Connie Deng

There is a dearth of intervention studies carried out in real-world settings that investigate how worker well-being can be improved through work design (Daniels et al., 2017). This is not surprisin...

This mixed-method study examines how human resource management (HRM) practices relate to organizational work injury rates and when their safety benefits are constrained by features of the work system. Using quantitative data from 106 ethnographies spanning 1940–1999 in Hodson’s (2004) Workplace Ethnography Project, we simultaneously modeled five general HRM practices: systematic selection, training, information sharing, compensation, and autonomy-based structural empowerment. Autonomy-based structural empowerment emerged as the only practice associated with lower injury rates when modeled alongside the others. To examine theoretically informative deviations from this dominant pattern, we conducted qualitative re-immersion into four counterfactual cases in which very high empowerment co-occurred with frequent injuries. This analysis suggests four recurring boundary conditions—uncertainty, physical hazard exposure, interpersonal strain, and task complexity—that appear to weaken empowerment’s protective association by likely increasing volatility, cognitive load, and coordination demands. Together, these findings advance a contingency-based account of HRM effectiveness by specifying when empowerment functions as safety-enhancing and when clustered boundary conditions limit its effectiveness.

Educational settings often operate in resource-constrained environments, limiting opportunities for leadership development. Most research focuses on long-term, resource-intensive programs (e.g., mentoring, coaching, leadership development courses), which restrict accessibility and scalability. This study evaluates a short-duration, student-centered leadership development initiative—the “Learning with Leaders” program—that engages higher education students in structured, 1-hr sessions with experienced leaders. Using qualitative data from 72 participant feedback surveys and testimonials, we examined the program’s impact on leadership knowledge, self-efficacy, and identity formation. Findings indicate that these microdose interventions enhance leadership knowledge, strengthen leader self-efficacy, and support identity formation through active social learning and reflective practices. These results suggest that short-term, active learning can complement traditional leadership development approaches by offering a scalable and resource-efficient alternative to long-term programs. This study contributes to leadership development theory by introducing the concept of microdose interventions and demonstrating their effectiveness in fostering leadership identity and self-efficacy.

Purpose: The aims of this critical review are to identify the mentor characteristics that lead to superior mentoring outcomes and to provide human resources development (HRD) professionals with evidence-based suggestions for recruiting, selecting and training mentors to improve mentorship programme effectiveness.Design/methodology/approach: The authors conducted a critical review of existing quantitative research on mentor characteristics that have an impact on effective mentoring.Findings: The authors identified five key categories of mentor characteristics linked to successful mentoring outcomes: competency in context-relevant knowledge, skills and abilities; commitment and initiative; interpersonal skills; pro-social orientation and an orientation toward development, exploration and expansion.Research limitations/implications: There is limited research on the characteristics of ineffective mentor characteristics, exclusion of articles that used qualitative research methods exclusively and how technology-based communication in mentoring may require different characteristics. Most of the included studies collected data in the United States of America, which may exclude other important mentor characteristics from other non-Western perspectives.Practical implications: To ensure that there is both a sufficient pool of qualified mentors and mentors who meet the desired criteria, focus on both recruitment and training mentors is important. Incorporating the desired mentor characteristics into both of these processes, rather than just selection, will help with self-selection and development of these characteristics.Originality/value: Despite the ongoing interest in identifying effective mentor characteristics, the existing literature is fragmented, making this challenging for HRD professionals to determine which characteristics are crucial for mentoring relationships and programme success. Addressing this practical need, this critical review synthesises the research literature and identifies patterns and inconsistencies. Based on the review, the authors provide evidence-based recommendations to enhance the recruitment, selection and training of mentors.

Given the high human and economic costs of workplace safety, researchers and practitioners have paid increasing attention to how leadership behaviors relate to workplace safety. Previous research has demonstrated that leadership behaviors are important for workplace safety. In this meta-analysis, we extend our understanding of the leadership-workplace safety relationship by (a) examining the associations between a broader range of five leadership categories-change-oriented, relational-oriented, task-oriented, passive, and destructive-and seven workplace safety variables; (b) investigating the relative importance of these leadership categories in explaining variance in these workplace safety variables; and (c) testing contextual and methodological contingencies of the leadership-workplace safety relationship. Using effect sizes from 194 samples (N = 104,364), we find that although leadership behaviors are associated with workplace safety, the leadership categories vary considerably in their relative importance. Task-oriented leadership followed by relational-oriented leadership emerge as the most important contributors to workplace safety. Change-oriented leadership (which includes transformational leadership) does not emerge as the largest contributor for any of the seven tested safety variables, despite it being the most frequently examined leadership model in the workplace safety literature. Effectiveness of leadership behaviors in relation to workplace safety varies by national culture power distance, industry risk, workforce age, as well as by contextualized forms of leadership (i.e., safety-specific vs. generalized). Finally, there is meta-analytic evidence for publication bias and common-method variance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The proliferation of leadership models can leave practitioners confused about which model to use in guiding their leadership development initiatives. Although ‘new’ leadership models (e.g. authentic, ethical, and servant leadership) suggest theoretical differences, empirical research has shown considerable overlap among these models and longer standing ones such as transformational leadership. With extant literature questioning the added empirical value of these newer models, this paper aims to distil the best evidence about transformational leadership into a ‘primer’ that can help practitioners use evidence-led practices in their leadership development. To do so, we briefly review major leadership models, highlight evidence for empirical redundancy between new leadership models and transformational leadership, and discuss meta-analytic findings between transformational leadership and outcomes of leadership. Our review suggests that these newer leadership models add little incremental validity beyond transformational leadership in predicting various leadership outcomes. Moreover, transformational leadership demonstrates medium to large effect sizes on a range of individual, team, and organisational outcomes. Taken together, our findings suggest that organisations can benefit by focusing their resources on transformational leadership development, rather than on the latest leadership fad.

Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative review paper is to identify for practitioners ways of matching mentors and protégés to enhance the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs.Design/methodology/approach: The paper qualitatively reviews the best available evidence of ways to match mentors and protégés to maximize mentorship outcomes.Findings: Two factors to consider when making mentor–protégé matches emerged from the research literature (1) the matching process (i.e., how matches are made and facilitated by practitioners such as incorporating participant input on matches): and (2) individual characteristics (i.e., individual differences that may serve as matching criteria such as experiential, surface-level, and deep-level characteristics). This qualitative review resulted in three practical recommendations to practitioners interested in matching mentors and protégés using evidence-based methods: (1) match based on deep-level similarities, (2) consider developmental-needs of protégés during matching, and (3) seek mentors' and protégés’ input before finalizing matches.Research limitations/implications: Limitations of the research reviewed are highlighted: measures of perceived similarity, relative effectiveness of matching-related factors, limited research investigating the role of dissimilarity on mentoring outcomes, and linear relationship assumptions between matching-related factors and mentoring outcomes.Practical implications: The authors’ recommendations suggested greater use of valid psychometric assessments to facilitate matching based on actual assessed data rather than program administrators' personal knowledge of mentors and protégés.Originality/value: The literature on mentor–protégé matching is missing practical guidance on how to apply the research. This highlights a need for a qualitative review of the literature to identify what matching processes and criteria are most effective, providing a “one-stop-shop” for practitioners seeking advice on how to construct effective mentor–protégé matches in formal mentorship programs.