REAL Leadership in Turbulent Times - research.phoenix.edu Leadership... · Leadership as Practice...

REAL Leadership in Turbulent Times

Tobias Leadership LEAD Conference

Indianapolis

April 20-21, 2017

Dr Herman J. van Niekerk

Associate Dean: Instruction: Doctoral Business

and I-O Psych Programs

[email protected]

Dr Kelley Conrad

Faculty: I-O Psych Programs

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Structure of Presentation

School of Advanced Studies

• Introduction

o The Leadership Studies landscape and Emerging Alternatives

• A Changing World requires skilled Leadership

o Technological Dominance

o Globalization / unstable geo-political landscape.

o Knowledge Society

o Agile Organizations

• REAL Leadership

o Relationships and building your network

o Environmental situational awareness

o Action-bias

o Lifelong learning

• Areas for Future Researcho Discussion and Questions

o Real-time Survey

The Leadership Landscape and Emerging

Approaches


• Leadership – many theories but what advice is reliable? (Allio, 2013).

• Leadership is a complex process and construct (Northouse, 2010).

o Trait vs. Process Leadership

o Assigned vs. Emergent Leadership

o Leadership and Power

o Leadership and Coercion

o Leadership and Management

• Leadership studies rely in most cases on a multidisciplinary perspective

(Avolio 2014).

Alternative Framework to study Leadership:

Leadership as Practice (Detaching leadership from

personality (Raelin, 2011).

Leadership Models are OutdatedLeading in Turbulent Times

• Leadership models are outdated and not well-suited for the information society

and knowledge-orientated economy.

• The new leadership paradigm should frame “leadership as a complex

interactive dynamic with adaptive outcomes such as learning, innovation and

adaptability.” Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007: 298).

• Successful leaders see themselves as facilitators. These leaders saw their

primary responsibility as unleashing the talent of others so the collective vision

could be realized. Bennis (2012).

• How should Leadership models look like to address the current and future

challenges?

• Contingency / Servant / Authentic Leadership? / Scholar-Leader-Practitioner

(SLP)?

Four Key Imperatives Reshaping Leadership

Technology Adoption

Globalization

Value of Knowledge

Agile and Connected

Organizations

• Rapid and far reaching technological

changes, especially the digitalization of

information and communications

technology. (ICTs);

• Complex flow of information;

• Competitive Landscape

• Financial pressures

• Accelerated globalization

• Ease of creating networks and

build relationships.

• Geo-politics. Ukraine / ISIL

• Manage ambiguity.

• Shift toward knowledge as the

central factor of production.

• Emphasis on intangible assets.

• Information glut.• Distributed, less hierarchical

organizational forms with greatly

accelerated movement within and

across organizations and sectors.

Individual CharacteristicsEnhancing the REAL leadership framework

1. Digital leaders must be flexible and adaptable,and possess wide intellectual curiosity and ahunger for new knowledge.

2. Willing to see value in sharply differentperspectives, and be comfortable withuncertainty, and like all leaders at all time,must possess true passion for what they do.

3. They look globally for solutions and challenges,and also hunger for constant learning andinsist on constant learning from theircollaborators and followers.

Relationships, Networks, Power and

Reputation

• Leadership: A different approach is needed in building Power and Influenceo Power is to have control over resources and access to information.

o Social media and information society are challenging the old leadership paradigm.

o Employees are expecting more clarity, transparency and change.

• Capitalizing on the transformational power of social media while mitigating its

risks calls for a new type of leader ( McKinsey, 2013):

• Developing a Digital Identity.o Social Media has shifted the power to the individual

o Leaders who can master social media will be able to significantly increase their

influence, establish authenticity and influencing a new generation. (Tredgold, 2014).

• A diverse Twitter network — one that exposes them to people and ideas they

don’t already know — tend to generate better ideas (Parise, Whelan, Todd,

2015).

R

How to establish a Digital Identity and to

increase influence

• Create an Online profile (Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram or Facebook Page).

• Ensure a professional look and feel to your profile – photo and description. Ensure

your profile is up-to-date and promotes your areas of expertise.

• Search for current thought leaders via social media and browse through their

connections or those who they follow; use this to build your own network.

• Following someone on Twitter or inviting someone to connect on LinkedIn will mean

they are likely to read your profile.

• Ensure Tweets include a group with large numbers of followers within your captive

audience, for example @RCGP_InnovAiT in the hope they will Retweet to them.

