循证对话:商学院领导力发展案例

IF 5 3区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies Pub Date : 2022-01-13 DOI:10.1177/15480518211062563
Hannes Luc Leroy, Moran Anisman-Razin, B. Avolio, Henrik Bresman, J. Stuart Bunderson, Ethan R. Burris, Johannes Claeys, J. Detert, Lisa Dragoni, S. Giessner, K. Kniffin, Thomas A. Kolditz, Gianpiero Petriglieri, Nathan C. Pettit, S. Sitkin, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Pisitta Vongswasdi
{"title":"循证对话:商学院领导力发展案例","authors":"Hannes Luc Leroy, Moran Anisman-Razin, B. Avolio, Henrik Bresman, J. Stuart Bunderson, Ethan R. Burris, Johannes Claeys, J. Detert, Lisa Dragoni, S. Giessner, K. Kniffin, Thomas A. Kolditz, Gianpiero Petriglieri, Nathan C. Pettit, S. Sitkin, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Pisitta Vongswasdi","doi":"10.1177/15480518211062563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academics have lamented that practitioners do not always adopt scientific evidence in practice, yet while academics preach evidence-based management (EBM), they do not always practice it. This paper extends prior literature on difficulties to engage in EBM with insights from behavioral integrity (i.e., the study of what makes individuals and collectives walk their talk). We focus on leader development, widely used but often critiqued for lacking evidence. Analyzing 60 interviews with academic directors of leadership centers at top business schools, we find that the selection of programs does not always align with scientific recommendations nor do schools always engage in high-quality program evaluation. Respondents further indicated a wide variety of challenges that help explain the disconnect between business schools claiming A but practicing B. Behavioral Integrity theory would argue these difficulties are rooted in the lack of an individually owned and collectively endorsed identity, an identity of an evidence-based leader developer (EBLD). A closer inspection of our data confirmed that the lack of a clear and salient EBLD identity makes it difficult for academics to walk their evidence-based leader development talk. We discuss how these findings can help facilitate more evidence-based leader development in an academic context.","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"5 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Walking Our Evidence-Based Talk: The Case of Leadership Development in Business Schools\",\"authors\":\"Hannes Luc Leroy, Moran Anisman-Razin, B. Avolio, Henrik Bresman, J. Stuart Bunderson, Ethan R. Burris, Johannes Claeys, J. Detert, Lisa Dragoni, S. Giessner, K. Kniffin, Thomas A. Kolditz, Gianpiero Petriglieri, Nathan C. Pettit, S. Sitkin, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Pisitta Vongswasdi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15480518211062563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Academics have lamented that practitioners do not always adopt scientific evidence in practice, yet while academics preach evidence-based management (EBM), they do not always practice it. This paper extends prior literature on difficulties to engage in EBM with insights from behavioral integrity (i.e., the study of what makes individuals and collectives walk their talk). We focus on leader development, widely used but often critiqued for lacking evidence. Analyzing 60 interviews with academic directors of leadership centers at top business schools, we find that the selection of programs does not always align with scientific recommendations nor do schools always engage in high-quality program evaluation. Respondents further indicated a wide variety of challenges that help explain the disconnect between business schools claiming A but practicing B. Behavioral Integrity theory would argue these difficulties are rooted in the lack of an individually owned and collectively endorsed identity, an identity of an evidence-based leader developer (EBLD). A closer inspection of our data confirmed that the lack of a clear and salient EBLD identity makes it difficult for academics to walk their evidence-based leader development talk. We discuss how these findings can help facilitate more evidence-based leader development in an academic context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"5 - 32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211062563\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211062563","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

学者们哀叹,从业者在实践中并不总是采用科学证据,然而,当学者们宣扬循证管理(EBM)时,他们并不总是实践它。本文通过行为完整性的见解(即研究是什么让个人和集体说话)扩展了先前关于参与循证管理困难的文献。我们关注的是领导者的发展,广泛使用,但经常因缺乏证据而受到批评。通过对顶尖商学院领导力中心学术负责人的60次采访分析,我们发现,课程的选择并不总是符合科学建议,学校也不总是进行高质量的课程评估。受访者进一步指出了各种各样的挑战,这些挑战有助于解释商学院声称a但实践B之间的脱节。行为诚信理论认为,这些困难的根源在于缺乏个人拥有和集体认可的身份,即循证领导者发展者(EBLD)的身份。对我们的数据进行更仔细的检查证实,由于缺乏明确而显著的EBLD身份,学者们很难进行基于证据的领导者发展演讲。我们讨论了这些发现如何有助于在学术背景下促进更多基于证据的领导者发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Walking Our Evidence-Based Talk: The Case of Leadership Development in Business Schools
Academics have lamented that practitioners do not always adopt scientific evidence in practice, yet while academics preach evidence-based management (EBM), they do not always practice it. This paper extends prior literature on difficulties to engage in EBM with insights from behavioral integrity (i.e., the study of what makes individuals and collectives walk their talk). We focus on leader development, widely used but often critiqued for lacking evidence. Analyzing 60 interviews with academic directors of leadership centers at top business schools, we find that the selection of programs does not always align with scientific recommendations nor do schools always engage in high-quality program evaluation. Respondents further indicated a wide variety of challenges that help explain the disconnect between business schools claiming A but practicing B. Behavioral Integrity theory would argue these difficulties are rooted in the lack of an individually owned and collectively endorsed identity, an identity of an evidence-based leader developer (EBLD). A closer inspection of our data confirmed that the lack of a clear and salient EBLD identity makes it difficult for academics to walk their evidence-based leader development talk. We discuss how these findings can help facilitate more evidence-based leader development in an academic context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
2.10%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Hierarchical Leader-Leader Fit: Examining Authentic Leader Dyads and Implications for Junior Leader Outcomes Does Leaders’ Impression Management Help or Hurt? It Depends on the Perspective of the Follower Wo∼Men and Leadership: Re-Thinking the State of Research on Gender and Leadership Through Waves of Feminist Thinking The Corporate Chief of Staff: Strategic Leadership Influence From Outside the Spotlight Impact of Leadership on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1