Apr 16th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Evidence mounts that brains decide before their owners know about it!

EVERYONE has had the experience. You are confronted by a complex problem, with a not-so-obvious solution. You pore over it, engrossed, but still the answer will not come. Fearing you will be stuck for ever, you take a walk. Then suddenly, from nowhere, there it is. Eureka!

But did it really come from nowhere? A piece of research about to be published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, by Joydeep Bhattachary at Goldsmiths’ College in London and Bhavin Sheth at the University of Houston, in Texas, suggests that although people are not consciously aware of it, their brains have to be in a certain state for an insight to take place. Moreover, that state can be detected electrically several seconds in advance of the “aha!” moment itself.

The question of where insights come from has become a hot topic in neuroscience, despite the fact that they are not easy to induce experimentally in a laboratory. Some researchers have used getting the punch line of a riddle as an example of an insightful outcome. Critics complain, however, that this is less an insight than an “outsight”. Other experiments have used word tasks. In these, a person might be given three seemingly unrelated words, such as “skirts”, “black” and “put”, and asked to come up with a fourth that can link to each of the other three. (In this case, “out”.) But those tasks may say more about lexical ability than true insight.

Dr Bhattacharya and Dr Sheth have taken a third approach. They have selected some brain-teasing but practical problems in the hope that these would get closer to mimicking real insight. To qualify, a puzzle had to be simple, not too widely known and without a methodical solution. The researchers then asked 18 young adults to try to solve these problems while their brainwaves were monitored using an electroencephalograph (EEG).

A typical brain-teaser went like this. There are three light switches on the ground-floor wall of a three-storey house. Two of the switches do nothing, but one of them controls a bulb on the second floor. When you begin, the bulb is off. You can only make one visit to the second floor. How do you work out which switch is the one that controls the light?

That light-bulb moment

This problem, or one equivalent to it, was presented on a computer screen to a volunteer when that volunteer pressed a button. The electrical activity of the volunteer’s brain (his brainwave pattern, in common parlance) was recorded by the EEG from the button’s press. Each volunteer was given 30 seconds to read the puzzle and another 60 to 90 seconds to solve it. If he had not done so in the time allotted, a hint appeared. In the case of the light-switch puzzle, the suggestion was that you turn one switch on for a while, then turn it off.

Some people worked it out; others did not. The significant point, though, was that the EEG predicted who would fall where. Those volunteers who went on to have an insight (in this case that on their one and only visit to the second floor they could use not just the light but the heat produced by a bulb as evidence of an active switch) had had different brainwave activity from those who never got it. In the right frontal cortex, a part of the brain associated with shifting mental states, there was an increase in high-frequency gamma waves (those with 47-48 cycles a second). Moreover, the difference was noticeable up to eight seconds before the volunteer realised he had found the solution. Dr Sheth thinks this may be capturing the “transformational thought” (the light-bulb moment, as it were) in action, before the brain’s “owner” is consciously aware of it.

There is a precedent for such observations of unconscious thought in action. In the 1980s Benjamin Libet of the University of California, San Francisco, showed that simple decisions, such as when to move a finger, are made about three-tenths of a second before the brain’s owner is aware of them, and subsequent work has found that the roots of such decisions can be seen up to ten seconds before they become conscious. But this is the first occasion that such a long lead time has been shown for more complex thought processes.

This finding, combined with Libet’s, poses fascinating questions about how the brain really works. Conscious thought, it seems, does not solve problems. Instead, unconscious processing happens in the background and only delivers the answer to consciousness once it has been arrived at. Food for further thought, indeed.

Source: Economist.com


Emotional Leadership Through Emotional Intelligence: High Achievers Do It; Low Achievers Don't

By Jacque L. King, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of BusinessWestminster College

In its broadest definition, leadership is the influence one has on another’s behavior such as a leader and follower. Leaders influence behavioral change in followers to go further, try harder, and do better than anyone ever thought possible. As a compelling force for behavioral change, leadership effects change at the emotional level where lasting change takes root and flourishes. The process of leading creates a symbiotic relationship between leader and follower when leaders take into consideration follower diversity they join the team. Followers come in all shapes, sizes, backgrounds and belief systems. They come with a variety of talents, gifts, and abilities as well as emotional maturity. The plight of a leader is to meet followers at their point of vulnerability and compel them to move past that point to reach homeostasis. The primary difference between effective, high achieving leaders and ineffective, low achieving leaders is the ability to move followers beyond their emotional point of vulnerability in a concerted effort to address follower emotions through emotional leadership. Using Reuven BarOn’s Five Realms of Emotional Intelligence and 15 underlying scales as a filter, this paper compares the effective traits of high achieving emotional leaders and the ineffective traits of low achieving emotional leaders in an effort to emphasize the importance of emotional leadership through emotional intelligence.

