REAL Leadership in Turbulent Times - research.phoenix.edu Leadership... · Leadership as Practice (Detaching leadership from personality (Raelin, 2011). ... for communications technologies,
Post on 20-Mar-2018
216 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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
Herman.vanniekerk@phoenix.edu
Dr Kelley Conrad
Faculty: I-O Psych Programs
Kelley.conrad@phoenix.edu
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
School of Advanced Studies
• 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• Leadership models are outdated and not well-suited for the information society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/
School of Advanced Studies
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
School of Advanced Studies
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.
Dr Herman J. van Niekerk
Associate Dean: Instruction:
Doctoral Business and I-O Psych
Mobile: 480-280-0776
Direct: 606-387-2764
Herman.vanniekerk@phoenix.edu
Dr Kelley Conrad
Faculty: I-O Psych
Mobile: 262-443-3662
Kelley.conrad@phoenix.edu
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.
School of Advanced Studies
REAL Model Supporting References
School of Advanced Studies
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.
School of Advanced Studies
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
School of Advanced Studies
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
School of Advanced Studies
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
School of Advanced Studies
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.
School of Advanced Studies
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
School of Advanced Studies
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
top related