Search results

Our study was designed to investigate the longitudinal trajectories of student leader development capacities in a sample of students enrolled in multiple leadership-focused courses across several semesters. Our goal was to assess the degree to which course enrollment was associated with growth over the time that students engage as undergraduates in academic leadership programs, and if so, to assess the shape and speed of capacity change.

We utilized a multilevel intra-individual modeling approach assessing students’ motivation to lead, leader self-efficacy, and leadership skills across multiple data collection points for students in a campus major or minor focused on leadership studies. We compared an unconditional model, a fixed effect model, a random intercept model, a random slope model, and a random slope and intercept model to determine the shape of score trajectories. Our approach was not to collect traditional pre-test and post-test data – choosing to collect data only at the beginning of each semester – to reduce time cues typically inherent within pre-test and post-test collections.

Our results strongly suggested that individual students differ greatly in the degree to which they report the capacity to lead when initially enrolling in their first class. Surprisingly, the various models were unable to predict a pattern of longitudinal leader development through repeated course enrollment in our sample.

Our investigation employed statistical methods that are not often utilized in leadership education quantitative research, and also included a data collection effort designed to avoid a linear pre-test/post-test score comparison.

The book consists of an introduction and eight chapters. Chapter 1 “The Unchanging Focus of Modern Economics” considers economists’ attitude toward the invisible hand. It begins with quotations from standard microeconomic textbooks (Mas-Colell, Whinston and Green, Pashigian, and Ruffin) that show how that invisible hand is treated by modern economics as a technical issue, in which voluntary trades improve agents’ position. Markets allow trade, and thus, subject to the well-known standard conditions, make people better off. The texts train students in models that demonstrate the same. The chapter explores how the invisible hand metaphor has significantly deviated from Adam Smith's first use of the term. Klein argues that Smith's contextualization has been lost in technical proofs. Chapter 2, “Making Progress with Theory: Do We Get What We Want or Want What We Get?” considers macroeconomic issues; it points out that there is little communication among different schools of economics, and that researchers play by their own rules. In it Klein discusses Robert Lucas's positive view of W. C. Mitchell, and Lucas’ negative view of Keynes. Klein concludes the chapter with a discussion of how, today, macro is far less about policy, and far more about “playing games.”

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

This chapter provides an alternative interpretation of the emergence of the “Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans” growth model, a framework which, alongside the overlapping generation model, is the dominant approach in today’s macroeconomics. By focusing on the role Paul Samuelson played through the works he developed in the turnpike literature, the author’s goal is to provide a more accurate history of growth theory of the 1940–1960s, one which started before Solow (1956) but never had him as a central reference. Inspired by John von Neumann’s famous 1945 article, Samuelson wrote his first turnpike paper by trying to conjecture an alternative optimal growth path (Samuelson, 1949 [1966]). In the 1960s, after reformulating the intertemporal utility model presented in Ramsey (1928), Samuelson began to propound it as a representative agent model. Through Samuelson’s interactions with colleagues and PhD students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and given his standing in the profession, he encouraged a broader use of that device in macroeconomics, particularly, in growth theory. With the publication of Samuelson (1965), Tjalling Koopmans and Lionel McKenzie rewrote their own articles in order to account for the new approach. This work complements a recently written account on growth theory by Assaf and Duarte (2018).

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

As companies increasingly face the challenge of aligning their real estate and facility assets with their business goals, strategic facilities planning (SFP) has grown as an area of expertise and discipline which provides increasingly sophisticated tools for supporting complex decisions. This paper provides an insight into SFP: what is it, what is the process, what are the major tools, and what can it deliver? It provides a template for facility managers and real estate consultants to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for strategic real estate initiatives. In addition, it explains how SFP helps facility managers leverage their knowledge and increase their visibility within their organisation.