Discussion: View Thread

Mentoring models in South Asia[1]: Exploring the myriad of challenges and opportunities

Editor: Payal Kumar

(Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Background

Global leadership research has been driven by western scholars (Arvey et al, 2015), and scholarship in the realm of mentorship is no exception. In the last 15 years papers on mentorship in some of the top management journals have been from the west, and that too largely North American centric (Chandler, Kram & Yip, 2011).[2]  Only recently some studies on mentoring have begun to emerge from Asian countries such as China (Wang, Noe &Greenberger, 2009; Gong & Lee, 2011) and India (Ramaswami & Dreher, 2010; Haynes & Ghosh, 2012).

Heeding the call for more research on mentoring relationships across cultures (Chandler, Kram & Yip, 2011), this book investigates whether mentoring at the workplace and also at higher education institutions in South Asian countries takes on different hues and meaning from western models.

Many other questions arise, such as:-

1.       Levinson has alluded to the paternal nature of mentoring saying that the absence of a mentor or poor mentoring is 'the equivalent of poor parenting in childhood' (1978: 338). Is the nature of mentorship in South Asian countries more paternalistic in nature, characterized possibly by mentor over-involvement and greater protégé dependency (Kakar, 1971; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006)?

2.       Studies have suggested that some of the best mentoring in both the workplace and in academia  takes place when there is healthy communication between the mentor and protégé (Black et al, 2004), including frequent meetings and a feedback loop. How much free-wheeling communication takes place between a senior and a subordinate in countries with a high-power distance equation in which hierarchy is greatly valued (Hofstede, 1987), which are also high on uncertainty avoidance (which may mitigate providing direct feedback)?

3.       With formal mentoring in the workplace growing in India (Ramaswami and Dreher, 2010), is there a possibility that one of the outcomes of mentoring is to reinforce hierarchy by validating the mentor's role on behalf of the organization?

Book theme

This edited volume seeks to advance our knowledge on how a contextual interpretation can contribute to a greater understanding of the mentoring process, by focusing on antecedents, outcomes and correlates (such as demography, age and gender) of mentoring. South Asia is the focus area as this region is a fast-growing one which is attracting considerable interest among academics, and also amongst business leaders as an emerging strategic growth market (Khilji & Rowley, 2013).

This volume is divided into two sections: Section one dwells on challenges, outlining specific obstacles in the process of mentoring particular to this region, with suggested solutions. Section two looks at opportunities in the form of successful mentoring models that are distinctive to this region. The scope of the book extends to

mentoring at the workplace, and also mentoring at higher education establishments (for both faculty and doctoral scholars).

Here are some suggested topics for chapter proposals (this is not an exhaustive list):-

·         Is Kathy Kram's (1983) framework of four stages of mentoring (initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition) entirely replicable in South Asian countries?

·         Are both dimensions of Kathy Kram's definition of mentoring, namely of instrumental and pyscho-social development of a protégé by a mentor who has more experience (Kram, 1985), applicable to south Asian countries?

·         Are there any mentoring models that are distinctive in South Asian countries, which are more collective societies (Kumar, 2016 in print)? If so, what constitutes effective formal and informal mentoring?

·         What the ideal qualities for a mentor from a protégé perspective? What are the ideal qualities of a protégé from a mentor perspective?

·         What sort of development constellations exist for the protégé, wherein a set of people (not one mentor) are involved in the development of the protégé (Higgins & Kram, 2001)?

·         How successful is reverse mentoring, in which a junior coaches a more senior colleagues (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012)?

·         In companies with a more lateral (rather than hierarchical) structure, where most of the employees are young, how does mentoring evolve?

·         Mismatch in the mentoring dyad as per personality, values and workstyle is said to be the most frequently invoked antecedent to a negative mentoring relationship by protégés (Eby et al, 2000). Are there other categories of mismatch that may be more relevant in an Asian context, such as demographic differences?

·         Strong mentoring relationships between academic advisor and protégé are said to be those that are reciprocal (Johnson, 2002). How reciprocal are mentoring relationships at higher education institutions in South Asia?

