PETERJENNINGS, NOW WITH SOUTHAMPTON Institute, England, was at the time of writing with Sheffield Hallam University, England, and Graham Beaver is with Nottingham Trent University, England. Successful small firms practice strategic management either consciously and visibly or unconsciously and invisibly. Failure and success are interpreted as measures of good or indifferent management and are usually defined rational criteria which ignore stakeholder aspirations. Many owner managers pursue personal objectives which inhibit the probability of success if measured using these rational criteria. The majority of existing studies of small business performance tend to focus on either the symptoms arising from problems within the firm or upon the reason cited for failure. Comparatively little analysis of the ingredients that promote and sustain competitive advantage has been undertaken. Notwithstanding the fact that generic skills and abilities are required, the management process in small firms is unique and cannot be considered to be the same as professional management in larger organisations practised on a reduced scale. The multiplicity of roles expected of the owner-manager as the principal stakeholder often causes dissonance which enhances the probability of poor decision-making and inappropriate action. The authors consider that the root cause of either small business failure of poor performance is almost invariably a lack of management attention to strategic issues.

Summary The role of the self in moral functioning has gained considerable theoretical and empirical attention over the last 25 years. A general consensus has emerged that the self plays a vital role in individuals' moral agency. This surge of research produced a proliferation of constructs related to the moral self, each grounded in diverse theoretical perspectives. Although this work has advanced our understanding of moral thought and behavior, there has also been a lack of clarity as to the nature and functioning of the moral self. We review and synthesize empirical research related to the moral self and provide an integrative framework to increase conceptual coherence among the various relevant constructs. We then discuss emerging opportunities and future directions for research on the moral self as well as implications for behavioral ethics in organizational contexts. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Complex contexts and environments require leaders to be highly adaptive and to adjust their behavioral responses to meet diverse role demands. Such adaptability may be contingent upon leaders having requisite complexity to facilitate effectiveness across a range of roles. However, there exists little empirical understanding of the etiology or basis of leader complexity. To this end, we conceptualized a model of leader self-complexity that is inclusive of both the mind (the complexity of leaders' self-concepts) and the brain (the neuroscientific basis for complex leadership). We derived psychometric and neurologically based measures, the latter based on quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) profiles of leader self-complexity, and tested their separate effects on the adaptive decision-making of 103 military leaders. Results demonstrated that both measures accounted for unique variance in external ratings of adaptive decision-making. We discuss how these findings provide a deeper understanding of the latent and dynamic mechanisms that underpin leaders' self-complexity and their adaptability.

No abstract

Bradford Scholars -how to deposit your paper Overview Copyright check• Check if your publisher allows submission to a repository.• Use the Sherpa RoMEO database if you are not sure about your publisher's position or email openaccess@bradford.ac.uk.