Suchergebnisse

<i>During 2020, the world experienced a pandemic that led to sickness, death, and a global shutdown. Businesses closed, governments worked to keep people paid during the shutdown, children learned from their homes, and adults worked from home (for those who could).&nbsp; Other adults lost their jobs due to downsizing during the pandemic, while others quit their jobs, starting the great resignation (Cook 2021). Among those affected were African American women who launched their own companies, even those with leadership roles in higher education. Whether they did so as a side business or as a second full-time career, the pandemic provided them an opportunity to take a risk. While starting a business is a cause for a celebration, the reasons behind women leaders in higher education starting their own companies is more complex. The purpose of this study, using narrative inquiry and semi-structured questions was to understand why African American women leaders, working in higher education, chose to launch their businesses during the COVID pandemic. Analyzing the participants' life stories, the researcher discovered that familial history of entrepreneurship, inequities in the workplace, and valuing authentic leadership led African American higher education leaders to create businesses for themselves while also remaining in their higher educational roles, which they enjoyed.</i>

Our understanding of the politics of race, indigeneity, and ethnicity is informed not only by the work of scholars, but also by the work of leaders and practitioners, many of whom are pioneers in their respective fields. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics (JREP) is proud to inaugurate this Q&A series with State Senator Ricardo Lara. Our hope is that forums like these will help advance our collective scholarship by better informing our research agendas, validating some of our claims, and building more bridges between the worlds of research, politics, and policy.

