In times of change, leaders need to be more agile than ever. Adapting to new business strategies, working across cultures, dealing with temporary virtual teams, and taking on new assignments all demand that leaders be flexible and agile. But what does being "agile" mean? Are some leaders better at this than others and, if so, how did they get to be that way? Researchers at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL ®) and Teachers College, Columbia University investigated these questions resulting in some important conclusions for leaders who wish to thrive in today's turbulent times.

Deutsch’s theory of conflict resolution is a vital model for understanding the fundamental dynamics of conflict and its constructive resolution. However, the original formulation of the theory assumed equal power and equal degrees of interdependence between the parties in conflict. Although subsequent research has investigated the effects of relative power and interdependence differences on negotiations and conflict, they have yet to be integrated into one model that can account for interactions between the dimensions. This article presents research investigating propositions from a new, integrated model of power, interdependence, and conflict, which extends Deutsch’s theory into situations of asymmetrical power and interdependence. First, two exploratory studies are described that set the foundation for our model. Then, an experiment is presented that induced differences in relative power and interdependence through different versions of a work conflict scenario. The findings supported our model. Different combinations of relative power (high, equal, or low), types of interdependence (cooperative, competitive, or mixed), and degrees of interdependence (high or low) led to significantly different conflict orientations—which affected perceptions, experiences, and responses to conflict. Implications for future research are discussed.

Many of the most difficult conflicts people face at work are up and down; with bosses, supervisors, and important clients, or with direct reports, staff, or other employees who differ from them in terms of their power and interests. However, much of the research on power differences and conflict tends to be piecemeal, decontextualized, and focused on negative consequences. This paper presents 2 studies that investigated a new situated model of conflict and power at work. They build on classic areas of research on social conflict, power, and interdependence; and integrate them into a coherent framework for organizational conflict research. The study methods and findings are presented, and their implications for research on work conflict are discussed.

Having struggled for several years with not only trying to define learning agility but attempting to measure this construct as well (Mitchinson, Gerard, Roloff, & Burke, 2012;Mitchinson & Morris, 2012)-a far more daunting task-it is our desire to state at the outset that we are grateful to DeRue, Ashford, and Myers ( 2012) for (a) their work on ''conceptual clarity '' and (b) helping us feel that we are no longer alone in our pursuit of definition and relevant theory. With these points in mind, we have three comments to contribute to the focal article. First, although the article provides academic rigor to the construct of learning agility that, to date, has been lacking, it potentially comes at a cost to the practical use of the construct's origins. Second, although the authors place much needed effort on clarifying exactly what is meant by the term ''agility,'' we argue that the term ''learning'' requires equal-perhaps greater-scrutiny. Finally, we close with an exploration of some of the benefits and challenges of constructing a measure of learning agility based on this new model.

In times of change, leaders need to be more agile than ever. Adapting to new business strategies, working across cultures, dealing with temporary virtual teams, and taking on new assignments all demand that leaders be flexible and agile. But what does being "agile" mean? Are some leaders better at this than others and, if so, how did they get to be that way? Researchers at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL ®) and Teachers College, Columbia University investigated these questions resulting in some important conclusions for leaders who wish to thrive in today's turbulent times.