scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Courtney E. Williams

Bio: Courtney E. Williams is an academic researcher from University of Toledo. The author has contributed to research in topics: Dispute resolution & Context (language use). The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 2 publications receiving 4 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorhip policies, and any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity.
Abstract: Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.

16 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the effects of charismatic leadership tactics (CLTs) have been examined in a virtual context and the meta-analytic effect of CLTs on performance was found to be large to moderate.
Abstract: Drawing upon signaling theory, charismatic leadership tactics (CLTs) have been identified as a trainable set of skills. Although organizations rely on technology-mediated communication, the effects of CLTs have not been examined in a virtual context. Preregistered experiments were conducted in face-to-face (Study 1; n = 121) and virtual settings (Study 2; n = 128) in the United States. In Study 3, we conducted virtual replications in Austria (n = 134), France (n = 137), India (n = 128), and Mexico (n = 124). Combined with past experiments, the meta-analytic effect of CLTs on performance (Cohen’s d = 0.52 in-person, k = 4; Cohen’s d = 0.21 overall, k = 10) and engagement in an extra-role task (Cohen’s d = 0.19 overall; k = 6) indicate large to moderate effects. Yet, for performance in a virtual context Cohen’s d ranged from −0.25 to 0.17 (Cohen’s d = 0.01 overall; k = 6). Study 4 (n = 129) provided mixed support for signaling theory in a virtual context, linking CLTs to some positive evaluations. We conclude with guidance for future research on charismatic leadership and signaling theory.

14 citations


Cited by
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present methods that allow researchers to test causal claims in situations where randomization is not possible or when causal interpretation could be confounded; these methods include fixed-effects panel, sample selection, instrumental variable, regression discontinuity, and difference-in-differences models.
Abstract: Social scientists often estimate models from correlational data, where the independent variable has not been exogenously manipulated; they also make implicit or explicit causal claims based on these models. When can these claims be made? We answer this question by first discussing design and estimation conditions under which model estimates can be interpreted, using the randomized experiment as the gold standard. We show how endogeneity – which includes omitted variables, omitted selection, simultaneity, common-method variance, and measurement error – renders estimates causally uninterpretable. Second, we present methods that allow researchers to test causal claims in situations where randomization is not possible or when causal interpretation could be confounded; these methods include fixed-effects panel, sample selection, instrumental variable, regression discontinuity, and difference-in-differences models. Third, we take stock of the methodological rigor with which causal claims are being made in a social sciences discipline by reviewing a representative sample of 110 articles on leadership published in the previous 10 years in top-tier journals. Our key finding is that researchers fail to address at least 66% and up to 90% of design and estimation conditions that make causal claims invalid. We conclude by offering 10 suggestions on how to improve non-experimental research.

1,537 citations

01 Jan 1999
TL;DR: This paper examined the effects of vision content, delivery and organizational performance on perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness on 304 undergraduates who were presented videotaped speeches by a bogus CEO of a software company.
Abstract: This study examined the effects of vision content, delivery and organizational performance on perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness. Subjects included 304 undergraduates who were presented videotaped speeches by a bogus CEO of a software company. A 2 × 2 × 2 design was employed in which message content (visionary/non-visionary), delivery (strong/weak), and organizational performance (high/low) were manipulated. A modified, 7-item version of Meindl and Ehrlich's (1988) Romance of Leadership Scale (RLS-D) served as a covariate. A MANCOVA analysis indicated significant effects of delivery, content, and organizational performance on both perceived leader charisma and effectiveness. The RLS-D was unrelated to either dependent variable as a covariate. The results suggest that strength of delivery is an especially important determinant of perceptions' of leader charisma and effectiveness. Although speech content and organizational performance cues likewise accounted for variance in these perceptions, their effects were at times offset by those of delivery.

541 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Chen et al. as discussed by the authors investigated the effect of charisma in a series of laboratory experiments in which subjects were exposed to motivational speeches before playing a repeated public goods game and found that a higher number of charismatic elements in the speech can increase public good contributions by up to 19%.
Abstract: Leadership theories in sociology and psychology argue that effective leaders influence follower behavior not only through the design of incentives and institutions, but also through personal abilities to persuade and motivate. Although charismatic leadership has received considerable attention in the management literature, existing research has not yet established causal evidence for an effect of leader charisma on follower performance in incentivized and economically relevant situations. We report evidence from field and laboratory experiments that investigate whether a leader’s charisma—in the form of a stylistically different motivational speech—can induce individuals to undertake personally costly but socially beneficial actions. In the field experiment, we find that workers who are given a charismatic speech increase their output by about 17% relative to workers who listen to a standard speech. This effect is statistically significant and comparable in size to the positive effect of high-powered financial incentives. We then investigate the effect of charisma in a series of laboratory experiments in which subjects are exposed to motivational speeches before playing a repeated public goods game. Our results reveal that a higher number of charismatic elements in the speech can increase public good contributions by up to 19%. However, we also find that the effectiveness of charisma varies and appears to depend on the social context in which the speech is delivered. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics and decision analysis.

17 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article , the authors reframe the transformational leadership literature from a signaling theory perspective, and introduce a new definition of transformational leader behaviors (TLBs) which are defined as leader signaling through developmental and prosocial behaviors tailored for each unique stakeholder.
Abstract: Despite a tremendous amount of research on the topic, we still have little evidence regarding the extent to which transformational leader behaviors (TLBs) cause a number of outcomes. The primary inhibitors include a lack of theoretical precision, the conflation of leader (follower) behaviors with evaluations, as well as measurement and design issues which prevent causal inferences. To address such concerns, we reframe the transformational leadership literature from a signaling theory perspective. Study 1 reviewed existing definitions of transformational leadership. Building on this, we introduce a new definition of TLB: Leader signaling through developmental and prosocial behaviors tailored for each unique stakeholder (e.g., person, dyad, group, organization). Leveraging topic modeling, Study 2 involved the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Using a constant comparative approach, six TLBs were identified: 1. teaching life lessons, 2. introduction to developmental opportunities, 3. providing different perspectives, 4. seeking different perspectives, 5. questioning critical assumptions, and 6. speaking words of affirmation. Studies 3 and 4 were preregistered experiments that showed TLBs cause variation in follower evaluations of the leader as transformational ( n = 416; Cohen’s d = .50) and contributions to a public good ( n = 320; Cohen’s d = .36), respectively. We conclude with recommendations for theory and practice.

5 citations