·         Coaching is more directive and short-term, when compared to mentoring, which is developmental and long-term. In what types of industries is one more likely to come across coaching rather than mentoring? What types of organizational eco-systems facilitate coaching and mentoring?

Chapter proposals of up to 300 words are invited by 15^th February, 2016 (send to payalk1@gmail.com). These will be reviewed and feedback will be provided by 29^th February, 2016. Full chapters are to be submitted by 30^th May, 2016 (6000-7000 words, in APA style). The projected publication date is mid-2017.

References

Arvey, R., Dhanaraj, C., Javidan, M., Zhang, Z-X. (2015). Are there unique leadership models in Asia? Exploring uncharted territory. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 1-6.

Black, L. L., Suarez, E. C., & Medina, S. (2004). Helping students help themselves: Strategies for successful mentoring relationships. Counselor Education and Supervision,  44(1), 44.

Chandler, D. E., Kram, K. E., & Yip, J. (2011). An ecological systems perspective on mentoring at work: A review and future prospects. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 519-570.

Chaudhuri, S., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse mentoring a social exchange tool for keeping the boomers engaged and millennials committed. Human resource development review, 11(1), 55-76.

Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. (2000). The protege's perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(1), 1-21.

Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring. Professional psychology: Research and practice, 33(1), 88.

Gong, R., Chen, S. Y., & Lee, S. L. (2011). Does mentoring work? The mediating effect of mentoring in China. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 39(6), 807-824.

Haynes, R. K., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Towards mentoring the Indian organizational woman: Propositions, considerations, and first steps. Journal of World Business, 47(2), 186-193.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264-288.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1997). Cultures and organizations. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Kakar, S. (1971). Authority Patterns & Subordinate Behavior in Indian Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 (3), 298-307

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management journal, 26(4), 608-625.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview. IL: Scott Foresman.

Khilji, S., & Rowley, C. (2013). Globalization, Change and Learning in South Asia. Elsevier.

Kumar, P. (2016, in print). A critical review of some common assumptions in the literature on formal mentoring. (Eds. Audrey J. Murrell & Stacy Blake-beard). Mentoring Diverse Leaders:  Creating Change for People, Processes and Paradigms, Taylor & Francis, 2016

Levinson, D. J. (1978). Growing up with the dream. Psychology Today, 11(8), 20-34.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader–member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2), 264-279.

Ramaswami, A., & Dreher, G. F. (2010). Dynamics of mentoring relationships in India: A qualitative, exploratory study. Human Resource Management, 49(3), 501-530.

Wang, S., Noe, R. A., Wang, Z. M., & Greenberger, D. B. (2009). What affects willingness to mentor in the future? An investigation of attachment styles and mentoring experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 245-256.

* Apologies for the cross posting *

Double-edged sword: The leader as the servant; and the servant as the leader

Editor: Dr. Crystal J. Davis, DM

The subject of leadership is complex.  Since the 1980s, there were many theoretical approaches and scholars attempting to define leadership.  Bass and Bass (2008) suggested leadership and its theories are varied and there was no conclusive definition of leadership.  Despite the enormous amount of research on leadership, information regarding leadership theories, behaviors of leaders and followers, and other leadership attributes and characteristics are limited (Gill, 2009).

Researchers who specialize in the area of servant leadership have concluded that the presence of servant leadership may be essential for creating adaptive and successful organizations.  Given the demand and concern for ethical and moral behavior especially since the global recession as a result of the subprime crisis in 2007, and leaders' and followers' conscious awareness of others and the greater world community, interest in servant leadership and servant leadership behavior has grown substantially.

A limited body of evidence exists regarding the ways in which self-identified servant leaders implement servant leadership behavior in the organizational setting, including personal sacrifice that passionate belief in a greater good – something beyond self-interest (Myatt, 2015).  Gaining additional information on the ways in which self-identified servant leaders apply this type of leadership in organizations is valuable to enable organizations to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

Servant leadership theory addresses both the leader and the follower roles, and suggests that meeting the needs of the followers allows leaders to improve decision-making, and face the unique challenges presented to modern organizations (Savage-Austin, 2011).  In servant leadership, the leader internalizes an attitude of selfless service, acting as a steward over leadership responsibilities and followers (Greenleaf, 1977).  Myatt (2015) argued, "Real leadership begins in the moment you realize leadership has little to do with the leader, and everything to do with those the leader serves" (pg. 1).