• Social media allows direct access to professionals who are in a position to influence

change on a larger scale, so your ideas get noticed and work recognized.

• Social media makes keeping up-to-date and staying informed easier.

Personal Example of Building Influence and

Power: Twitter

• Need to Dominate Social Space

• Build reach and influence

• Increase of Social Power (social voltage)

Social Networking, Leadership Power and

Influence Trump vs Clinton on Twitter

Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/hillaryclintonordonaldtrumpwinningontwitter/


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/hillaryclintonordonaldtrumpwinningontwitter/

A Twitter Comparison……

In terms of efficacy, Donald Trump would seem to outperform Hillary Clinton,

since his tweets have been retweeted a total of 12 million times – twice as many

as Clinton’s, which have been retweeted 5.5 million times.

Trump has also received 33 million likes for his tweets, almost three times as

many as Clinton, who has a total of 12 million likes. Trump averages 5,639

retweets per tweet, compared with 2,154 retweets per tweet for Clinton.

Icon Trump Clinton Averages

Followers 24.7 mil 13.2 mil 13 Feb. 2017

Retweets 12mil 5.5mil 5,639

Likes 33mil 12 2,154

Environmental ScanningSense making and Situational Awareness

• World Economic Forum – Davos 2015: Emphasis on Leadership and

intelligence.

• Leader must possess three key attributes: contextual intelligence, emotional

intelligence, and inspired intelligence.

• Contextual intelligence enables leaders to develop a greater awareness and

see through the short term imperatives and make better informed, more

timely decisions on how best to mobilize resources in ways that deliver the

greatest long- term, sustainable value. (Business Foresight – my

interpretation).

• Wave of digitalization is fundamentally altering the way we do business.

Companies fail because their products are out of date, their core

competencies have become obsolete or new technologies have altered

processes.

• Various surveys have identified critical thinking as the number one

requirement for successful leadership in the 21st century.

E

Environmental Scanning

- an age of radical Ignorance

• Importance of keep abreast of emerging trends and innovations—not just

their competitive and marketplace implications, but also what they mean

for communications technologies, which are fundamental for creating an

agile, responsive organization. (McKinsey 2015).

• We live in an age of radical Ignorance – BBC, 2016

• Study of deliberate propagation of ignorance: Agnotology is the study of

willful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win

favor.

• Fake News

• Bounded Rationality and Satisficing – Do not just look for evidence to

support / satisfy your viewpoints / critically evaluating alternatives.

• Sense making – thinking about human perception, cognition and action.

• Weick’s sensemaking theory – understanding our own individual biases.

ActionBias Pro-active change

• Leadership and Agency – interdependent and inseparable.

Leadership is action.

• “A distinctive human characteristic through which personal agency

is exercised is the capacity of forethought.” Bandura (1989, 1179).

• “Leadership-As-Practice is concerned far more about where, how

and why leadership work is being accomplished than about who is

offering visions for others to do the work” (Raelin, 2011, p.3).

• Key principle of a Scholar-Practitioner-Leader (SPL) model

Theory is incorporated with Practice.

• REAL model is firmly embedded within the domain of Leader-as-

Practice movement.

A

Learning in a continuous and agile way

• Have a passion for learning in order to become the best leader you can

be (Kouzas and Posner 2012).

• Open to new experiences and honest examination of how you and other

perform.

• The importance of (self)-reflection in learning and becoming self-aware.

“Grounded in self-knowledge your leadership becomes more authentic.”

• Agile and being responsive to changes.

• Underlying factors (Hojat, et al. 2009):

1. Recognition of own learning needs

2. Participate in research projects

3. Self-directed learning

4. Technical and PC literacy skills

5. Personal motivation

L

Learning

Lifelong learning is the development of human potential in the areas of

knowledge, values and skills, through a continuously supportive process that

is stimulating and empowering and that fosters confidence, creativity and

enjoyment in all roles and circumstances (Hojat, et al. 2003).

Role of Social Media in Lifelong Learning:

• Extend real-life learning and relationships in a shared space to foster

professional growth.

• Allows learners to share ideas, questions and goals.

• Relevant thought leadership developments “pushed” to the leader/learner.

• CAUTION: Content is user generated – unverified by experts and

commented on by peers.

Summary

• REAL leadership framework departs from the premise that Leadership is an

individual characteristic and is rather embedded within practice.

• Leadership can improve with practice – Experience, Introspection, Skills

development contribute in developing an authentic personal identity.

