فایل ورد کامل چگونگی شناسایی گسترش پتانسیل رهبری و آزمون مدل توافق عمومی

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل چگونگی شناسایی گسترش پتانسیل رهبری و آزمون مدل توافق عمومی،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۲۷ صفحه

با وجود تمام مسائلی که محققان در شناسایی پتانسیل رهبری با ان مواجه بوده اند، مطالعات اخیر نیز به شناسایی برخی از روند های مثبت پرداخته است. اول از همه به نظر میرسد که اگاهی به ویژه در میان مدیران منابع انسانی وجود دارد که منجر به شناسایی رهبری بالقوه به عنوان یک ضرورت استراتژیک میباشد. دومین مساله افزایش تعامل مشاهده شده در میان تصمیم گیریهای سازمانی در سرمایه گذاری برنامه های رسمی رهبری میباشد. و سوم اینکه یک روند به سمت هدف وجود دارد و ابزار کمیت در ارزیابی رهبری بالقوه است. در نتیجه ما با خیال راحت میتوانیم بگوییم که هیچ فقدان اراده ای در مورد شناسایی رهبری بالقوه وجود ندارد با این حال، به منظور انجام تحقیقات کامل تر باید در اینده به طور سیستماتیک برای مسیرهای مختلف در تحقیقات اینده که در این مقاله و مقالات اینده اشاره شده است پرداخته شود.

عنوان انگلیسی:How to identify leadership potential: Development and testing of a consensus model~~en~~

human resource practitioners around the world are struggling with the identification of leadership potential, declaring it a top priority but at the same time acknowledging the immaturity of their assessment procedures and the need for more objective and generalizable guidelines (Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001; Fulmer & Bleak, 2008). Recent studies (e.g., Silzer, Slider, & Knight, 1994; Slan & Hausdorf, 2004; Wells, 2003) estimate that only between 31 and 55 percent of large US corporations have a specific framework in place for the systematic identification of leadership potential. Both leadership scholars and practitioners indicate that there is a pressing need for more research into the criteria organizations are, or should be, using to assess leadership potential in (junior) staff (Silzer, 2010; Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997). Specific issues that have been identified in relation to the identification of leadership potential in organizations include: adequately separating performance from potential ratings (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992); moving away from “gut feelings” and informal or subjective assessments carried out by untrained management staff and toward the deliberate development of valid frameworks of leadership potential (Silzer & Church, 2010); embedding procedures relating to the identification of leadership potential in organizational strategy, as opposed to assuming a short-term, ad-hoc approach (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007); and getting line management fully engaged in the process, taking into account that they often feel burdened by tasks they are obliged to fulfill on top of their regular managerial responsibilities (Dries & Pepermans, 2008). Survey studies have uncovered that, in practice, organizations rely mostly on performance reviews and specific competency models (often based on analyses of critical incidents reported by successful executives) in their assessments of leadership potential (e.g., Briscoe & Hall, 1999; Pepermans, Vloeberghs, & Perkisas, 2003). Although both approaches intuitively make sense, there are also some issues with each of them. Using past performance as an indicator of potential increases the risk of halo bias creeping into the assessment process, in that highperformance scores tend to be generalized to other characteristics (such as leadership potential), often incorrectly so (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992; Konczak & Foster, 2009). Interrater disagreement caused by the opposing viewpoints and interests of the different parties involved in assessments of leadership potential (i.e., top management, line management, the HR department) may introduce additional bias (Remdisch & Dionisius, 1998). The problem with using competency frameworks based on successful leadership profiles is that they are grounded in the assumption that leadership potential and mature, successful leadership are quasiidentical constructs (McCall, 1998). However, it is not at all clear to which extent organizations can expect junior employees to exhibit the same competencies as senior managers, even in a seminal form—or whether the leadership competencies leading to success today will do so in the unpredictable future (Briscoe & Hall, 1999). In the current article, we will develop and test a model of leadership potential aiming to steer clear of each of the issues raised here. Aims of the Current Study Although the topic of leadership potential has been tackled by several authors in recent years (e.g., Baruch & Peiperl, 1997; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007; Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001), only a few studies have built on empirical data (e.g., Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000; Remdisch & Dionisius, 1998; Spreitzer et al., 1997). The current article draws on data obtained from both qualitative and quantitative techniques, thus responding to calls for more empirical research on the identification of leadership potential (Silzer, 2010). The study intends to contribute to the literature in a fourfold manner (1) by presenting the results of an extensive literature review focused specifically on leadership potential as opposed to successful, mature leadership; (2) by integrating all criteria for the identification of leadership potential found in the literature into one comprehensive model of leadership potential using qualitative techniques especially developed for data reduction and theory building; (3) by spelling out implications for measurement of the different criteria in the model, and providing a discussion of how each of these measures relates to leadership effectiveness over time; and (4) by testing the model in a sample of the different parties involved in assessments of leadership potential (i.e., top managers, line managers, and HR managers) so as to assess the degree of consensus that can be expected in a real-life organizational context.

$$en!!