Several positive outcomes are associated with servant leadership. Saboe's (2010) research findings, drawing on self-determination theory (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000) defined that individuals experience greater well-being, higher performance levels, and meaningful fulfillment when their needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness are met (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Mayer, Bardes, and Piccolo (2008) posited that by satisfying follower needs, servant leadership behaviors were positively related to followers' job satisfaction.  Mayer, Bardes, and Piccolo's (2008) findings, along with SDT, and the theory of servant leadership, followers of leaders who behave as servant leaders are likely to pursue their leaders' aims both in creed and in deed, rather than merely the latter. In this manner, SDT suggests that the followers' experience increased welfare and performance.

This volume addresses both the leader as servant, and also the less researched area of the followers' perspective of servant leadership. We view servant leadership as a new consciousness of leading that considers a plethora of ways in which leaders respond to and work with followers at every level of an organization. In this vein, we specifically aim for contributions from scholars on how servant leadership is practiced in organizational settings.  Questions include (this is not an exhaustive list):

·         Is servant leadership followership possible in organizations that have short-sighted self-interests? What are the limiting and enabling factors for followers?

·         How is servant leadership different from other forms of leadership from the follower perspective? For example, what is the role of organizational culture? How are virtual teams incorporated?

·         What do case studies demonstrate for followers with regard to the differences between introducing servant leadership in established organizations as opposed to servant leadership in start-ups, scaling organizations, or family-run enterprises?

·         What are the opportunities for followers of servant leadership/servant leaders in addressing issues in management such as spirituality in the workplace and/or diversity in the workplace?

·         How does servant leadership inform followership and/or relational performance in the workplace?

·         Which personal factors e.g. emotional intelligence affect followers of servant leaders in organizations?

·         How does servant leadership become the most sustainable form of leadership from the follower perspective? From the follower perspective, what role does organizational structure and organizational culture play in this?

·         How does effective decision-making work for followers in servant-led organizations? Does consensus leadership play a role? How is conflict resolution addressed in this type of leadership?

·         Cross-disciplinary approach: How does servant leadership resonate with other management concepts, for instance, a learner-centered approach or learning organization, knowledge management, innovation, creativity, complex adaptive systems (CAS), spirituality in the workplace, etc., for followers in servant-led organizations?

·         Does servant leadership have a role to play in the context of disability in diversity management?

Proposals Submission Deadline: May 13, 2016

·         Interested authors are invited to submit chapter proposal (maximum two pages) to crystaldavis2126@gmail.com clearly stating in what way their chapter will uniquely contribute towards this theme. Feedback on proposals will be provided by June 15^th, 2016.

·         Full Chapters Due: November 30, 2016

Authors are responsible for submitting a well-written and edited final draft to the editor, 6000 to 7000 words long, written in APA style. The chapters will undergo a double blind peer review. This book is scheduled to be published by Palgrave MacMillan towards the end of 2017.

References

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008).  The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research &

managerial applications (4th ed.).  New York, NY: Free Press.

Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal

            of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.

Pg.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977).  Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness.  New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An

organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

17(2), 180-197.

Myatt, M. (2015). Forbes: Leadership. Retrieved from

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2015/02/19/the-1-thing-holding-you-back-as-a-

            leader/#4f8433cf4289

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,

            social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Saboe, K. N. (2010). Prioritizing those who follow: Servant leadership, needs satisfaction, and positive

 employee outcomes. (Graduate Theses and Dissertations). Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/CJDav/Desktop/Editorial%20Volume%20on%20SL/Prioritizing%20those%20wh

o%20follow-%20Servant%20leadership%20needs%20satisfac.pdf

Savage-Austin, A. R. (2011).  Servant leadership: A phenomenological study of

practices, experiences, organizational effectiveness, and barriers (Doctoral

dissertation).  Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.  (UMI No. 3369475)