• The four elements of the REAL framework is an attempt to address modern

day leadership development in an integrated and systemic manner.

Leadership is the simple act of you being who you are in the company of others. It is what you have experienced, who you are right now, and who you aim to be. Simply put: Who you are is how you lead.

- Sostrin (2017).

Analysis

• Leaders, including Leadership Education, are faced with challenges.

• Leaders will destroy their own credibility if they fail to make good sense of

their environments and develop an acute sense-making capability which led

them cut through fake news and false narratives.

• The importance of developing Critical Thinking.

• Leadership Studies need to respond to changing times.

• Could Leadership-as-Practice present an alternative to more accepted

Leadership Studies?

• Lifelong

Learning Agility• Action-orientated

• Environmental

scanning and awareness

• Relations and

networks

Social Networks

Power and Influence

Followers

Strength of network

Collaboration

Ecosystems

Complexity, Ambiguity and Uncertainty

Sense making

Business Foresight

Critical thinking and Questioning skills

Asking “Why?” “How?” and “Why not?”

Curiosity

Seeking intentional learning opportunities

Leading others to learn

Reflection and Self-Awareness

Learn from mistakes

Ability to ask great questions

Leadership-As-Practice (L-A-P)

Change Management

Apply what you learn

Calculated Risk taking

REAL Leadership FrameworkA multi-disciplinary and integrated framework

Literature Research and Review –

Methodology – part 1


Focus Area Number of Articles

Action Research 20

Leadership 27

Micro Learning 20

Practice 23

Scholarship 8

SPL 8

Assessment 34

Miscellaneous 26

TOTAL 166

1. Literature / Source Database

created using Mendeley with the

following articles imported.

2. Exported to NVIVO for Content

Analysis and documents examined

related by content mapped to

themes in the literature.

3. Used Tree Mapping Cluster

Analysis, Word Clouds and

Frequency Analysis to identify

relations to the four elements of

the REAL leadership framework.

Literature Research and Review –

Methodology – part 2

REAL Indicators Number of ArticlesAll cited in final slides of presentation

Relations and Networking 17

Environmental Scanning and

Awareness

8

Action Bias 9

Lifelong Learning Agility 23

Total 57 / 166 [34%]

Nvivo was used to conduct

Content Analysis to map

themes in the literature

knowledge base. Used

Tree Mapping, Cluster

Analysis and Word Clouds

of Frequency Analysis to

identify relations to the four

elements of the REAL

Leadership framework.

REAL Leadership

Sources

RRelationships and social networking

• Building reputation (as a thought leader).

• Attract Followers, build a power base and exert influence.

• Consistent worker relations increase productivity.

• Understands and creates alignment with stakeholders.

EEnvironmental and situational awareness

• Using sweeping generalizations.

• Premat.

• Sociotechnical analysis.

• Customers respond to sustainability practices.

• Energy Certificates can offset power use.

• Paperless processes are faster, easier, and cheaper.

ABias for Action

• Speed matters in business.

• Many decisions and actions are reversible.

• Value of calculated decision making.

• Recognize a bias for action can be negative.

• Secret of getting ahead is getting started (M. Twain).

LLife-long and continuous learning

• LA one of top ten 2020 leader competencies.

• Correlates with long-term potential for promotion.

• Difference between successful and non successful.

• Ability to find meaning in negative events and learn from them one

of most reliable indicators of leadership.

Areas for Future ResearchRelevancy of the REAL Leadership Framework.

• Research should focus on the Extent leadership functions are performed,

rather than on Who performs them.

• How to exercise Power and Influence using Social Media.

• Rise and power of Followers in relation to Leadership.

• Leadership and Business Foresight Capabilities to enhance

Environmental sense-making.

• Role of online education in Life-long learning.

• Leadership Frameworks for a Digital Age.

• Educational models to develop leadership.

Real Time Survey

78 08 88

Go to:

www.menti.com

http://www.menti.com/

Dr Herman J. van Niekerk

Associate Dean: Instruction:

Doctoral Business and I-O Psych

Mobile: 480-280-0776

Direct: 606-387-2764

[email protected]

Dr Kelley Conrad

Faculty: I-O Psych

Mobile: 262-443-3662

[email protected]



Sources

Allio, R.J. (2013). Leaders and leadership – many theories, but what advice is reliable? Strategy and

Leadership, 41(1), 4-14.

Avolio, B. J. (2014). Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66(4), 288-292.

