Showing papers by "David V. Day published in 2013"
TL;DR: There has been extensive interest in and research activity on the general topic of goals and self-regulation in the 20 years since the publication of the breakthrough theory of goal-setting and task performance.
Abstract: There has been extensive interest in and research activity on the general topic of goals and self-regulation in the 20 years since the publication of the breakthrough theory of goal-setting and task performance (Locke & Latham, 1990). The purpose of this chapter is to provide a focused update on advancement in the topics of self-regulation /self-management as they pertain to goal-setting since 1990. It is an interesting historical note that the topics of self-regulation and self-management covered only three pages in the Locke and Latham book; however, the amount of research that has been published on these topics directly and indirectly in the intervening time is impressive. Given the sheer volume of available research it is not possible to review every published study. Instead, we will focus on research that we consider to be noteworthy, especially as they forge new areas of understanding. In addition, we broaden the focus from the effects of goals and self-regulation on task (or job) performance to also address areas associated with long-term development, learning, and individual change.
15 citations
18 Feb 2013
TL;DR: A recent review of the state of the art in the field of leadership can be found in this article, where the authors provide a brief overview of the current state-of-the-art.
Abstract: The good news with regard to this (or any) chapter on the future of leadership is that there is one. There was a time when researchers called for a moratorium on new leadership theory and research (e.g., Miner, 1975) citing the uncertain future of the field. Then for a time there was a popular academic perspective that leadership did not really matter when it came to shaping organizational outcomes (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer, 1977). That perspective was laid to rest by "realists" in the field (Day & Antonakis, 2012a) by means of empirical re-interpretation of the results used to support the position that leadership does not matter (Lieberson & O'Connor, 1972; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). Specifically, Day and Lord (1988) showed that when proper methodological concerns were addressed (e.g., controlling for industry and company size effects; incorporating appropriate time lags) that the impact of top-level leadership was considerable - explaining as much as 45% of the variance in measures of organizational performance. Despite some recent pessimistic sentiments about the "curiously unformed" state of leadership research and theory (Hackman & Wageman, 2007), others have argued that the field has continued to evolve and is potentially on the threshold of some significant breakthroughs (Day & Antonakis, 2012a).
Leadership scholars have been re-energized by new directions in the field and research efforts have revitalized areas previously abandoned for apparent lack of consistency in findings (e.g., leadership trait theory). Our accumulated knowledge now allows us to explain the nature of leadership including its biological bases and other antecedents, and consequences with some degree of confidence. There are other comprehensive sources that review the extensive theoretical and empirical foundation of leadership (Bass, 2008; Day & Antonakis, 2012b) so that will not be the focus of the present chapter. Instead, we will take a future-oriented perspective in identifying particular areas within the leadership field that we believe offer promising perspectives on the future of leadership.
Nonetheless, it is worthwhile as background to first provide an overview of how we see the leadership field changing over the past decade or so. This short chronicle will set the stage for a keener understanding of where the future contributions are likely to emerge. Overall, across nine major schools of leadership - trait, behavioural, contingency, contextual, relational, sceptics, information processing, New Leadership, biological and evolutionary - researchers have seen a resurgence in interest in one area, a high level of activity in at least four other areas, inactivity in three areas, and one that was modestly active in the previous decade but we think holds strong promise for the future (Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010). We will next provide brief overviews of these nine schools and their respective levels of research activity (see Figure 1).
12 citations