*Apologies for cross postings*

Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Models in India

Anirudh Agrawal and Payal Kumar

(Palgrave Macmillan)

Social Entrepreneurship is the process of creating social value for those at the margins of the economic center (Filipe, 2012). The social entrepreneur is a change agent in society who seeks opportunity in social disequilibrium (Hockerts, 2010) and institutional voids (Mair & Marti, 2009), and uses creative strategies (Di Domenico, Haugh, & Tracey, 2010) and entrepreneuring (Mair, Battilana, & Cardenas, 2012) in order to create social enterprise.

Social enterprise addresses social problems and helps those at the margins by using creative means (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010; Di Domenico et al., 2010), while simultaneously leveraging the personality of the social entrepreneur (Smith, Besharov, Wessels, & Chertok, 2012), and seeking rents both from the social problem and markets to ensure that the dividends generated while running the enterprise are used for the benefit of the marginalized and not channeled towards the shareholders (Yunus & Jolis, 1999).

The promise of social entrepreneurship in a country like India is enormous as there are large vicissitudes. While the country is growing at a very high GDP rate, the social and economic challenges are dividing the country at an alarming rate. In addition, the level of funds for welfare requirements like the education, healthcare and public transport, are fast decreasing, and the for-profit business models remain out of reach of the people. In this context, the socially conscious and emphatic citizens are coming together either as a civil society (Arjaliès, 2010) or individually, to create organizations that assist in welfare activities (Mair & Noboa, 2006).

Historically, India has led the way in social entrepreneurship through Sulabh Toilet Project, Seva Café, SEWA and also a plethora of self help groups. Most recently, social enterprises like the TAPF, CRY, Aravind Eye Care are striving hard to innovate and address social issues in an effective manner. The increasing acceptance of social entrepreneurship as a viable option can be seen not just from the rise of such enterprises, but also by the trend in the top higher educational institutions in the country, such as IRMA, TISS, IIT Chennai, IIM Bangalore, IIM Calcutta, to have developed dedicated programs on social entrepreneurship.

In terms of research productivity, there is some research work by Sonne et al. that dwells on the emerging class of social entrepreneurs and impact investment, which is a market perspective on the emergence of the social entrepreneur (2012; 2014). Much of the work by scholars on social entrepreneurship in the Indian context was published after the seminal book on The Fortune at the Bottom of The Pyramid by Prahalad (2004). The book was framed considering the poor as a potential market and explained how firms should innovate business models and products to monetize this market. Consequently, the social entrepreneurial research that followed also looked at social business models providing goods and services to the poor (Linna, 2012; Olsen & Boxenbaum, 2009; Seelos & Mair, 2007). The downside of this research narrative was that many firms ended marketing inconsequential products and services to the poor, lowering their savings (Garrette & Karnani, 2009; Karnani, 2009).

More social entrepreneurial research came to light after the IPO of SKS micro-finance (Gunjan, Soumyadeep, & Srijit, 2010). In both the BOP business models and SKS microfinance case, the social impact was considered implicit to the business model. In other words, if a firm 'serve's' the interest of the poor, it is creating social value, without having to indulge in base-line studies and social impact measurement post-intervention.

While this research work is of significant value, India still lacks specific theorization, and robust empirical validation in this area in terms of research productivity (British Council India, 2015). In this volume, we strive to provide empirical work that not only looks at the social innovation from social entrepreneurial perspective but also strives to present a more realistic and critical perspective on social entrepreneurship eco-system in India.

Recent institutionalization of social entrepreneurship practice and impact investment in UK and Europe (Harkiolakis & Mourad, 2012; Heyman, 2013; Spear, Cornforth, & Aiken, 2009) clarifying financial disclosures, social impact and development of both the social and market space, calls for further theorization and operationalization of various elements of social entrepreneurship. Drawing from the institutionalized history of social entrepreneurship in UK and Europe, this edited volume strives to present empirical and theoretical peer reviewed chapters, in order to provide a deeper understanding of the social entrepreneurial eco-system in India, for scholars, entrepreneurs and policy makers.

