Mr.James Stilwell helps organizations in their leadership design and helps to implement ways to authentically engage their entire workforce. He has also taught at the University of Michigan’s Executive Education focusing on building collaborative organizational cultures
Mr. Stephen J. Gill– is a guest contributor. An Independent Consultant for Human Performance
Successful companies have high levels of employee engagement. Much has been written about why this is true and the factors that increase employee engagement. The vast majority of these writings and research findings focus on organizational and structural factors or put responsibility for becoming increasingly engaged in the lap of the employee. Some of these often cited factors include training and development, team building, recognition and rewards, information flow and access, performance reviews, and decision-making processes. Absent from this list is the powerful impact that leadership has on employee engagement. We imagine that as you read this you are saying to yourself, “Of course leadership is a key factor.” But we aren’t talking about giving lip-service to engagement, nor are we talking about having an engagement program, a director of engagement, or doing an annual engagement survey. We are talking about something much deeper that goes to the heart of leadership. This is self-awareness of ones values, beliefs, and attitudes regarding engagement and how the leader’s self is manifested in subtle but powerful behaviors that communicate volumes to an organization about the extent to which a leader truly supports increased engagement. Make no mistake about it, genuine employee engagement shifts power away from leaders and many leaders find this shift unsettling. Here are two examples.
Continue reading Leadership and Employee Engagement
This article ir republished from and in accordance with the policy of “VoxEU.org”
Dr. David Hummels
Professor of Economics at Purdue University
Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Yale University’s Department of Economics
Dr.Jakob R. Munch
Asian Dynamics Initiative Professor of International Economics in the Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen
Associate Professor of Economics, and Director of Graduate Studies, at Economics Department, Purdue University
With stagnating wages and lingering unemployment, income inequality is back in the headlines. Is globalisation to blame for this inequality? Is more education a solution? This column argues that focusing on university education misses important effects. It presents evidence that wage effects vary markedly among those with degrees depending on their specific skill sets, and that globalisation can often benefit workers
Fuelled by concerns over rising income inequality, Occupy Wall Street has grown into a global movement in slightly over 2 months, with protests i over 900 cities worldwide. Protestors have been criticised for lacking a specific set of policy demands, but in this the protestors are hardly alone.
Continue reading Globalisation and higher education: Different degrees of success. (Offshoring, inequality, and the value of college degrees)
Mr. Richard Rush is a Vice President at PNC. He has over 24 years of financial services experience including serving as managing director at Wi Trust; divisional director at Alliance Bernstein; portfolio manager and director of research at Fox Asset Management; and national director of institutional consulting at Prudential Securities. Richard currently serves a Investment Advisor at PNC Wealth Management. He is an invited contributor at The Business Thinker, llc.
Leadership does change. Whether it’s in a car race, in a classroom or even in a country — whoever or whatever leads — eventually changes. That’s history.
In this context, it is easy to understand then, that changes or shifts occur in all things. By virtue of this certainty, and the ability to exploit that change, does it not warrant some important considerations in investing behaviors as well? For example, the premise that there aresignificant and sustained leadership changes in the stock market’s three primary equity capitalization groups called: Large, Medium and Small Capitalization stocks, is a given. That’s also history. Each capitalization group has led the market, and each has trailed the market, in sustained fashion but always in random rotation. Clearly, fertile territory exists within which to exploit this certain but random change. Continue reading Signaling Equity Performance Shifts by Size and Style