Dillon, C. (2016). How social media is changing leadership and innovation. InnovAiT, 9(7), 436 - 439

Hallenbeck, G. (2017). Learning Agility: Unlock the Lessons of Experience – A guidebook. Center for

Creative Leadership, Charlotte, NC.

Kenyon, G. (2016). The man who studies the spread of ignorance. BBC Future. Retrieved from

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance?ocid=twfut on

March 2, 2017.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2012). The Leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen

in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Tredgold, G.P. (2014). Are you connected? Leadership in the era of social media. Development and

Learning iOrganizations: An International Journal, 28(6), 9-11.

Uhl-bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the

industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-318.

McKinsley Quarterly.

Raelin, J.A. (2011). From Leadership-as-Practice to Leaderful Practice. Leadership, 7(2), 1-29.


http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance?ocid=twfut

REAL Model Supporting References


On the slides that follow, we have listed the key sources we found

that supported our LEAD Model.

These are also available in a separate summary which you may

obtain by emailing a request to either of the authors.


Clarke, A. C. (2003). Situational analysis: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 553-576.

Dillon, C. (2016). How social media is changing leadership and innovation. InnovAiT, 9(7), 436 - 439

Duke, J., & Moss, C. (2009). Re-visiting scholarly community engagement in the contemporary research assessment environments of

Australasian universities. Contemporary Nurse, 32(1–2), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.32.1-2.30

Eraut, M. (2004) Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273. doi:10.1080/158037042000225245

Hassebrauck, M., & Aron, A. (2001). Prototype matching in close relationships. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1111-1122.

doi:10.1177/0146167201279004

Hendriksen, B., Weimer, J., & McKenzie, M. (2016). Approaches to quantify value from business to society. Management and Policy

Journal, 7(4), 474-493. doi:http://dx.doi.org/101108/SAMPJ-07-2015-0062

Jacobs, G. (2010). Conflicting demands and the power of defensive routines in participatory action research. Action Research, 8(4), 367–

386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750310366041

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2003). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lindsey, E., Homes, V., & McCall, M. (1987). Key events in executives’ lives. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1988). Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management

positions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2(3), 199–216. doi:10.1007/BF01014038

Niedenthal, P., Cantor, N., Kihlstrom, J. (1985). Prototype matching: A strategy for social decision making. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 48(3), 575-584. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.3.575

Noe, R., Tews, M., & Marand, A. (2013). Individual differences and informal learning in the workplace. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 83(3), 327–335. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.009

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2015). Learning contexts, skills and social progress: A conceptual

framework. In OECD, Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills (pp. 31-44). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-5-en

Tredgold, G.P. (2014). Are you connected? Leadership in the era of social media. Development and Learning in Organizations: An

International Journal, 28(6), 9-11.

Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1991). Participatory action research - Through practice to science in social research.

Participatory Action Research, 19–55.

Relations and Networks


Environmental Scanning

Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & ten Brummelhuis, L. (2012). Work engagement, performance,

and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2),

555–564. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008

Baron, R. A. (1999). Counterfactual thinking and venture formation: The potential effects of

thinking about ‘‘what might have been.” Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 79–91.

doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00024-X

Bray, D., Campbell, R., & Grant, D. (1974). Formative years in business: A long-term AT&T

study of managerial lives. New York, NY: Wiley.

Sanna, L. J. (2000). Mental simulation, affect and personality: A conceptual framework.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 168–173. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00086

Schon, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London,

Avebury: Basic Books.

Uhl-bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting

leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-

318.

Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1992). Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning in

organizations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4), 287–300. doi:

10.1080/0260137920110403


Action Orientated

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1989). Participatory action research and action science compared: A

commentary. The American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 612-624.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764289032005008

Beckett, D. & Hager, P. (2000) Making judgments as the basis for workplace learning: towards an

epistemology of practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(4), 300–311.

doi:10.1080/02601370050110365

Bevan, D., & Kipka, C. (2012). Experiential learning and management education. The Journal of

Management Development, 31(3), 193-197. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711211208943

Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed

experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857-871. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.90.5.857

Ellis, S., Ganzach, Y., Castle, E., & Sekely, G. (2010). The effect of filmed versus personal after-event

reviews on task performance: The mediating and moderating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95(1), 122-131. doi:10.1037/a0017867

Ellstrom, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: problems and prospects. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421-435. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1006