This book will be divided into two sections: Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Models. Each section shall have a series of dedicated conceptual, review and empirical papers.

Some of the possible research questions we hope to address through this review are (this is not an exhaustive list):-

1.  Social Entrepreneurship

·         How social entrepreneurship is different from Capitalism? Is it just a hidden veneer legitimizing capitalism?

·         Discuss historical context of social entrepreneurship in India?

·         Discuss with cases the regional context of social entrepreneurship in India?

·         How do institutional voids influence social entrepreneurship in the context of India?

·         How are social enterprises creating innovative products and services to serve the poor?

·         Defining and reviewing social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurial eco-system in the context of India, outlining the societal and governmental context?

·         What can we learn about social entrepreneurship in India from different cases and context that is different and unique compared to India?

·         Discuss and theorize scaling of social enterprises?

·         Discuss and theorize multi-stakeholder social enterprises in India?

·         How federal system of governance impact social entrepreneurship in India?

·         Discuss and theorize the scope, development and potential of social entrepreneurship in India?

·         How impact investing is shaping social entrepreneurial ecosystem?

2. Sustainable Business Models 

·         What are the different sustainable business models in India? How sustainable value is transferred from creator to the beneficiary?

·         How do sustainable business models address institutional voids present in India?

·         Discuss and theorize business models that help manage social and commercial benefits?

·         Discuss and theorize sustainable business models that help in employment, growth and development of the social enterprise?

·         How effective are impact-investing models? Are they really creating any social value? Discuss if not analysis of impact investing?

Chapter proposals of up to 300 words are invited by 30th November, 2016 (send to anirudh.agrawal@outlook.com). These will be reviewed and feedback will be provided by 15^th December, 2016. Full chapters are to be submitted by 31^st May, 2017 (6000 words in APA style). The projected publication date is mid-2018.

References:

Arjaliès, D.-L. (2010). A Social Movement Perspective on Finance: How Socially Responsible Investment Mattered. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(S1), 57–78.

British Council India. (2015). Social Enterprise: An Overview of the Policy Framework in India. At the crossroads of market, public policies and.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.

Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703.

Filipe, S. (2012). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.

Garrette, B., & Karnani, A. (2009). Challenges in Marketing Socially Useful Goods to the Poor.

Gunjan, M., Soumyadeep, S., & Srijit, S. (2010). IPO in the India Microfinance Industry: A SKS Microfinance Perspective. Advances in Management, 3(5), 23–30.

Harkiolakis, N., & Mourad, L. (2012). Research Initiatives of the European Union in the Areas of Sustainability , Entrepreneurship , and Poverty Alleviation By, 717, 73–79.

Heyman, M. (2013). The Emergence and Growth of Social Finance in the UK. Lund, Sweden.

Hockerts, K. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship Between Market and Mission. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2; interested in the transformation of a sector induced by social entrepreneurship. More specifically), 1–22.

Karnani, A. (2009). The Bottom of the Pyramid Strategy for Reducing Poverty : A Failed Promise. Economic and Social Affairs, (80).

Linna, P. (2012). Base of the pyramid (BOP) as a source of innovation: Experiences of companies in the Kenyan mobile sector. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 11(2), 113–137.

Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for Society: A Typology of Social Entrepreneuring Models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 353–373.

Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.

Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship : How intentions to create a social venture are Formed. In Social Entrepreneurship.

Olsen, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). Bottom of the pyramid : Organizational Barriers to Implementation. California Management Review, 51(4), 100–126.

Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Wharton School Publishing.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2007). Profitable Business Models and Market Creation in the Context of Deep Poverty: A Strategic View. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 49–63.

Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A Paradoxical Leadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs: Challenges, Leadership Skills, and Pedagogical Tools for Managing Social and Commercial Demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463–478.

Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). THE GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISES: EVIDENCE FROM A UK EMPIRICAL STUDY. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 247–273.

Yunus, M., & Jolis, A. (1999). Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty.