Search results

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a reclaiming of the potency of Rogerian listening in organizations. The paper views listening after Rogers, the father of active listening, as a process with potential to re‐enchant organizations and the people who comprise them, in a move away from the popular view and professional training that fosters instrumentalized listening that deadens organizations and crushes the spirit of individuals.

The study employs a text analysis using iterative coding processes and constant comparison. A total of 12 web sites focused on “active listening” in business contexts were analyzed for overlap and divergence with Rogers' descriptors and essential conditions for active listening.

Rogers is almost completely disassociated from his original multi‐sensory conception of listening, which is now reduced to a set of instrumental tips and techniques that help the listener gather data in the interest of achieving preconceived goals. Rarely was Rogers' intention invoked – of understanding in the context of growing a relationship between speaker and listener that was grounded in unconditional positive regard, care, and love.

Though the sample size is limited, it suggests a particular zeitgeist in organizations that inhibits the possibilities of re‐enchantment by shutting down a principle of channel for developing understanding and making connections that can foster novelty and increase collaboration. An awareness of the current reduction of listening being taught in organizations, and the particular ways in which it varies from the richness of Rogers' powerful conception is the first step toward identifying and overcoming the barriers to re‐enchantment at individual and organizational levels.

The prevailing efforts in the literature include listening as one dimension in the broader field of communication skills, and tend to result in recommendations that deepen the instrumental nature of listening in business. This study focuses on listening exclusively, beginning with the origins of Rogers' “active listening,” examining the ways it has been conceptually co‐opted and distorted, as a first step in the process of reclaiming it from the territory of calculated and observable skill.

Professor Slawomir Magala is a full professor of Cross-Management at the Department of Organization and Personnel Management in Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University (RSM, 2015). His education stems from Poland, Germany and the USA, and has taught and conducted research in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Croatia, Estonia, the United Kingdom and Namibia. He is a former Chair for Cross-Cultural Management at RSM and has achieved many things, from being editor-in-chief of the Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM), to receiving the Erasmus Research Institute in Management (ERIM) Book Award (2010), for The Management of Meaning in Organizations (Routledge, 2009). It has received honors for being the best book in one of the domains of management research. It was selected by an academic committee, consisting of the Scientific Directors of CentER (Tilburg University), METEOR (University of Maastricht) and SOM (University of Groningen). All these research schools are accredited by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is a review of Professor Slawomir Magala’s contributions as editor of Journal of Organizational Change Management.

Slawomir (Slawek) Magala will be known for many contributions to social, organizational, managerial research, and it will be remembered that he has created a great legacy in the field of cross-cultural competence and communication on processes of sense making in professional bureaucracies. He has authored and co-authored many publications including articles, books, professional publications, book contributions and other outputs, and is an established professor of cross-cultural management at the Department of Organization and Personnel Management in RSM, Erasmus University. He will be known for his work as editor of Qualitative Sociology Review, and one of the founding members of the Association for Cross-Cultural Competence in Management, not to mention the Journal of Organizational Change Management. Many of his articles have appeared regularly in leading refereed journals, such as the European Journal of International Management, Public Policy, Critical Perspectives on International Business and Human Resources Development International. His greatest legacy is in the field of cross-cultural management, but branches out to many other management studies.

The research is limited to his work in capacity of editor of Journal of Organizational Change Management.

This review provides a guide for positive role model of an excellent editorship of a journal.

Magala’s legacy acknowledges this research and its power to create numerous papers and attract a lot of attention (Flory and Magala, 2014). Because of these conferences, these empirical findings have led to disseminating the conference findings with JOCM (Flory and Magala, 2014). According to them, narrative research has become a respectable research method, but they also feel that it is still burdened with a lot of controversies on with difficulties linked to applying it across different disciplines (Flory and Magala, 2014).

The review covers the creative accomplishment of Professor Magala as editor.

This study investigates the conceptual and psychometric properties of trust in organizations. Critical review of recent literature led to the conclusion that there is no single agreed upon definition of trust and that controversy exists as to its construct validity. We present empirical results based on a complex procedure for scale development, which includes a design made up of four separate stages of research. The construct of trust in employment relationships was ultimately refined to entail three dimensions: harmony, reliability, and concern (HRC). The final results of this study led to the development of a standardized 16‐item instrument that can be used to measure trust in the context of employment relationships. Evidence of the scale’s reliability, factor structure, and validity is also presented.

This study aims to examine human resource development (HRD) research as represented by the citations to the publications in the four journals sponsored by the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) from 2005 to 2011.

The authors collected citation data from Google Scholar (GS) using Publish or Perish 3 (PoP3) and compared the four journals on the metrics of h, hc, g, e and other Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) commonly reported indexes.

Citation data during the seven-year period provided an overall picture on the status of HRD research and publications. It showed that while HRD journals have made impressive research impact by generating worldwide scholarly citations in multiple languages, additional effort in improving the quality and the impact of research and publications is needed.

This study offers new insights on a number of important issues related to HRD research assessment, research quality, journal impact and editorial performance.

This is an initial effort in the HRD literature that comprehensively analyzes and compares the four AHRD journals. It offers new insights on the assessment of HRD research and journal impact.

This research examined the relationships among a number of outcomes of mediation. The sample consisted of 73 hearings at two dispute settlement centers in New York State. Predictions from goal achievement theory were contrasted with predictions from procedural justice theory. In accordance with goal achievement theory, disputants who attained their goals in the agreement indicated immediate satisfaction with that agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. However, goal achievement was unrelated to long‐run success or long‐run satisfaction with the agreement, a result which may apply primarily to the mediation of interpersonal disputes. The predictions from procedural justice theory were more successful. Disputants who perceived that the underlying problems had been aired, that the mediator had understood what they said and that they had received a fair hearing also showed immediate satisfaction with the agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. In addition, these and related perceptions—especially in the eyes of the respondent—were predictive of several aspects of long‐run success.