Greenwood, J. (1993). Reflective practice: a critique of the work of Argyris and Schön. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 18(8), 1183–1187. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18081183.x

Knight, P. (2002) A systematic approach to professional development: Learning as practice. Teacher and

Teacher Education, 18(3), 229–241. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00066-X

Major, D., Turner, J., & Fletcher, T. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to

learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927–935. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.91.4.927


Arun, N., Coyle, P. T., & Hauenstein, N. (2012). Learning agility: Still searching for clarity on a confounded

construct. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 5(3), 290-293. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01447.x

Bear, D., Tompson, H., Morrison, C., Paradise, A., Vickers, M., & Czarnowsky, M. (2012). Tapping the

potential of informal learning. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Beck, J. (2012). Does learning agility vary primarily at the between- or within-person level of

analysis? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3), 312-

315. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01453.x

Bedford, C. L. (2011). The role of learning agility in workplace performance and career advancement

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (Order No. 3465093)

Colquitt, J., LePine, J., & Noe, R. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic

path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678–707.

doi:10.1037//0021-9010.85.5.678

Conlon, T., (2004). A review of informal learning literature, theory and implications for practice in developing

global professional competence. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(2/3/4), 283–295.

doi:10.1108/03090590410527663

Connolly, J. J. (2001). Assessing the construct validity of a measure of learning agility (Doctoral dissertation)

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (Order No. 3013189)

De Meuse, K. P., G. Dai, R. W. Eichinger, R. C. Page, L. P. Clark, and S. Zewdie. (2011). The development

and validation of a self-assessment of learning agility [Technical Report]. Minneapolis, MN: Korn/Ferry

International.


De Meuse, K., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G. (2010). Learning agility: A construct whose time has come.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 119–130. doi:10.1037/a0019988

De Meuse, K., Dai, G., Swisher, V., Eichinger, R., & Lombardo, M., (2012). Leadership development:

Exploring, clarifying, and expanding our understanding of learning agility. Industrial and Organizational

Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3), 280-286. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01445.x

DeRue, S. D., Ashford, S. J., & Myers, C. G. (2012). Learning agility: In search of conceptual clarity and

theoretical grounding. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and

Practice, 5(3), 258–279. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01444.x

Dries, N., Vantilborgh, T., & Pepermans, R. (2012). The role of learning agility and career variety in the

identification and development of high potential employees. Personnel Review, 41(3), 340–358.

doi:10.1108/00483481211212977

Eichinger, R. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (2004). Learning agility as a prime indicator of potential. Human

Resource Planning, 27(4), 12–16.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132.

doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90014-3

Hallenbeck, G. (2017). Learning agility: Unlock the lessons of experience – A guidebook. Charlotte, NC:

Center for Creative Leadership.

Hazlett, S., & Kuncel, N. (2012). Prioritizing the learning agility research agenda. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3), 296-301. doi:10.1111/j.1754-

9434.2012.01449.x

Johnson, R., & Scott, B. (2012). Learning agility requires proper action identification. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3), 309-312. doi:10.1111/j.1754-

9434.2012.01452.x


Hallenbeck, G. (2017). Learning agility: Unlock the lessons of experience – A guidebook. Charlotte, NC:

Center for Creative Leadership.

Hazlett, S., & Kuncel, N. (2012). Prioritizing the learning agility research agenda. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3), 296-301.

doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01449.x

Johnson, R., & Scott, B. (2012). Learning agility requires proper action identification. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3), 309-312.

doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01452.x

McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How

successful executives develop on the job. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Michinson, A., Gerard, N., Roloff, K., & Burke, W. (2012). Learning agility: Spanning the rigor-relevance

divide. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(3), 287-

290. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01446.x

Mitchinson, A., & Morris, R. (2012). Learning about learning agility [White Paper]. Retrieved May 20, 2015

from Center for Creative Leadership: http://www.ccl.org/Leadership/pdf/research/LearningAgility.pdf

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., McNall, L. A., & Salas, E. (2010). Informal learning and development in

organizations. In S. W. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in

organizations (pp. 303–331). New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

Wang, S., & Beier, M. E. (2012). Learning agility: Not much is new. Industrial & Organizational

Psychology, 5(3), 293-296. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01448.x

REAL Leadership in Turbulent Times - research.phoenix.edu Leadership... · Leadership as Practice...

Documents

Transcript of REAL Leadership in Turbulent Times - research.phoenix.edu Leadership... · Leadership as Practice...