ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND EXECUTIVE TEAM STRUCTURE.

1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1314-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. L. KECK ◽  
M. L. TUSHMAN
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Context ◽  
Team Structure ◽  
Executive Team

Environmental and Organizational Context and Executive Team Structure

1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1314-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara L. Keck ◽  
Michael L. Tushman
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Context ◽  
Team Structure ◽  
Executive Team

Development and Construct Validation of the German Workplace Trust Survey (G-WTS)

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock ◽  
Simone Kauffeld
Keyword(s):  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Affective Commitment ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Organizational Context ◽  
Organizational Trust ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Reliable Assessment ◽  
Workplace Trust

In research on trust in the organizational context, there is some agreement evolving that trust should be measured with respect to various foci. The Workplace Trust Survey (WTS) by Ferres (2002) provides reliable assessment of coworker, supervisor, and organizational trust. By means of a functionally equivalent translation, we developed a German version of the questionnaire (G-WTS) comprising 21 items. A total of 427 employees were surveyed with the G-WTS and questionnaires concerning several work-related attitudes and behaviors and 92 of these completed the survey twice. The hypothesized three-dimensional conceptualization of organizational trust was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. The G-WTS showed good internal consistency and retest reliability values. Concerning convergent validity, all of the three G-WTS dimensions positively predicted job satisfaction. In terms of discriminant validity, Coworker Trust enhanced group cohesion; Supervisor Trust fostered innovative behavior, while Organizational Trust was associated with affective commitment. Theoretical and practical contributions as well as opportunities for future research with the G-WTS are discussed.

PERSONALITY TRAITS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT: OCCUPATIONAL PERSONALITY PROFILE OF THE GAME- TESTER

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
TRANDAFIRESCU ANA-MARIA ◽  
◽  
TUDOSE CORNELIA ELENA ◽  
MIHĂILĂ TEODORA
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Organizational Context ◽  
Personality Profile

Authentic leadership development: scrutiny of an apparent paradox

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
António Calheiros
Keyword(s):  
Leadership Development ◽  
Authentic Leadership ◽  
Organizational Context ◽  
Social Identification ◽  
Self Awareness ◽  
True Self ◽  
Apparent Paradox ◽  
Positive Behaviors ◽  
Individual Self ◽  
Authentic Leadership Development

Leadership has long been a topic of interest for both academics (Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011; Sanders & Davey, 2011) and practitioners (Bennis, 2007; George, 2003). Academics have tried to understand the concept and identify its consequences and determinants. Practitioners have focused their efforts in its training and development hoping to reap its promised benefits. Over the last decade, authentic leadership has emerged as the fashionable leadership theory. More than just promising impacts on performance and subordinates’ work satisfaction, authentic leadership addresses management’s long term demand for and ethic and moral commitment (Ghoshal, 2005; Rosenthal et al., 2007). Authentic leadership is “a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development” (Luthans and Avolio, 2003). The components of authentic leadership’s self-regulated authentic positive behaviours are balanced (non-prejudice) processing, relational orientation and internalized moral perspetive. One key point of authentic leadership is the authenticity of leaders, which can be defined as “knowing, accepting, and remaining true to one’s self” (Avolio et al., 2004). Recent research (Ford & Harding, 2011) have argued that this demand for one’s true self privileges a collective (organizational) self over an individual self and thereby hampers subjectivity to both leaders and followers, and could lead to destructive dynamics within organizations. This paper discusses the seeming paradox of developing authenticity in leaders, (namely addressing the issues raised by Ford & Harding) and clarifies the aim of authentic leadership development. It also assesses the suitability of traditional leadership development methodologies in meeting the challenges posed by a process-based approach to leadership with a focus on individual and social identification.

How Board Quality Affects CEO and Executive Team Pay

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Woonam Seok ◽  
Changmin Lee ◽  
Hyoung Goo Kang
Keyword(s):  
Executive Team
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document