Mentoring influence on socially responsible leadership capacity based on institutional Carnegie Classification

Gleason, Michael C.

doi:10.31274/etd-180810-793

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 87 publications

(192 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…South African research on leadership refers to 'responsible leadership' that should, in taking organisational decisions, be aware of the different demographical information of the people they lead and rally their vision around these, especially in the context of the country's history of racialised public governance. Other studies concluded that responsible leadership broadens the view that leaders take, from economic responsibilities to embracing environmental and social responsibilities, and emphasises the significance of balanced morality that ensures sustainable business without compromising the natural environment and the livelihood of future generations (Gleason 2012).…”

Section: Literature Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the sustained poor audit outcomes in Mopani District Municipality

Rangwato,

Shopola,

Molepo

2024

Journal of Local Government Research and Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Financial management and accuracy and consistency in reporting remain critical cogs of good governance in South Africa and beyond. The Auditor-General (AG) South Africa, being one of the constitutional instruments responsible for monitoring the consistent application of municipal finance frameworks, has revealed that despite sustained poor audit outcomes in municipal governments, there has been constant disregard for its positive proposals and recommendations for improvement.Aim: This study aimed to analyse factors contributing to sustained poor audit outcomes in Mopani District Municipality (MDM) based in Limpopo province.Methods: This study conducted a qualitative inquiry whereby data were collected from senior officials and documentary analysis of the Auditor-General’s statements was conducted to establish contributing factors to sustained poor audits in MDM.Results: The results revealed numerous factors, chief of which are ineffective political leadership, weak internal audit systems and silo mentalities in municipalities in the district, which affect the financial performance of the district municipality.Conclusion: Mopani District Municipality has not received a clean or improved audit opinion since 2016, and this has led to less commitment in taking collective action to address the Auditor-General’s concerns.Contribution: The study ends by recommending practical steps to improve audit outcomes and financial governance, which are to build a strong internal audit system and design a district calendar for financial reporting to help the district municipality make timeous submissions of credible financial information during an audit.

show abstract

Section: Literature Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the sustained poor audit outcomes in Mopani District Municipality

Rangwato,

Shopola,

Molepo

2024

Journal of Local Government Research and Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The PRME, broadening the business program mandate to include research, suggests adding one more structural variable to the mix: designation as a Carnegie Classified Research (Research 1 [R1] or Research 2 [R2]) institution. Indeed, Gleason's (2012) dissertation on socially responsible leadership capacity notes that Carnegie Classification is the most frequently cited method to distinguish amongst Higher Education Institutions. Because PRME signatories are expected to conduct responsible management research, we might expect strategic decisions to implement PRME to co-vary with Carnegie research institution designations.…”

Section: Structural Factors Aligned With Prme Membership In Us B-schoolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural drivers and barriers to the strategic integration of sustainability in US B-schools

Abzug

2022

IJSHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore structural drivers and barriers that distinguish US business school Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME) signatories from nonsignatory peer institutions, and identify structural drivers of PRME institution strategic integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into their ongoing responsible management education reports. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a case–control method to compare the US PRME signatory sample to a size-matched random sample of US business management programs/schools. This study uses conditional inference tree and correlation analyses to highlight distinctive structural characteristics associated with US PRME signatories and with their strategies to highlight sustainability through the SDGs. Findings There are significant and practically meaningful structural differences between US-based PRME signatories and US programs/schools that have not adopted the PRME principles. Further, PRME schools differentially integrate SDGs in their information sharing based on structural characteristics. Practical implications Understanding school/program characteristics that align with PRME and different sustainability strategies affords a better comprehension of where targeted resources might be most effective in broadening the appeal and adoption of PRME and subsequent sustainability strategy integration. Originality/value While previous work on PRME signatories has depended heavily on case studies of successful implementation and has examined the content of PRME activity by school, the present work compares the population of actual US signatories with a random sample of nonsignatories to determine leverage points for enacting broader PRME adoption. The study also examines the strategies that PRME schools use to integrate the UN SDGs and the structures that support such.

show abstract

“…Over the past 40 years, leadership education advanced from disparate theoretical viewpoints to an established discipline grounded in theory, practice, and scholarship (Komives, 2011). However, few studies have directly examined connections between institutional type and leadership education, often focusing on particular aspects of the institution such as Carnegie Classification or institutional control (Astin, 1993; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Gleason, 2012; Mayhew et al., 2016). For example, institution type and control were not associated with significant differences in socially responsible leadership (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Gleason, 2012).…”

Section: Racially Equitable Leadership Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, few studies have directly examined connections between institutional type and leadership education, often focusing on particular aspects of the institution such as Carnegie Classification or institutional control (Astin, 1993;Dugan & Komives, 2010;Gleason, 2012;Mayhew et al, 2016). For example, institution type and control were not associated with significant differences in socially responsible leadership (Dugan & Komives, 2010;Gleason, 2012). Private colleges and universities had a weak negative effect on leadership skills and diversity F I G U R E 1 Evolution of institutional types emphasis, while public university attendance negatively affected leadership and other academic outcomes (Astin, 1993).…”

Section: Racially Equitable Leadership Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%