[eng] Newspapers and television are full of stories about inappropriate behaviour by political and business leaders published weekly. According to Guinote (2008), an individual's behaviour will be changed when they reach a leadership position, which only a few can control. Many of these allegations, which show the headlines, are related to abuse of power and inappropriate enrichment. Although leadership has been defined as an individual's ability to face a goal, with this ability, they influence other people to follow her/him in the endeavour to achieve the goal (Western, 2019). The study of leadership has been approached from many perspectives. Nevertheless, they do not have the same perception of leadership in North American and European authors, nor between Westerners and Orientals (Western, 2019). Among common themes in the leadership literature, the debate over whether leaders are born or made remains open. Therefore, the chapter on whether circumstances transform an individual into a leader or, on the contrary, their personality make them leader remains open. For example, personality traits have been found to be medium to high heritability, so leadership traits may also be moderately heritable (Johnson, et al., 1998). Ultimately, leadership studies have been based on both the search for characteristic and personality traits (Kirkpatick & Locke, 1991) and what circumstances transform an individual into a leader (Western, 2019). Leadership is not power, since power is the ability to control others activities through any of the sources of power (coercive, rewarding, legitimate, expert and referral) (Hatcher, 2005), and leadership is the ability to inspire people to follow the leader in achieving a goal (Western, 2019). However, both concepts are related since a leader without power does not make sense (Hatcher, 2005). In this doctoral thesis, it is considered that leadership implies power and, precisely, this endowment of power can transform the leader's perception of her/his followers. By the inspiration of the tradition of studies based on personality traits (Kirkpatick & Locke, 1991), we intend to study what personality traits moderate an employee with power (boss) and make her/him act as a leader who seeks to pursue the benefit of the group (company) rather than their personal benefit. Various realms of knowledge have tried to find some explanations for this type of behavior. Either from economic theory with the agency dilemma (Eisenhardt, 1989), social psychology, through the concept of psychological distance (Trope & Liberman, 2003) or from evolutionary psychology, with the search for ultimate reasons of origin of leadership (King, Johnson, & Van Vugt, 2009). For example, the agency dilemma proposes that in a decision-making context, two actors may intervene: an "agent" (person or organization) who makes decisions by a delegation of another actor, a "principal" (person or organization), and whose result affects the principal. According to economic theory, the agent acting on behalf of the principal will be motivated to perform for her/his benefit rather than for the principal, posing a moral conflict (Eisenhardt, 1989). Another theory that attempts to explain the selfish position of those who achieve leadership position come from social psychology that considers social distance, a common concept in sociology, as a psychological distance (Stephan, Liberman, & Trope, 2010). Although it has covered several types of psychological distance, temporal distance is the most relevant for the study of leadership. It affects the interpretation of relationships between people or physical distance to places (Magee & Smith, 2013). In a sense, greater psychological distance becomes mindsets of cognitive abstraction (Stephan, Liberman, & Trope, 2010). Another area that has tried to find explanations for both the origin and development of leadership is evolutionary psychology (King, Johnson, & Van Vugt, 2009). Throughout evolutionary history, leaders play a critical role in achieving goals. Living in a group is full of compromise and conflict, so groups have demonstrated a need for leaders. Leaders use different strategies to solve coordination problems even in ancestral environments, such as group movement, intragroup and intergroup competition (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008; Van Vugt M. , 2006). According to researchers in evolutionary psychology, leaders can use one of the most beneficial ways to inspire their followers, sacrificing their self-interest and personal goals to benefit their followers and organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Indeed, these types of leaders with sacrificing behaviour have charismatic and influential personality compare to dominant leaders (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De Cremer & Van Knippenberg, 2004; Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005; Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). Consequently, self-sacrificial leaders evoke more positive affect, trust, cooperation, and good performance between their followers (De Cremer, 2006; Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005). There are often conflated status hierarchies and decision-making hierarchies, but it will be helpful to discriminate between them. Leaders have a decision-making position in the group where individuals face problems and disproportionate influence on group decision-making and can prioritize resources in return (Van Vugt M. , 2006). Here in this research, we will consider the transformation process suffered by individuals who achieved a leadership position within a business organization and, therefore, a position of power in a business decision-making context. This consideration will be made both from social psychology and from evolutionary psychology. Although both fields have been developed from different theoretical processes, for two decades, multidisciplinary approaches have been recommended in marketing studies (O'Shaughnessy, 1997). Recently, social psychologists are interested in exploring the effect of the power of an individual's behaviour; Power is an ability to influence other people and usually based on a position in the hierarchy (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Lammers, Stapel, & Galinsky, 2010; Maner & Mead, 2010). Today, in advanced societies, the hierarchical order of social structures is organized according to the merit of subjects that comprise it. Thus, the old structures based on aristocratic origin or family to which someone belongs have changed by social advancement based on merit. High achievers reach higher positions compared to less achievers (Smith, Jostmann , Galinsky, & Van Dijk, 2008). However, the social system does not have to work with great precision in all contemporary societies. What transcends to the community is that individuals who do not achieve positions of power are because they perform imperfectly are less capable or motivated than those who have reached powerful positions (Guinote, 2007). These beliefs, widespread in modern societies, that the powerful individuals reach their position by their own effort, meaning that when an individual comes to a place of leadership with power and authority in an organization, this fact leads to a process of personal transformation that changes the vision that s/he has of herself, her idea of others, followers or subordinates. It begins to see others as pieces that could be used to achieve their own goals (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003; Smith & Bargh, 2008; Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Lijenquist, 2008; Smith & Trope, 2006; Guinote, 2007a). Shreds of evidence have been collected on the mental transformation of individuals who have achieved positions of leadership and power. First, powerful leaders see the futures more optimistically, perceive that they control the destiny and lead them to make risky decisions (Fast, Gruenfeld, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2009). Second, when individuals exert leadership, they begin to consider others, even former colleagues, differently. For instance, they begin to pay more attention to themselves than the needs of others (Rucker, Dubois, & Galinsky, 2011). They establish a social distance between themselves and the followers or subordinates (Kipnis, 1972) and even tend to ignore other people's suffering (Van Kleef, et al., 2008). Third, through this process of estrangement and reification, they perceive their subordinates as mere instruments of manipulation to help them achieve their own goals (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008). Although the literature praises leaders' role, some individuals are capable of working beyond their own interest and even take personal costs to benefit their group or organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Nevertheless, there are many shreds of evidence in the literature that individuals who achieve a position of power are more likely to deceive (Lammers, Stapel, & Galinsky, 2010). In this sense, they tend to act socially inadequately, putting their interest in priority (Gonzaga, Keltner, & Ward, 2008). The classic book "Power, corruption, and rectitude" (Rogow & Lasswell, 1963) mentioned that leaders who exercise power obey two factors: the individual needs of the exaltation of ego and the organization's structure. Personality factors are under the influence of different circumstances; how they grow, their childhood, the type of education and the deprivations they suffered determine how they will use power as adults. And regarding the organizational context, tradition, reputations, and leadership are pointed as factors that encourage or discourage corrupted behaviour (Rogow & Lasswell, 1963). The focus of this thesis is on the effect of power on the behaviour of individuals. Additionally, we want to evaluate different personality factors, exploring what kind of personality traits discourage promoted leader from falling into the temptation to pursue selfish behaviour.

