Developing the Leadership Team in an Entrepreneurial Venture: A Case Focusing on the Importance of Styles John Darling, College of Business, University of Texas – San Antonio Anita Leffel, College of Business, University of Texas – San Antonio Abstract. In today’s competitive environment strongly influenced by increasingly new issues and perspectives, entrepreneurial business firms must be focused on leadership team-building. The purpose of this treatise is to present a conceptual case-based analysis of this team-building process, focusing on the importance of leadership styles within an entrepreneurship. Team-building implies mentoring and enhancement whereby members of a leadership team are nurtured and developed in important ways. A key element of this process is the paradigm of individual leadership styles represented in the team which, in turn, reflects the many different ways by which the individuals involved behave, communicate, adjust, and respond to each other. Two interactive dimensions at the heart of an individual’s behavior—assertiveness and responsiveness—are foundations of that person’s leadership style. The basic interactive dimensions of assertiveness and responsiveness thereby form the two axes of the framework of the leadership styles paradigm, the four primary quadrants of which represent the four styles— Analyzer, Director, Creator and Connector. Having identified these four basic leadership styles, this analysis then focuses on the case situation within which the strengths and weaknesses of each of the styles are identified, communication preferences are discussed, primary backup styles that come into focus due to high levels of stress are analyzed, and the all-important skill of style flex is described. It is not enough just to understand a person’s leadership style or the style of others in an entrepreneurial leadership team; one must also seek to adapt the skills of style flex that can enable the parties to function in a mutually beneficial situation congruent with the needs of the individuals and the organization. These dimensions are illustrated in association with the case of MedTech, Inc. (a pseudonym), along with observations relating to the authors’ experiences in several other arenas that have been encountered in entrepreneurial consulting activities. Résumé. Dans l’environnement compétitif d’aujourd’hui fortement influencé par le nombre croissant de problèmes et de perspectives, les entreprises doivent mettre l’accent sur la promotion du travail en équipe chez la direction. Cet article a pour but de présenter une analyse conceptuelle, basée sur des cas, de ce processus de promotion du travail en équipe, en se penchant particulièrement sur l’importance des styles de leadership au sein d’une entreprise. La promotion du travail en équipe requiert un processus de mentorat et d’amélioration qui a pour but de soutenir et de former les membres de l’équipe de direction de façons importantes. Un élément clé de ce processus est le paradigme des divers styles de leadership que l’on rencontre parmi les membres de l’équipe, qui reflète les diverses façons dont les individus impliqués se comportent, communiquent, s’ajustent et agissent entre eux. Deux dimensions interactives du comportement d’un individu, l’affirmation de soi et la réceptivité, sont à la base du style de leadership d’un individu. Ces deux dimensions interactives que sont l’affirmation de soi et la réceptivité forment donc les deux axes du cadre du paradigme des styles de leadership. Les quatre quadrants principaux de celui-ci représentent les quatre styles : analyseur, directeur, créateur, et connecteur. Ayant défini ces quatre styles principaux de leadership, cet article met l’accent sur des cas mettant en lumière les forces et faiblesses de chacun de ces styles. De plus, on y trouve une analyse des modes de communication privilégiés et des styles auxiliaires principaux qui retiennent l’attention due à un haut niveau de stress, ainsi qu’une description d’une compétence d’importance cruciale, c’est-à-dire d’avoir un style flexible. Cependant, il n’est pas suffisant de comprendre le style de leadership d’un individu ou le style d’autres membres de l’équipe de leadership de l’entreprise. Il faut s’efforcer d’adapter les compétences du style flexible qui peuvent permettre aux parties impliquées de travailler dans une situation qui est bénéfique pour tous et qui respecte les besoins des individus et de l’entreprise. Ces divers aspects sont illustrés par le cas de MedTech Inc. (un pseudonyme), en plus d’inclure des observations des auteurs liées à leurs expériences dans plusieurs autres domaines et tirées de leurs activités de consultations dans les entreprises.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 23, no. 3 (2010): pp. 355-371
355
356
darling and leffel
Introduction It is truly an awesome era in which to lead in an entrepreneurial venture—not an era that brings fear or panic to the leadership arena—but an era that offers, as has no other time in history, opportunities for those who are willing to take upon themselves the responsibilities that are inherent in the guidance of leadership team-building within an entrepreneurial setting (Darling, Keeffe and Ross, 2006). In the fulfillment of these responsibilities, leading has become a process that helps to transform a diverse group of individuals, often from various cultural domains, into operational teams that can successfully achieve the mission and strategic objectives of an organization (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004). The purpose of this article is to present a conceptual case-based analysis of the leadership style dimensions in an entrepreneurial venture and, particularly, to explore one aspect of the leadership team-building process—application of the key paradigm of leadership style balance and support within the parameters of an operational team. This will be done with the recognition that, for the entrepreneurial firm of today, this must be a primary competitive advantage accomplished with precision and expertise (Nurmi and Darling, 1997; and Day, 1999). Styles within and among the members of a leadership team are reflected by the manner in which the individuals think, interact, communicate and adjust to one another—thereby helping to develop a supportive, mutually beneficial and interactive group to facilitate the accomplishments of the team to be greater than the sum of its parts. Different leadership styles create different influences on the entrepreneurial spirit (Morrison, 2000). For this reason, the team leader affects other team members, encouraging and facilitating competencies within small businesses (Bennis and Biederman, 1998). In this context, leadership team-building implies a mentoring and enhancement process whereby members of a team are nurtured and developed in important ways (Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy, 2009). Businesses benefit from how well the individual entrepreneur inspires and transmits a collaborative and entrepreneurial spirit to the team. Together, these result in an enhanced trust, respect and support of the overall leadership milieu, improved individual and collective performance behaviors that contribute to the achievement of organizational goals, and individual and team-based motivation to perform at high levels (George and Jones, 2005). A key element of this scenario is the paradigm of individual leadership styles represented in the team; because it is that paradigm that indelibly affects the many different ways by which the individuals involved behave, communicate, adjust, and respond to each other. Perhaps it is important to briefly note some important ways by which leadership is distinguished from management. There is, of course, a profound difference between management and leadership, and without doubt both are important in an entrepreneurial venture. To manage means to bring about, to accomplish, to have responsibility for, and to conduct. To lead means to influence, to guide in direction, course, action, or opinion. The distinction is crucial. The difference may be summarized as activities of controlling resources, and mastering procedures and routines, which facilitate efficiency as a manager, versus activities of communication, coordination and mentoring among people, which facilitate effectiveness as a leader (Darling, Keeffe and Ross, 2006). Throughout this analysis, the primary focus is on the key paradigm of leadership styles that are exercised in the process of team-building within an entrepreneurial venture.
developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture
357
Case Presentation The dimensions introduced above are illustrated and analyzed through the case of MedTech, Inc. (a pseudonym). This analysis also includes observations from the authors’ experiences in other entrepreneurial arenas. MedTech is based in Chicago, Illinois, and is a manufacturer and distributer of medical laboratory equipment primarily for hospitals and clinics. The firm has been in existence for over two decades, and holds international patents on several unique products, including a relatively new computer-based blood analysis device that measures several potential medical issues associated with the human digestive system. The firm has competitively established itself as a major equipment supplier to hospitals and clinics throughout the NAFTA countries of Canada, Mexico and the United States. Using its established competitive strength in the NAFTA markets as a major advantage, and led by the strong entrepreneurial interests and capabilities of its founder and CEO, Robert Carney, the firm made a decision to enter the European Union market with its broad range of products. Initial market research indicated that MedTech should, within a relatively short period of time, be able to establish a strong competitive position in the EU. Charles Newman, a native of the UK and educated in Canada, was appointed to the position of Vice-President for European Operations. He was viewed as a very competent addition to the firm’s international leadership team due, in large part, to his history of success as a member of the entrepreneurial Product Development Division of the company, and to his technical expertise, appropriate assertiveness, and responsiveness to associates. Newman’s experience in the product development operations of MedTech during a five-year period of time was considered to be of major importance in responsibly serving potential new customers in the EU market. Newman enjoyed the introductory week-long leadership training program led by Carney and Kristine Johnson, Senior Vice-President for Operations, who had recently assumed her new responsibilities following a successful experience as a coordinator in the Information Technology Division of MedTech. Johnson was well-liked, but was initially viewed as being quite precise and well-organized in her interactions with associates and members of her operational leadership team. During the leadership training program, Newman and the other vice-presidents focused on the responsibilities that were of primary importance to achieving the goals of MedTech in the various national markets in which the firm was operating or was planning to operate. About two months following the training program and Newman’s assumption of his vice-presidential responsibilities and move to London, Johnson began to realize that something was not quite right. The problem was not Newman’s position itself—he seemed to enjoy the initial opening of the EU market, recruitment of personnel, initial meetings with some potentially key customers in the UK, France and Germany, and his many other responsibilities. In fact, as a successful entrepreneurial product development person, he had said that he often dreamed of some day returning to his native country and helping to open up that market for MedTech. He seemed to particularly enjoy his new opportunities to directly affect the growth and development of the organization. In fact, his perception of the position of Vice-President for European Operations was fine. However, Johnson felt that the communications and interaction between the two of them were not as effective as they needed to be. During the initial leadership training program, Newman had met with Johnson to discuss the development of a detailed marketing plan for Europe. Soon after relocating to London and opening MedTech’s office there, he was to develop the plan and submit it
358
darling and leffel
to Johnson. In an effort to enhance and further develop her international leadership team, Johnson made a special visit to London to, among other things, again discuss with Newman the details that were to be in the marketing plan: targeted prospective customers, product inventory investments and control, personnel needed, promotional support necessary, and other items. Johnson reminded Newman the plan needed to be developed as soon as possible because its implementation promised to be both difficult and time-consuming in a new market like the EU. Throughout their discussion, Newman listened and demonstrated a great deal of excitement and expectation; he seemed to understand the general aspects of the plan, and commented extensively. That was about a month ago. On one occasion when Johnson recently pointed this out, Newman seemed somewhat upset and said he would contact her as soon as he completed the plan. As noted above, the primary purpose of this article is to introduce leadership teambuilding, and to focus on the key paradigm of leadership styles as a tool whereby leaders such as Kristina Johnson, within an entrepreneurial-based organization, can more effectively engage in successful team development, particularly when the parameters involve the many issues concerned with operations in an arena influenced by an involved founder and entrepreneur. Soriano and Martinez (2007) propose in their study of leadership in small to medium-sized enterprises that although leadership styles may not directly affect the innovation outcomes of a small business, these outcomes may be affected by style sensitivity and the commensurate collaboration among members of that firm. The concept of interactive leadership styles does provide a valuable paradigm for helping the leadership in such an organization understand themselves and their associates, enhancing their development and perceived value to the organization, and thereby facilitating achievement of established goals and objectives (McKenna, Shelton and Darling, 2002). Team-building, through an understanding and use of leadership styles, thereby provides a basis for visualizing the interpersonal strengths and weaknesses of individuals, and also procedures for dealing more effectively with organizational enhancements. Models for communication, high-stress response skills, and interpersonal flexing are identified as techniques through which individuals are able to adjust their leadership styles to enhance effectiveness within the team situation. This enables all members of a leadership team to more effectively understand the basis of their own behavior, and to more meaningfully and successfully enhance relationships with each other. Some social scientists might refer to this incident between Johnson and Newman as a communication problem or a difference in personality. Others might view it as a lack of sensitivity or understanding on the part of one or both individuals. However, perhaps it can best be viewed as a possible difference in interactive leadership styles. In a setting like this case, differences in styles can often cause frustration and resentment in entrepreneurialbased organizations, adding to other differences that may exist, and even leading to an individual’s possible resignation and untimely departure (Shelton, McKenna and Darling, 2002). The leaders in entrepreneurial ventures affect the attitudes and behavior of other team members. In a study of characteristics that make leaders successful, the inability to adapt to individuals with different styles has been identified as a major contributor to failure in leadership interactions and decision-making (McCall and Lombardo, 1983). Concept of Leadership Style A person’s interactive leadership style reflects a pervasive and enduring set of interpersonal behaviors. Rather than focusing primarily on the innermost workings of one’s personality or on one’s values or beliefs, leadership style focuses on how one acts, i.e., on what one
developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture
359
says and does. Does a person ask questions or issue commands? Decide issues quickly or analyze the facts in detail before making decisions? Confront difficult situations directly or avoid them? Allow policies to govern or adapt policies to fit changing conditions? Individuals have been fascinated with one another’s interactive differences over the ages. Beginning with the early astrologers, theorists attempted to identify these interactive styles. In ancient Greece, for example, the physician, Hippocrates, identified four temperaments—Sanguine, Phlegmatic, Melancholic, and Choleric; and, in 1921, famed psychologist, Carl Jung, who was the first individual known to scientifically study personal styles, described them as: Intuitor, Thinker, Feeler and Sensor (Keirsey and Bates, 1984). Since then, psychologists and others have produced many different models of interactive differences, some with numerous possible personality blends. Sometimes the various styles have been given abstract behavioral science names, while others have been named after birds, flowers, animals, or even colors (Birkman, 1995). However, a model that has been used throughout the centuries has focused on the grouping of interactive behaviors into four somewhat distinct categories. Blending the thoughts of several scholars, these interactive leadership styles are herein referred to as: Analyzer, Director, Creator, and Connector. No one of these leadership styles is considered to be necessarily better or worse than any other, and everyone’s interactive style has been in existence from early childhood—a function of both heredity and early environmental influences, and thereby affected by early childhood training and education. Research by the authors indicates that all four styles are found in the populations of all industrialized countries, although not necessarily evenly distributed. Each person has a dominant interactive leadership style that is reflected in how that individual works, interacts and communicates with others. For example, the basic reason why an individual is not appointed to a given leadership position may often be a function of the appropriateness of the particular leadership style that person would bring to the position and organization. This leadership style is readily observed in other people, and is often difficult, or perhaps even impossible, for a person to correctly identify in him/herself. Therefore, the observation of an individual is the key to understanding a person’s interactive leadership style, and the best way for an individual to identify his/her own interactive style is to receive feedback from others with whom he/she is involved. Basic Leadership Styles Researchers generally agree that two interactive dimensions in human behavior— assertiveness and responsiveness—determine one’s leadership style (Merrill and Reid, 1981). Assertiveness is the degree to which behaviors are seen by others as being directive or nondirective. Responsiveness is the degree to which behaviors are seen as emotionally expressive or emotionally controlled (see Figure 1). Less assertive people generally refrain from expressing opinions and taking control of situations, while more assertive individuals tend to be more active in these types of situations. Less responsive people are rather guarded in expressing their feelings, while more responsive individuals tend to react noticeably to their own emotions and to those of others. See Figure 2 for examples of assertive and responsive dimensions. The determination of leadership style is based almost exclusively on observable data from human relationships. Mehrabian (1971) emphasized that types of behaviors of individuals can be grouped together in clusters. For example, a highly assertive individual exhibits not just one assertive type of interaction, but a pattern of interrelated behaviors. A highly responsive person does likewise with an interrelated group of responsive
360
darling and leffel
Figure 1. Major Interactive Dimensions of Leadership Style LESS RESPONSIVE
MORE ASSERTIVE
LESS ASSERTIVE
MORE RESPONSIVE
Figure 2. Examples of Interactive Dimensions in Leadership Style 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Less use of gestures. Less facial expressiveness. Appear less friendly. Dress more formally. Less expression of feelings. More task-oriented. Less interest in small talk. More time use discipline. LESS RESPONSIVE
LESS ASSERTIVE
Move more slowly. Speak more slowly. Speak more softly. Are less confrontational. Are “ask” oriented. Decide less quickly. Less risk oriented. Less eye contact.
MORE ASSERTIVE
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
MORE RESPONSIVE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Gesture more frequently. More facial expressiveness. Appear friendlier. Dress less formally. More expression of feelings. More people oriented. More interest in small talk. Less time use discipline.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Move more rapidly. Speak more quickly. Speak more loudly. Are more confrontational. Are “tell” oriented. Decide more quickly. More risk oriented. More eye contact.
developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture
361
interactions. Thus, the foundation for leadership style rests on the clusters of behaviors that people exhibit in interactive situations. The basic interactive dimensions of assertiveness and responsiveness form the two axes of the leadership styles paradigm. Each quadrant of the paradigm represents one of the four leadership styles—Analyzer, Director, Creator, or Connector (see Figure 3). Note that the analysis presented herein focuses primarily on the four major quadrants of the leadership styles paradigm. A more detailed analysis would require subdividing each of these quadrants into more precise subsets or sub-quadrants.
ANALYZER (Strengths: Logical, Thorough, Serious, Systematic, Critical, Precise, Prudent)
LESS RESPONSIVENESS
Figure 3. Interactive Dimensions and Strengths of Leadership Styles
MORE RESPONSIVENESS
(Strengths: Cooperative, Loyal, Supportive, Diplomatic, Patient, Easygoing, Respectful)
(Strengths: Independent, Candid, Decisive, Pragmatic, Determined, Efficient, Objective)
MORE ASSERTIVENESS
LESS ASSERTIVENESS
CONNECTOR
DIRECTOR
CREATOR (Strengths: Imaginative, Friendly, Enthusiastic, Outgoing, Excitable, Persuasive, Spontaneous)
Although no single leadership style necessarily works better than any other, situational variables often call for different leadership styles, and the authors’ research on entrepreneurial leadership and team-building has led to the conclusion that flexibility—the ability to get along with individuals whose styles differ from one’s own—frequently distinguishes success or lack of success in a leadership team situation (Meyerson, 2001). Consider Kristine Johnson’s situation. She needed to adjust her leadership style to effectively work with Charles Newman. However, in working with the other members in her leadership team, she may need to adjust her style quite differently. A leadership style adjustment by Newman was also necessary to effectively interact with Johnson and thereby facilitate appropriate team-building in MedTech. A low level of assertiveness and a low level of responsiveness are characteristic of the Analyzer leadership style. Analyzer types tend to take precise, deliberate and systematic approaches to their leadership responsibilities, and usually gather and evaluate a great deal of data before they act. Also, Analyzers are generally industrious, objective and wellorganized. They are self-controlled and generally cautious leaders who prefer analysis over emotion. They also prefer clarity and order, often are viewed as being a bit formal, and tend to resist compromise in problem situations. Analyzer-type leaders often find their career tracks in such fields as engineering, accounting, finance, and law.
