Does Sacrificial Leadership Have to Hurt? The Realities of Putting Others First

Sacrificial leadership has generally been associated with positive outcomes for organizations and employees. While it is often desired by organizations, we suggest that current organizational systems often fail to promote sacrificial behaviors. We present a new perspective sacrificial leadership that includes character-based elements such as humility, a willingness to calculate the cost of leading and the courage to be irrelevant in the presence of systems that pressure leaders to behave otherwise. We discuss how these elements are often not encouraged in current selection, employee development, and succession planning processes

Investigating the Utilization of Research Evidence in the 4-H Youth Development Program

This study investigated the acquisition, interpretation, and utilization of research evidence in the 4-H Youth Development Program from the frame of Social Cognitive Theory. Utilizing Consensual Qualitative Research, we interviewed twenty 4-H faculty, staff, and volunteers from seven states. Results indicated four domains, which covered participants’ definitions of research utilization, their experiences utilizing research, the process of acquiring and distributing research, and barriers and facilitators to research utilization. Participants described research use primarily in terms of improving 4-H programs. They discussed their level of confidence (i.e. self-efficacy) in finding and applying research evidence and their beliefs about the outcomes of research utilization (i.e. outcomes expectancy). Participants mentioned such barriers as not knowing where to look for research, lack of time, lack of funding, and difficulty applying research findings to their work. The facilitators included support from other 4-H colleagues and availability of 4-H specific conferences, publications, and curriculum databases

Useful Signal or Unnecessary Obstacle? The Role of Basic Skills Tests in Teacher Preparation

Many individuals who attempt to enter teacher education programs are precluded from doing so because of an inability to pass basic skills tests. The authors examine whether these tests are simply a gate that needs to be passed through or whether they provide useful early information about how individuals are likely to perform on subsequent licensure tests. By examining a pool of individuals who took both basic skills and licensure tests, the authors contrast the likelihood of passing licensure tests given how well individuals performed on the basic skills test. The results support the hypothesis that basic skills tests are measuring cognitive skills important to the learning of material required for success in attaining teacher licensure and are not simply a bureaucratic hurdle. </jats:p

California and the SAT: A Reanalysis of University of California Admissions Data

As part of the University of California's recent reconsideration of the role of the SAT in admissions, the UC Office of the President published an extensive report, UC and the SAT (2001), which examined the value of SAT I Reasoning Test scores, SAT II Subject Test scores, and high school grades in predicting the grade-point averages of UC freshmen (UCGPA), as well as the role of economic factors in predicting UCGPA. The analyses in UC and the SAT were based primarily on data that had been aggregated across freshmen cohorts (1996 through 1999) and across UC campuses. In the current study, by contrast, data were analyzed within campuses and cohorts and then summarized. While some of our conclusions are similar to those in UC and the SAT, others are not. Like the earlier study, for example, our reanalyses showed that, considered collectively, the SAT II tests required by UC (Writing, Math, and a third test of the applicant's choice) are slightly superior to the SAT I as a predictor of UCGPA. But our reanalyses also revealed considerable variability across campuses and freshman cohorts in the predictive value of high school grades and test scores, which was masked in the earlier analyses. Also, our reanalyses did not support the conclusion in UC and the SAT that SAT II scores are "less sensitive" to socioeconomic factors than SAT I scores, an assertion that was often repeated during the SAT debate that took place in 2001 and 2002