There are a number of controversies surrounding the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Africa. Critics have charged it with neo-colonial meddling in African affairs, accusing it of undermining national sovereignty and domestic attempts to resolve armed conflict. Here, based on 650 interviews over 11 years, Phil Clark critically assesses the politics of the ICC in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, focusing particularly on the Court's multi-level impact on national politics and the lives of everyday citizens. He explores the ICC's effects on peace negotiations, national elections, domestic judicial reform, amnesty processes, combatant demobilisation and community-level accountability and reconciliation. In attempting to distance itself from African conflict zones geographically, philosophically and procedurally, Clark also reveals that the ICC has become more politicised and damaging to African polities, requiring a substantial rethink of the approaches and ideas that underpin the ICC's practice of distant justice. (Publisher's description)

AbstractPolitical leaders' willingness to use force is central to many explanations of foreign policy and interstate conflict. Unfortunately, existing indicators typically measure one aspect of this general concept, have limited coverage, and/or are not derived independently of leaders' participation in interstate conflicts. We develop a strategy for constructing measures of leaders' underlying willingness to use force with data on their background experiences, political orientations, and psychological traits in a Bayesian latent variable framework. Our approach produces measures of latent hawkishness for all national leaders between 1875 and 2004 that offer advantages over existing proxies along multiple dimensions, including construct validity, predictive validity, and measurement uncertainty. Importantly, our statistical framework allows scholars to build upon our measures by incorporating additional data and altering the assumptions underlying our models.

Although foreign policy choices, especially on security questions, are often treated as autonomous state responses to international pressures, these events & conditions do not affect society in a uniform way. International conditions influence policy, but their implications depend on the interests of the domestic political faction controlling the state. Because decisions about military strategy & force structure are closely linked to the international balance of power, they offer an especially demanding test of this argument. This article offers evidence that Republican & Democratic presidents systematically differed on the allocation of resources within the Pentagon during the Cold War. Republicans directed spending toward strategic forces, while Democrats stressed conventional forces. Furthermore, although Soviet gains in relative nuclear capabilities influenced Democrats' decisions about strategic forces, they had little or no influence on Republican choices. These differences make sense in light of research on the two parties' societal constituencies. 3 Tables, 3 Figures, 70 References. Adapted from the source document.

My main argument here is that the story seen from the perspective of the influential year of 1962 reveals a very different historical context, with a different set of actors and a different trajectory and causalities regarding the human rights breakthrough, from those stories focusing on Western agency in the 1940s and the 1970s. It repositions the history of human rights in significant ways and makes apartheid and racial discrimination more crucial to the human rights story than has hitherto been acknowledged. It is also important to emphasize that the positions and arguments presented by countries from the Global South in these UN debates were richly nuanced. These nuances are important if we are to fully appreciate the dynamics during these years. Tanzania differed significantly from, for instance, Senegal in the way it envisaged the scope and applicability of international human rights law and investigatory measures. Tanzania wanted a sole focus on Southern Africa and not beyond; Senegal had a wider perspective. This should remind us that when we are imagining Africa as a historical-political space, we need to allow for diversity, individual histories and agency, aspects that cannot be adequately captured by labels such as ›The Third World‹, ›Global South‹ or indeed even ›Africa‹.

The 2013 ISA Convention held in San Francisco reflects the diversity of diffusion research, spanning wide-ranging thematic and methodological interests related to diffusion at the global and regional levels. Klinger-Vidra and Schleifer differentiate between models of diffusion that assume the existence of a single initial source and those that involve multiple sources. Goldsmith distinguishes between first- and second-order diffusion. The first-order diffusion of trade liberalization and export-led growth development strategies in the 1970s, he argues, had a second order effect on international relations in East Asia, making the escalation of interstate conflicts less likely. Forsberg and Mekouar focus on stimuli. Forsberg argues that the eruption of internal conflict in one location is better explained by previous internal conflict in another location than by the spatial clustering of factors related to conflict, such as poverty.

Pacifism and anarchism have been until recently largely missing on the landscape of international relations (IR) theories, even though they help articulate valuable and nuanced reflections on core IR themes such as war and peace, the structure of the international order, and the multiple effects of political violence. In particular, an analysis grounded in the territory shared by pacifism and anarchism offers a focused vantage point from which an original contribution can be articulated around five main themes: the widespread fetishization of violence; the chronic sliding toward systemic militarism; the multifaceted manifestations of intersectional exploitation and domination enforced by states around the world; both current and potential alternative structurings of international politics; and reflections concerning political agency. This puts an anarcho-pacifist encounter with IR in a position to either develop further or dispute claims central to more established schools of IR theory. This article thus offers a normative reading of international politics, which adapts and develops arguments aired separately by anarchism and pacifism, demonstrates where they fruitfully overlap, develops anarcho-pacifism by extending its analysis specifically to international politics, and invites a reconsideration of established orthodoxies in IR theory by articulating a more radical, critical, and normative diagnosis of the Westphalian international order.