362
darling and leffel
In their style, Director-type leaders blend a high level of assertiveness with a relatively low level of emotional responsiveness. Such leaders tend to be task-oriented, know where they want the organization to go and what they personally want to achieve in the process, express themselves succinctly, and get to the point quickly in the communication milieu. Directors are typically pragmatic, results-oriented and objective. They are usually quite independent, willing to take risks, and are valued for their ability to get things done. These types of individuals often find their way into positions of authority and central decisionmaking in organizations. Directors are firm and forceful leaders, confident as well as competitive, decisive, and generally determined risk-takers in interactive leadership situations. While their impatience can sometimes generate concern by others and, in some cases, high degrees of conflict, Directors leave little doubt about who is in charge of an issue under consideration. High levels of both assertiveness and emotional responsiveness are reflected in the Creator leadership style. Creator types tend to look at the big picture; often take fresh, novel and innovative approaches to leadership issues; and are willing to take risks in order to seize opportunities, particularly in interactive leadership situations. A Creator’s ability to charm, persuade, excite and inspire people with visions of the future can be a strong motivating force. Individuals with this leadership style are often attracted to careers in design, entertainment, the arts, advertising and sales. These individuals are outgoing, optimistic and enthusiastic, and like to be at the center of things. Creators are out-of-thebox thinkers and innovative leaders who typically have lots of ideas and enjoy discussing them at length. The Connector style combines a comparatively low level of assertiveness with a high degree of responsiveness. Leaders reflecting this style tend to be sympathetic to the needs of others and are quite sensitive to what lies below someone’s surface behavior. Connectortype leaders quite often are attracted to positions in such areas as human resources, counseling, nursing, and classroom teaching. Of the various leadership styles, Connector types are most likely to use empathy and understanding in leadership problem-solving situations. In addition, the Connector’s trust in others often brings out the best in his/ her colleagues. Connectors are genial team members who like stability in interpersonal relationships more than risk, and who care greatly about relationships with others. They are likeable, often somewhat timid and slow to change, and generally resist direct confrontational involvement. Styles within Leadership Teams Effective leadership teams are made up of and value all four types of styles, and the most productive leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture will usually have a balance of individuals who reflect each style. According to management consultant Peter Drucker (1973), leadership tasks require at least four different kinds of human beings: the thought person (Analyzer), the action person (Director), the front person (Creator), and the people person (Connector). Drucker also suggests that finding the strengths of all four styles in one person is virtually impossible. Thus, a willingness to recognize and develop individuals who basically represent each style can enable a leadership team to reflect the assets of all four styles in its collective decision-making. Within the MedTech organization, on the one hand, Senior Vice-President Kristine Johnson reflects an Analyzer leadership style, encompassing low levels of assertiveness and responsiveness. Such individuals contain their emotions and tend to reach conclusions
developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture
363
methodically. They gather facts, ask questions and study data. They also tend to be cautious about extending friendship and showing personal warmth. Analyzers are often thought of as detail-focused, goal-committed, and planning-oriented persons—individuals who are more interested in “getting things right” than necessarily meeting artificial deadlines (although real deadlines are important), more concerned with consistency than with excitement and, because of this, often contribute to misunderstandings and stress in organizations. On the other hand, such individuals as Vice-President Charles Newman, who reflect a Creator style, typically are willing to take risks and seize opportunities, as well as make decisions and act quickly within leadership teams. Creators are “big idea” and innovative and entrepreneurial-oriented people, and not accustomed to focusing on details (such as planning). Because Creators are outgoing, optimistic and enthusiastic, due to their high levels of both assertiveness and responsiveness, they may often generate excessive levels of interactive stress within organizations and leadership teams. In this particular situation, Johnson needed to recognize that her leadership style existed in the opposite quadrant from that of Newman (see Figure 3), and, therefore, was quite different with regard to strengths and weaknesses. Newman should also have recognized this and responded thereto. In reality, Johnson should have identified Newman’s leadership style as a key aspect of his success in innovative product development with MedTech, and been reminded of it again at the time Newman was appointed as Vice-President for European Operations (Robbins, 2005). Therefore, Johnson should not have been surprised at Newman’s delay in addressing a detail-oriented plan for the firm’s operations in the EU. When Johnson did realize this basic difference in styles, however, she modified her own style to fit better with Newman, and thereby helped to fulfill her leadership mentoring opportunity by means of charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn, 2005). This also helped to improve his performance and nurture the interactive situation more effectively. This phenomenon can be referred to as style flex. Newman may notice that things are going more smoothly and that the apparent friction between Johnson and himself has subsided, but he may not be aware of what Johnson is doing. He may even believe that Johnson has become a better leader, not just successful at getting along and communicating effectively. The responsibility for leadership, and its effectiveness in an organization, lies with all members of the team (Shelton, McKenna and Darling, 2002). An awareness and sensitivity to leadership style—both one’s own style as well as the styles of others—can help to achieve the organization’s goals by the entire team. The functional dynamics of a team are greatly affected by the styles of its members (Kofodimos, 1991), and thereby impact effective leadership. Social scientists have developed new terms for the ability to successfully relate with other people, particularly within entrepreneurial leadership teams. These terms are “social intelligence” and “emotional intelligence.” It has recently been concluded that one’s social intelligence or emotional intelligence may be just as important as one’s intelligence quotient (IQ) for being successful in such teams. In some cases, these different concepts of intelligence may be more important than IQ. Goleman (1998) discusses the importance of emotional intelligence in leading others. He defines emotional intelligence as managing one’s own feelings to enable others to work together more effectively and successfully. An imperative to effectiveness in leadership teams is the ability to manage one’s personal feelings in a manner that facilitates achievement of the organization’s goals while, at the same time, minimizing interpersonal conflict among those individuals involved in the leadership team (Darling and Gabrielsson, 2004; Meyerson, 2001).
364
darling and leffel
Strengths and Weaknesses of Styles Leadership style strengths are summarized in Figure 3. In addition to strengths, however, each style also has characteristic weaknesses (Bolton and Bolton, 1984) because a given leadership style tends to be less developed in the areas in which other styles are more developed. Normally, an individual lacks the strengths of the style diagonally across the grid from his or her own style, as in the case of Kristine Johnson and Charles Newman. For example, contagious enthusiasm, a strength of the Creator, is rarely an asset of an Analyzer. Cooperativeness is one of the Connector’s strengths, but one of the Director’s weak points. Likewise, the decisiveness of a Director is typically lacking in a Connector, just as the thoroughness of the Analyzer is seldom as well-developed in a Creator. The weaknesses of a particular leadership style, as noted in Figure 4, can also result from an inappropriate overextension of the style’s strengths. In fact, it has been noted that a major cause of failure occurs when a leader’s strength is allowed to become a weakness (McCall and Lombardo, 1983). The overextension of one’s strength may therefore lead to leadership ineffectiveness. Thus, an Analyzer’s quest for quality may become a liability when additional time is devoted to low-priority items while more important leadership matters are left unattended. Likewise, the Director’s expectation for short-term results can be inappropriate when it forfeits greater long-range advantages, just as the Creator’s imaginative, new and innovative dreams can divert attention from basic leadership tasks and responsibilities that must be taken care of regularly. A Connector’s sincerity and supportiveness can thereby be a weakness when a leadership decision that could have a negative impact is not challenged. Figure 4. Strengths and Weaknesses of Leadership Styles Style
Strengths
Analyzer
Precise Systematic
Director
Determined Objective
Creator
Enthusiastic Imaginative
Connector
Supportive Easygoing
(Can Become)
——> ——> ——> ——> ——> ——> ——> ——>
Weaknesses Exacting Inflexible Dominating Insensitive Undisciplined Unrealistic Conforming Permissive
Successful leaders capitalize on their strengths and develop strategies for minimizing possible damage from their weaknesses (Drucker, 1973; 1999). One way to minimize or offset their weaknesses is to ensure that a leadership group is selected and thereby composed of individuals whose dominant styles represent the entire leadership style grid. There must also be a willingness on the part of all members of a leadership group to work together for the benefit of the team and organization as a total entity and interactive system. An understanding of the leadership styles paradigm on the part of all those involved assists greatly with this interaction and facilitates a greater appreciation of the diversity within a successful leadership team among all of those involved. Communication Preferences The leadership style of each of the two individuals in the case situation concerning MedTech is reflected in the manner in which Johnson and Newman communicate (Darling
developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture
365
and Beebe, 2007). Elsea (1987) noted that there are four basic communication preferences that correspond to the four leadership styles: Process-Oriented (Analyzer), Action-Oriented (Director), Idea-Oriented (Creator), and People-Oriented (Connector). Each of these orientations has a set of messages that tends to dominate interpersonal communications within a leadership team (see Figure 5). Understanding one’s own leadership style and communication preferences, and those of other members of a team, can provide a basis for more effectively dealing with issues that might arise. On the one hand, as an opportunity and idea-oriented Creator, Newman has a tendency to want to decide and act quickly on issues that relate to his ideas and priorities. On the other hand, Johnson, as a control and process-oriented Analyzer, is primarily concerned with organized procedures, and systematic planning and decision-making. Figure 5. Basic Leadership Styles and Communication Orientations
ANALYZER
DIRECTOR
(Process-Oriented) Communicates about:
(Action-Oriented) Communicates about:
Facts and figures Policies and procedures Systems and organizations Planning and forecasting Analysis and control
Getting things done Objectives and results Performance and productivity Efficiency and moving ahead Decisions and achievements
CONNECTOR
CREATOR
(People-Oriented) Communicates about:
(Idea-Oriented) Communicates about:
Needs and motivations Teamwork and team spirit Feelings and beliefs Values and self-development Emotions and relationships
Innovation and change New ways of doing things Creativity and possibilities Alternative or options Concepts and grand designs
Process-oriented Analyzers prefer logical, systematic conversations, not spontaneous off-the-cuff reactions. They are patient, have relatively long attention spans, and are usually good listeners. Analyzers are the conservatives of a leadership team, communicate accordingly, and are usually uncomfortable with innovation and change, thereby often contributing to the stress-generating aspects of these situations within a leadership team. Action-oriented Directors usually have short attention spans, tend to interrupt the conversations of others, and try to avoid small talk. They would rather meet in an ad-hoc fashion than sit through formal meetings. Directors are usually the doers of a leadership team and are often uncomfortable with those who are not actively involved with concrete achievements. Idea- oriented Creators are imaginative, full of new ideas, and sometimes difficult to understand. They like to challenge people around them, which may account for why their interpersonal communication skills are often not as polished as other styles. Creators are the innovative influence, often the renegades, within a leadership team; hence, they often make other people uncomfortable and thereby contribute to stress. Peopleoriented Connectors are typically interested in the personal lives of others and are sensitive
366
darling and leffel
to their moods and concerns. Connectors would often rather meet and interact in social settings than in formal meetings. Their offices are typically gathering places with room to relax, coffee or tea to drink, and plants and pictures of family to look at. They are considered the conscience of a leadership team and are uncomfortable with solutions that fail to consider human elements (Elsea, 1987). Primary Backup Styles High levels of stress within the dynamics of an entrepreneurial leadership team bring into focus backup styles of team members (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004). A leader’s primary backup style is a predictable yet unconscious shift to more extreme, rigid and nonnegotiable behaviors. Backup styles are usually counter-productive for the individuals using them, and are very trying on the interpersonal relationships within a leadership team. Therefore, backup styles serve as major contributors to interpersonal conflict in leadership teams and in organizational dynamics (Bolton and Bolton, 1984). Backup styles offer a way of focusing on personal needs and relieving tensions caused by high levels of stress. At the same time, backup styles tend to increase the stress levels of other members of a leadership team. These styles are not the only ways to relieve stress, but they require little initial effort and often provide quick relief. When an individual operates in a backup style, a shift to a more extreme form of behavior has occurred. Seldom can a person avoid moving into his/her backup style in response to high levels of stress; but once in that backup style, actions can be taken to recognize what has happened and the appropriate corrective actions that should be taken. As shown in Figure 6, leaders under stress tend to move further out on the assertiveness and responsiveness scales. Behaviors characteristic of their dominant leadership style become exaggerated, transforming their strengths into weaknesses (see Figure 4). The tendency toward the attack backup style of Newman, for example, reflected the stress generated in the interaction regarding the new marketing plan for the European market. Johnson must exercise a great deal of caution to ensure that she does not respond to Newman with an avoidance or an unnecessarily delayed response, thereby creating a non-productive cycle of stress and countervailing stress, and failure to bring an expedient closure to the very important responsibility of appropriate planning for the new EU market. The rigid backup leadership styles are, in essence, not leadership styles at all, but merely behavioral styles in response to high levels of stress, and, therefore, they are not conducive to leadership team-building in an organization. If Johnson is to fulfill her leadership role in team-building at MedTech, she must address this interactive conflict with skill and with a development commitment that will facilitate an appropriate resolution and team-building outcome (Darling and Gabrielsson, 2004). Backup styles are often a response more to pressures inside the person than to the interpersonal situation. In a primary backup mode, a leader takes a non-negotiable stance toward the interaction. Regardless of the needs of the other parties, the demands of the situation, or other factors, the individual tends to interact in a single characteristic way and no other. Thus, backup styles are inappropriate to effective leadership and interaction within an entrepreneurial organization. The shift to primary backup style usually occurs without conscious choice, thought or premeditation. Further, backup behaviors are predictable; i.e., persons of the same leadership style typically employ the same backup behaviors. Backup styles are therefore counterproductive and usually create communication blockages. Extreme, rigid or non-negotiable behaviors undermine motivation and tend to raise other people’s stress and levels of misunderstanding, thereby undercutting their
developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture
367
Figure 6. Primary and Sequential Leadership Backup Styles
4. Attacking 3. Acquiescing 2. Autocratic
1. Avoiding
ANALYZER
CONNECTOR
1. Acquiescing
2. Attacking 3. Avoiding 4. Autocratic
4. Acquiescing 3. Attacking 2. Avoiding
1. Autocratic
DIRECTOR CREATOR
1. Attacking
2. Acquiescing 3. Autocratic 4. Avoiding
productivity. The result may be even more stress for the person exhibiting the backup behavior. Usually, after an individual has moved into his/her primary backup style, tensions within the individual are reduced or actions are taken by that person to directly address the tensions, and he/she typically returns to his/her normal leadership style. However, if tension continues to build in a given situation, the individual may move into a second backup style, and perhaps even a third and fourth backup style, as noted in Figure 6. In reality, however, the second, third and fourth backup style are seldom encountered due to the fact that a leader sensitive to the existence of stress will typically respond to conditions relating to the primary backup style. Importance of Style Flex The use of style flex is an important tool for effectiveness in facilitating leadership team-building in an entrepreneurial-based setting. The concept of leadership style and a consideration of its elements are useful in helping to understand one’s self and the interactive styles of others. However, it is not enough just to understand one’s leadership style or the style of others in a leadership team; one must also seek to adapt the skills of style flex that can enable the parties to function in a comfort zone congruent with the situation. Style flex provides a way of interacting and communicating that creates more positive thought patterns within a leadership team (Hawkins, 2002). In essence, style flex is a key to influencing more effectively in a leadership team. In the case illustration, for example, there were a number of alternative actions (style flex possibilities) available to Johnson that she could have used in order to facilitate successful interaction and communication with Newman. These include flexing from her
368
darling and leffel
own style, increasing or decreasing assertiveness as appropriate, increasing or decreasing responsiveness as appropriate, or flexing to the specific leadership style of Newman. All of these different flexing techniques have validity when used appropriately. Identifying and using the interactive dimensions that individuals have in common (see Figure 2) is also a very important type of successful style flex. However, due to the opposing differences in leadership styles between Johnson and Newman (Analyzer versus Creator), this was not a viable alternative in this particular case. If possible, using the interactive dimensions that are common enable participating parties to continue to be more natural and help to keep their own stress levels under control. Such behaviors should constitute the major portion of style flex interactions in cases where this is possible. With regard to flexing from one’s own style, it is often helpful to think of style flex not simply as flexing toward another person’s style, but as flexing away from one’s own style (see Figure 7). Each style tends to have at least one major weakness, and an awareness of this weakness may enable an individual to adjust away from his/her dominant leadership style (Bolton and Bolton, 1984). For example, Analyzers should make appropriate decisions and act with reasonable haste; Directors, concentrate on listening carefully to others; Creators, restrain their impulsiveness and desire to be talkative; and Connectors, stretch and reach toward challenging goals and demonstrate their commitment to self-determination and a results orientation. Figure 7. Flexing from a Particular Leadership Style If an Analyzer, DECIDE
If a Director, LISTEN
A slow, systematic fact-gathering process and cautious decision-making can create stress in others. When flexing, make a real effort to decide. Do not let fact-gathering and review of various alternatives be a hindrance to the progress of others. Once a decision has been made, act on it with reasonable hast.
A fast-paced, active goal-oriented approach can cause stress in others. When flexing, make a real effort to listen to others. Try to clearly understand their ideas and suggestions. Equally important, listen until the nature and strength of their feelings are understood and clearly perceived.
If a Connector, STRETCH
If a Creator, RESTRAIN
A slower-paced, people-oriented, cooperative, low risk approach to issues can create stress in others. When flexing, be sure to stretch. Demonstrate self-direction. Set and strive to achieve attainable stretch goals. Don’t dodge the issues in question. Be sure to communicate important points of view.
A general tendency toward quick, impulsive decisions and actions can cause stress in others. A high energy level and verbal fluency may intimidate others. When flexing, be sure to restrain impulsiveness. Also, restrain talkativeness, and when others start to speak, do not try to talk over or louder than them.
Increasing or decreasing assertiveness may be an appropriate style flex technique so as to facilitate successful leadership interaction. For example, when an Analyzer or Connector temporarily flexes his/her style toward the comfort zone of a Director or a Creator, assertiveness should be increased. Likewise, when a Director or a Creator temporarily flexes his/her style toward the comfort zone of an Analyzer or a Connector, assertiveness should be decreased accordingly. Increasing or decreasing responsiveness may also be an appropriate manner in which to flex one’s style. For example, when an Analyzer or Director temporarily flexes his/her style toward the comfort zone of a Creator or Connector, responsiveness should be increased. Likewise, when a Creator or Connector temporarily flexes his/her style toward the comfort zone of an Analyzer or Director, responsiveness should be decreased. Essentially, this style flex technique involves the
developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture
369
thoughtful process of adding or subtracting a few key behaviors to increase or decrease assertiveness or responsiveness (Bolton and Bolton, 1984). Table 1 lists some of the more common preferences of each style as well as guidelines for flexing toward the style of another person. Table 1. Flexing to Different Leadership Styles Flexing to Analyzers
Flexing to Directors
Be on time. Be moderately paced; lean back somewhat; avoid loud voice. It is better to be more rather than less formal in clothing, speech and manners. Get to business quickly; be prepared, systematic, factual, logical and exact. List the pros and cons of proposal and alternatives. Show why approach is best and has relatively little risk. Do not exaggerate the advantages. When possible, allow to proceed deliberately, even slowly. When too indecisive, encourage a decision. Follow up in writing. See that milestone dates are in action plan; and set up progress reports.
Be on time. Be energetic and fast paced; have erect posture and direct eye contact. Get to business quickly. Use time efficiently. Be specific, clear and brief. Do not over explain, ramble or be disorganized. From the beginning to the end, focus on results. Select the key facts, and use them when making a case. Present facts logically and quickly. Provide a limited number of options in order of importance. Stay on topic; keep the pace up; and honor time limits. If at all appropriate, ask directly for a decision. Depart quickly but graciously.
Flexing to Connectors
Flexing to Creators
Be relaxed and moderately paced; have a comfortable posture; speak softly and avoid harshness in voice. Invite conversation; draw out opinions. Listen reflectively; do not judge ideas, counter them with logic or manipulate. Communicate patiently; encourage expression of doubts, fears or misgivings. Facilitate decision-making without excessive pressure. Mutually agree on goals; negotiate action plans with completion dates; offer cooperative support where desirable; be sure to follow through on responsibilities. