustainability governance structures as being nominated as “responsible facilitator.” This chapter draws many theoretical insights sourced from Entrepreneurial University (Etzkowitz, 1988), Institutional Theory (Scott, 1987), quadruple/quintuple helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009a, b) and Responsible Innovation (Owen, Macnaghten, & Stilgoe, 2012) in order to frame the resulting conceptual models of transformative university for sustainability and quadruple helix for sustainability governance. The conceptual models offer a new paradigm discussion for the changing role of universities in knowledge economy and opens up for further investigation of quadruple helix actors namely as transformative university, society, industry and government for strategic capital, social capital, economic capital and culture–human capital interventions in sustainability governance. The second model illustrates the key interventions of quadruple helix actors in four pillars of capital delivering concrete examples of activities. The originality of this chapter lies in its discourse articulating a multilayered approach for the institutionalization of entrepreneurial university embedded in a responsible innovation ecosystem based on individual, organizational and macro-level perspectives. Quadruple helix actors are nominated as “responsible facilitator,” “hybrid hub,” “agile regulator” and “pressure beneficiary” roles for their relevant place in sustainability governance structure.