Brock University Coat of Arms

The armorial bearings for Brock University, or more simply the University Coat of Arms, or crest, was designed in a large part by Presdent Gibson, assisted by other members of the Board of Governors (A preliminary design can be seen here). The Coat of Arms was granted to Brock University on March 17th, 1965. The Coat of Arms consist of an eagle, taken from General Brock’s own arms, displayed against a scarlet background - one of the official colours of Brock University. Immediately above it on a chief argent is displayed a maple-leaf (for Canada), a scallop shell (from the Lincoln and Welland regiment), and a trillium (for the province of Ontario). An open book fronts the eagle representing learning and knowledge. The crest itself is made up of a torch symbolizing learning, surrounded by a serpent for wisdom, with two calumet or North American pipes of peace, to symbolize Canada, friendship and agreement. The supporters consist of a beaver on the dexter side, emblematic of Canada and representing work and industry in learning. On the sinister side, a brock or badger (also in commemoration of General Brock) represents tenacity of purpose. The motto 'Surgite' is visible just below the arms.

Explaining voice behaviour: The roles of personal resources, social interdependence, and supervisor leadership style

This study contributes to current research on voice behaviour by investigating several under-explored drivers that motivate employees’ expression of constructive ideas about work-related issues. It draws from the concept of psychological climate to examine how voice behaviour is influenced by employees’ (1) personal resources (tenacity and passion for work), (2) perceptions of social interdependence (task and outcome interdependence), and (3) supervisor leadership style (transformational and transactional). Using a multi-source research design, surveys were administered to 226 employees and to 24 supervisors at a Canadian-based not-for-profit organization. The hypotheses are tested with hierarchical regression analysis. The results indicate that employees are more likely to engage in voice behaviour to the extent that they exhibit higher levels of passion for work. Further, their voice behaviour is lower to the extent that their supervisor adopts a transformational leadership style characterized by high performance expectations or a transactional leadership style based on contingent rewards and contingent punishment behaviours. The study reveals that there are no significant effects of tenacity, social interdependence, and behaviour-focused transformational leadership on voice. The findings have significant implications for organizations that seek to encourage employee behaviours that help improve current work practices or undo harmful situations.