Emotional Leadership

In this current age of information, leaders cannot afford to ignore or even avoid follower emotions in the workplace. The definition of emotional leadership is the leading of followers through the proper identification and management of an array of emotions and influencing the outcome of their subsequent needs. According to Stein & Book (2000), emotions are information and follow logical patterns. They have universals as well as specifics. Leader decisions must incorporate follower emotions about the organization, the department, the culture and/or the project. When a leader disregards follower emotions, follower attention is divided between what they should do and want they want to do. Followers draw the conclusion that since what they feel does not matter to the leader then it does not matter to the organization. For most followers, emotional distress detracts from performance especially when that distress is a result of leader/follower conflict regardless if the leader is a high achieving or low achieving leader. Leading follower emotions should be the first priority for anyone building an organization, changing an organization or simply looking to leave a legacy in an organization.

Emotional Leadership is rooted in BarOn’s five realms or relationships of Emotional Quotient (e.g., Emotional Intelligence). They are: The Interpersonal Realm, The Intrapersonal Realm, The Adaptability Realm, The Stress Management Realm, and The Good Mood Realm. An emotionally intelligent leader knows that, “Good relationships and coping strategies are the key to our success…from the initial bonding between parent and child to the ability of a manager to bring out the best in [their] employees” (Stein & Book, p. 2). According to Bar-On, a balance in these five realms and their 15 underlying areas equates to good performance but it is noted that not all high achieving leaders strictly adhere to all fifteen areas. A comparison of high performing leaders and low performing leaders in light of BarOn’s Realms of Emotional Intelligence will yield specific steps to take in order to be a highly effective leader in any organization. A closer look at the differences between high achieving leaders and low achieving leaders will help develop the foundation of this comparison.

Leaders: High Achieving vs. Low Achieving

Leaders fall into one of two categories: High Achieving and Low Achieving. High achieving leaders continuously address the emotional needs of followers in an effort to “bring out the best” in them. Effective leaders rating “high” are concerned with, for and about others in addition to company profits, are optimistic about subordinate success as well as their own, and seek ideas from followers and implement the best of these ideas for the good and welfare of the organization. High achieving leaders are good listeners and listen more than they speak. Conversely, low achieving leaders avoid direct communication, distrust subordinates, do not consult followers, and are so preoccupied with their own security that daily activities are designed for self-preservation and not the long-term development of followers and the future of the organization. High achieving leaders are excited about follower aspirations, dreams and successes. They are also saddened by follower failures, fears and miscommunication and work to resolve the problems. Low achieving leaders and are excited about follower failures, and guided by the concept of “let them fail,” claim to use follower failure as a teaching opportunity when in reality even minute failures are used against them down the road on an employment review or, worse yet, through public humiliation. Low achieving leaders provide followers with some but not all of the information needed to carry out the task, restrict communication, and impose deadlines that cause anxiety, fear and stress. Low achieving leaders overload followers they no longer need in an effort to create burnout and subsequent failure to justify the impending termination due to poor performance. Low achieving leaders disregard follower emotions while high achieving leaders embrace emotional leadership through Emotional Intelligence. A closer look at BarOn’s Realms of Emotional Intelligence will help with the comparison.

The Intrapersonal Realm

BarOn’s Intrapersonal Realm is the ability to know and manage the self in the five areas of emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, self-regard, and self- actualization. Effective emotional leadership starts with the leader’s intrapersonal realm and how they handle themselves. Successful leaders must value who they are (e.g., self-esteem) and understand what they can and cannot do (e.g., self efficacy) before they can value those that follow them. Leaders who recognize how they feel and how that feeling impacts followers will govern their reactions to good and bad news accordingly. When the emphasis in today’s workplace is turning data into information and information into knowledge, all organizational information is considered important. No matter what the source, whether grapevine, speculation, or hard facts, followers who seek to keep their leader informed are less likely to provide information if the leader is inclined to “shoot the messenger” as a reaction to the information. For high achieving leaders, any and all information is welcome, analyzed and considered. Low achieving leaders are more concerned with self-preservation and quickly point the finger in order to place blame. Information provided by followers to a low achieving leader is met with cynicism, ridicule and punishment more from leader fear than for the provided information. Low achieving leaders in the BarOn’s self-awareness realm are toxic, destructive to organizational balance and dehumanizing to followers.

High achieving leaders are articulate, persuasive and assertive. They say what they mean and mean what they say. They stand their ground and do not back down when their thoughts, ideas, and understandings are challenged. However, high achieving leaders are willing to change their mind when they find a better answer than their own. Unfortunately, low achieving leaders change their minds often, blame others for their failures, and manipulate followers to think the way they want them to think. Low achieving leaders seek out followers who are in need of social affirmation, psychological healing, and/or financial assistance and satisfy some or all of those needs to create a sense of servitude holding the following thought over their head, “Since I satisfied your need(s), you must satisfy mine.” Unfortunately for these followers, the needs they are required to satisfy in their leader are more than anyone can satisfy or should satisfy. Low achieving leaders are more self-centered than other-centered and their needs are not in the best interest of the organization and/or the development of followers.

Interpersonal leaders who fall under the category of high achieving are self-directed, self-controlled, and independent. They are a step ahead in their thinking about the future of the organization, its stakeholders and what is best for all involved. High achieving leaders consider diversity amongst followers and promote the balance between different religions, age, gender, race, and beliefs. To be independent requires high levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy and low levels of narcissism. It requires a lack of passive aggressive behavior that when left unchecked, can develop into maladaptive and even pathological behavior over the long term. High achieving leaders address problems directly by confronting issues and resolving/managing conflict quickly. High achieving leaders know that complete harmony in the workplace is not possible but they strive for balance amongst followers. Low achieving leaders often create dissention through favoritism, gender bias, and/or other unequal measures. Low achieving leaders do not rise above the day-to-day commonality of workplace politics. Often times they are at the heart of it.

Self-regard and self-actualization are critical areas for high achieving leaders. Self-regard is the realization of strengths and weaknesses of a leader’s talents, gifts and abilities and the subsequent contentment with the results. The causal effect of contentment in the area of self-regard affords the high achieving leader the opportunity to reach their potential and be happy with it. BarOn calls this “self-actualization.” Low achieving leaders are tied up in the realm of self-regard, emphasizing only strengths and denying weaknesses, and never reach contentment with who they are and what they can and cannot do. Unfortunately for low achieving leaders, without self-regard, self-actualization is not possible and the full Interpersonal Realm is inaccessible.

Interpersonal Realm

BarOn’s second realm of Emotional Intelligence is the interpersonal or the “people skills” realm. In this realm, leader relationships are assessed in the three areas: empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationships. High achieving leaders understand that followers are emotional creations who think, feel, get excited about success and fear failure. High achieving leaders empathize with follower emotions, whether it is to celebrate the victories or console the grief in failure. Low achieving leaders take sides and point fingers to either take credit for follower success or humiliate followers for failing. Low achieving leaders destroy workplace camaraderie, diminish workplace competition, and drive hard working followers to seek employment elsewhere.

Both high achieving leaders and followers have a sense of responsibility to be cooperative and contributing members of society. Social responsibility starts at the follower level and extends throughout the organization to its stakeholders. To be a cooperative and contributing member of society requires both leader and follower to obey the established governmental laws, respect the diversity in a multicultural society, and do better today than yesterday. Low achieving leaders believe the organization as well as society is a better place because they exist. It is their opinion that once they exit the scene, the organization is doomed to fail.

High achieving leaders know that interpersonal relationships are emotionally satisfying, mutually beneficial, two-way connections between leader and follower. Interpersonal relationships are satisfying due to a high level of trust built over a long period of time and that both leader and follower will not let the other down except for extenuating circumstances beyond control. Low achieving leaders disregard trust and emotional satisfaction to operate under Machiavelli-like conditions where it is better to be respected than loved. Low achieving leaders are too stringent to be adaptable to a changing environment.


In BarOn’s realm of Adaptability, high achieving leaders adjust their thoughts and feelings to changing conditions and view the world as it really is rather than how they want it to be. They define problems and take steps to resolve them. Unlike low achieving leaders, high achievers don’t mix reality with unrealistic outcomes that, no matter how hard followers try, will never come to fruition. In the realm of adaptability, low achieving leaders continue to do the same things over and over again each time expecting a different outcome. They force followers to perform tedious tasks designed to show loyalty rather than actually accomplish something of importance. Due to their lack of adaptability, low achieving leaders generate debilitating stress in their followers because they fail to manage it in their own careers.

Stress Management

The distinct area separating high achieving leaders from low achieving leaders is the realm of Stress Management. High achieving leaders remain cool, calm, and collected in the process of leading. They control the impulse to react by either resisting or delaying reaction when faced with a major catastrophe or disruption in daily activities. High achieving leaders are constructive rather destructive when life throws them curve balls knowing that life is not without its challenges and everything can work together for good in the end. Low achieving leaders are constantly under pressure to perform and to succeed. Stress comes through poor planning, lack of purpose in personal and professional life, and a general distrust of subordinates limiting the delegation of tasks to accomplish the overall goal. Low achieving leaders have difficulty delegating to followers and must complete and/or micromanage all of the tasks to insure perfection. In the end, low achieving leader perfectionism causes failure rather than success and perfectionism negates good mood.

Good Mood

The final realm of BarOn’s Emotional Intelligence is the positive mental attitude that creates “good mood.” Good Mood is comprised of optimism and happiness. Optimism is the maintenance of a positive outlook in the face of adversity. Optimism relies heavily on the underlying scales of the Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Realms in order to come to fruition. High achieving leaders must first feel good about themselves before they can effectively lead others. Similar to Good Mood, happiness or the ability to enjoy life, relationships with others along with the ability to obtain joy from daily activities also relies on the Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Realms in order to be realized. For the high achieving leader, optimism and general happiness is what attracts good followers to them. High achieving leaders use optimism and happiness to motivate followers to rise above mediocrity, to persevere, and to persist through the high and lows of task execution. Followers of high achieving leaders do respond to a pat on the back, an “atta boy” or simple a peaceful smile that says, “Everything is going to be alright.” Good mood is a result of proper stress management, adapting to the current environment, and good personal relationships with others. Good mood exists in high achieving leaders who are efficacious, value themselves as well as others and strive to be the best they can be with what they are given. Good mood is the quintessential emotional intelligence realm and one that high achieving leaders are committed to, while low achieving leaders slip into and out of this realm depending on the circumstances of the moment.


There are obvious overlaps in BarOn’s realms of Emotional Intelligence for high achieving leaders and yet low achieving leaders either ignore or disregard some or all of these realms to the detriment of their followers. Successful leadership starts with emotional leadership by focusing on follower emotions as part of the leadership process. Without it, followers fail. The truth is when followers fail, leadership fails.


Goleman, D, Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School

Stein, S. J. and Book, H. E. (2000). The EQ Edge: Emotional intelligence and your success. Canada: Multi-Health Systems


Women And Leadership: A Contextual Perspective

By Karin Klenke

This book examines women's access to leadership roles and how these roles are perceived in society. It represents one of the first scholarly examinations of the burgeoning field of leadership. Using real-life examples and case studies of prominent women, Dr. Klenke explores the complex interactions between gender, leadership, and culture. Topics include the changing conceptions of leadership, women leaders in history, contemporary leadership theories, barriers to women's leadership, and women leaders worldwide. This volume is of primary interest to educators and students involved in women's studies programs as well as in courses in gender and leadership.

"Dr. Klenke has written a solid and sophisticated book that is impressive in its treatment of women and leadership because it is grounded in her deep understanding of leadership theory and practice.The book is a major contribution to our understanding of leadership"

Karin Klenke, Ph.D., is President and CEO of LDI International, a management consulting firm specializing in leadership training, education and development.As a consultant to private and public sector organizations, Dr. Klenke offers a variety of leadership programs ranging from leadership succession planning to developing global leadership competencies.She also designs company tailored, customized leadership programs for national and international firms based on assessments of organizational and individual leadership styles and practices.In addition, she is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Management Systems, Division Chair of the Leadership and Leaders Division of The Association of Management / International Association of Management (AoM/IAoM) and Chair of the Board of Publications of AoM/IAoM.

Dr. Klenke has a Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology and has held academic appointments at the University of Colorado, The George Washington University, and was one of the founding faculty members of the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond.She serves on the Board of Trustees of the Lydia Center for Leadership, the Board of Directors of AoM/IAoM and the Board of Governors of The Leadership Trust. Dr. Klenke's current research interests include the study of leadership in information intensive organizations, women and leadership, cross-cultural leadership studies and mapping the intellectual structure of charisma.

Dr. Klenke may be contacted at LDI International

Women and Leadership may be ordered at Amazon .


Change Management 11 - Certain Misery Or the Misery of Uncertainty

By Ian Glickman Ph.D

Small changes can lead to big changes. We don't need a treatise on Chaos Theory to observe that changing systems are nonlinear. Each variable in the change environment exponentially affects the outcome. For example, a simple three-variable closed environment will yield 6 permutations, while 6 variables will yield 720 possible outcomes. In this field, sometimes it's best not to count past three! It's this unwieldy number of possible outcomes that leads us to the creative insight. The former Soviet Union went to great lengths to control this type of creative insight by controlling variables. Control was their thing, after all, and they suffocated from lack of creative adaptation to change. Today, countries and companies go to great lengths to foster the creativity inherent in change.

Embracing creativity is essentially the only way a business can adapt to the constantly changing business environment. Unfortunately, in the face of organizational change, many individuals, departments and corporate cultures still retreat into the unhealthy and limiting defense mechanism of over-control, even when it stifles the very process of creative adaptation. As a successful leader in change, you must be comfortable with a multitude of unknown variables and outcomes. If you are not, then you risk the misery of controlling an ever-increasing number of possible outcomes. Remember, only 6 variables produce 720 possible outcomes. This is a lot of plates to keep spinning-not to mention the no-confidence vote you're giving your creative problem solvers. Creative team members just don't react all that well to manipulation and stifling over-control.

The very first exercise the leader must undertake is a thorough inventory of his or her fears. Look at the worst case scenarios first. Once you have a good long list, brainstorm them with the team. If worst case scenario number one occurs, what are the creative recourses? If you let your team run free with ideas for an hour or so, you might be surprised at the far-reaching and pleasantly unexpected results. What you are doing here is fear (negative outcome) control. If you're going to lead through a period of change, you must know thyself, and particularly your fears. Predictability and ambiguity are two dynamic forces working in constant opposition. In an active change situation, predictability tends to contract while ambiguity expands. In dynamic situations, leaders can become fearful of an explosion of ambiguity (too many options). In attempting to control this, they inadvertently implode due to the repression of creativity (a la the Former Soviet Union). In the heat of battle it's easy to forget that it's always much easier to tone down a overly creatively solution than to spruce up a dull one (known as the lipstick on a pig solution). It's not part of our macho, action hero culture to admit to fear and possible negative outcomes, but this is what must be done. Get the team together and get those fears on the flip chart and allow the creativity to flow. This exercise is an exceptionally powerful way to unify the team. What usually happens is that many of these fears are unfounded or easily solved by the collective open creativity of the team.

Learn more about leadership, occupational stress, conflict management and change management at Professional Development Resources, Inc. Visit our web site at http://visitpdr.com/
Ian Glickman, Ph.D.


How Business Schools Have Failed Business

Why Not More Education on the Responsibility of Boards?
By Michael Jacobs

As we try to understand why our economy is so troubled, fingers are increasingly being pointed at the academic institutions that educated those who got us into this mess. What have business schools failed to teach our business leaders and policy makers? There are three profound failures of sound business practices at the root of the economic crisis, and none of them have been adequately addressed by our business schools.

Just about everyone agrees that misaligned incentive programs are at the core of what brought our financial system to its knees. Countless individuals became multimillionaires by gambling away shareholders' money. Incentive systems that rewarded short-term gain took precedence over those designed for long-term value creation.

We could chalk this all up to greed, as many pundits have. But first we should ask how many of the business schools attended by America's CEOs and directors educate their students about the best way to design management compensation systems. Amazingly, this subject is not systematically addressed at most business schools, and not even discussed at others.

Secondly, as Washington scrambles to restructure the financial regulatory system, those who still believe in the private sector are asking why corporate boards were AWOL as institution after institution crumbled. Why did it take rumors of nationalization and a drop in Citicorp stock to below $2 a share to inspire Citigroup to nominate directors with experience in financial markets?

American icon General Electric was stripped of its coveted AAA-rating because of problems emanating from its financial services unit. Yet its board has only one director with experience in a financial institution. If it is the board's job to oversee a corporation, it seems logical that there would be a segment in the core curriculum of every business school devoted to board structure, composition and processes. But most programs don't cover the topic.

The third breakdown came in the investment community. Nearly 20 years ago I wrote a book titled "Short-Term America" that warned about the growing chasm between those who provide capital and the companies who use it. The concept is simple: When money provided to homeowners or businesses comes from an anonymous source, possibly half way around the world, there are serious challenges to operating a functioning system of accountability.

Nationally, finance departments at business schools offer hundreds of courses in asset securitization and portfolio diversification. They have taught a generation of financial leaders that risk can be diversified away. But in their B-school days, few investment bankers examined the notion of "agency costs." That concept explains that as the gulf between the provider and the user of capital widens, the risks involved with selecting and monitoring the participants in the portfolio increase. It should come as no surprise that financial institutions amassed securities that consist of a diversified portfolio of deadbeats.

About 70% of the shares of American corporations are held by institutional investors such as pension and mutual funds. These organizations are brimming with MBAs. But how many of these MBAs took a class devoted to how shareholders should exercise their rights and obligations as the owners of America's corporations? Few, if any. When shareholders are uneducated about their obligations, how can a corporate accountability system function properly?

Recently, when I delivered a guest lecture at another school, a distraught-looking student pulled me aside after class. She explained that my talk was very disturbing to her. After investing two years and $100,000, she was only weeks away from receiving her MBA. But prior to our class, she had never heard a discussion about board responsibilities or the rights of shareholders. She said she felt cheated.

By failing to teach the principles of corporate governance, our business schools have failed our students. And by not internalizing sound principles of governance and accountability, B-school graduates have matured into executives and investment bankers who have failed American workers and retirees who have witnessed their jobs and savings vanish.

Most B-schools paper cover the topic by requiring first-year students to take a compulsory ethics class, which is necessary, but not sufficient. Would Bernie Madoff have acted differently if he had aced his ethics final?

Could we have avoided most of the economic problems we now face if we had a generation of business leaders who were trained in designing compensation systems that promote long-term value? And who were educated in the proper make-up and responsibilities of boards? And who were enlightened as to how shareholders can use their proxies to affect accountability? I think we could have.

America's business schools need to rethink what we are teaching -- and not teaching -- the next generation of leaders.

Mr. Jacobs, a professor at the University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flager Business School, was director of corporate finance policy at the U.S. Treasury from 1989 to 1991. He may be contacted at michael_jacobs@unc.edu


Retaining Talent: Assessing Job Satisfaction Facets Most Related To Software Developer Turnover Intentions

Steven G. Westlund, Washington University, St. Louis
John C. Hannon, Capella University

Tech-savvy IT workers are a vital resource in our 21st century digital economy. Firms can better leverage their IT talent by developing cultures that foster creativity, empowerment, motivation, and organizational commitment.

Westlund [38] reported that IS project managers who exhibited both charismatic and contingent reward leadership styles had more satisfied subordinates with lower turnover intentions. Westlund also found that overall job satisfaction was more significantly related to software developer turnover intentions than satisfaction with supervision. The results of this study furthered that research by showing that satisfaction with the nature of work had the greatest influence on turnover intentions among these software developers.

It is important to recognize that turnover can have positive outcomes. Mobley [23] noted that it can displace poor performers, infuse new knowledge and technology through the replacements, and stimulate changes in policy and practice. Without turnover, organizations can become stagnate and lose their competitive advantage.

Jackofsky and Slocum [15] concluded that the worst and the best performers are the ones most likely to voluntarily leave the organization. Most IS project teams cannot afford to lose their top performers, especially during the development life cycle. We suggest that this attrition
can be reduced by designing jobs that software developers will find intrinsically rewarding and satisfying. This can be accomplished, in part, through progressively challenging assignments, opportunities to learn new technologies,and the recognition of achievement from management
and peers.

To read the full article, go to:

Journal of Information Technology Management Volume XIX, Number 4, 2008


We'd Like To Introduce...

Dr. Al Bento
Merrick School of Business
University of Baltimore

AoM/IAoM's Flagship publication is the Journal of Information Technology Management (JITM), a venue in which to publish research articles and papers of scholarly/professional significance:

  • to promote the integration and cross-fertilization of the behavioral/organizational and information sciences

  • to encourage, sharpen, and expand the dialogue between academicians and practitioners from an interdisciplinary perspective

  • to provide a forum for the communication of solutions to the multifaceted problems associated with managing information and technology as a corporate resource.
Editor-in-Chief of the journal is Dr. Al Bento, the BGE Research Professor of Information Systems, University of Baltimore.He was previously on the faculty of Boston University School of Management, California State University and Bentley College. He has served as Department Chair and Research Center Director in these institutions. Prior to his academic career, he worked for nine years at IBM World Trade as Systems Engineer, Budget Manager, and Education and Scientific Affairs Manager.

He has served the profession and the University in a variety of capacities, such as Chair of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) Special Interest Group on Security (SIGSEC), Conference track and mini-track Chair, Webmaster for the Merrick School of Business, Faculty Senate President, etc. For details see the Service Activities page.

Dr. Bento is an American citizen and holds a B.S.B.A, an M.S. in Computer Science and Systems Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Management, Computer Information Systems from the University of California, Los Angeles (1980).

The Journal of Information Technology Management may be viewed either on the AoM/IAoM website or at jitm.ubalt.edu. We welcome submission of articles and research studies for possible publication in JITM. Please contact Dr. Bento at abento@ubalt.edu or you may submit through our website, http://www.aom-iaom.org/.


AoM/IAoM 2009 Conference Benefits

Here is just a short list of what's in store for you at our 2009 Conference:
  • Invitation Only Dinner
    Featured Speaker - Dr. Karin Klenke, Leadership Development Institute Topic: “Leadership Change”
  • Certificate for Article Presentation

  • Certificate of Attendance

  • Publication in the AoM/IAoM Proceedings

  • Journal Publication (Editor-in-Chief Approval)

  • Website Featured Article Publication

  • Guest access to AoM/IAoM Blog

  • Annual AoM/IAoM Membership

  • Two Association Journals
  • Journal of Management Systems
    Journal of Information Technology Management
  • Opportunities for involvement in the Association
So, visit us at www.aom-iaom.org and register for this exceptionally informative conference.


Call for Participation & Papers

The AoM/IAoM is soliciting submissions for its 2009 conference in three specific categories (I) Individuals, (2)Deans/Department Chairs, for individual or departmental (Group) submissions, and (3) Management Practitioners, either individual or organizational (Group) submissions.


This year, the AoM/IAoM 26th Annual Conference, in response to the economic crisis that has resulted in institutional cutbacks, offers individual and group submissions for a variety of presentation formats to meet cost effectiveness for delegates and maximize organizational participation.

All submissions will be published in the annual AoM/IAoM Proceedings. Certificate awards will be provided for best paper category, platform presentations and attendance.


The AoM/IAoM 26th Annual Conference is pleased to announce a special offering for Deans/ Department/Division chairpersons to submit proposals for papers, panels, and symposia in groups of two or more individuals on their faculty. We welcome a variety of topics in the general realm of management including, but not limited to, human resource management, organizational behavior, and information technology. The invited groups originating from academic departments and divisions, under the leadership of deans and chairs, do not have to address interrelated topics but will be placed in the conference program thematically. All papers submitted will undergo the regular peer review process.

All submissions will be published in the annual AoM/IAoM Proceedings. Certificate awards will be provided for best paper category, platform presentations and attendance.


The AoM/IAoM 26th Annual Conference is inviting CEOs, executives and managers at all levels, to submit abstracts or proposals for practitioner papers, panels, symposia, case studies, innovations, benchmarks, and demonstration projects. We welcome a variety of topics that fall into the general realm of management including, but not limited to, human resource management, organizational behavior, information technology, corporate education, and leadership.All submissions will be published in the annual AoM/IAoM Proceedings.

Certificate awards will be provided for best paper category, platform presentations and attendance.

We also extend an invitation to anyone who would like to post comments on our blog. Let's make this an open forum for anyone interested in the changing paradigms of Management, Leadership, Education and Technology - or M.E.L.T.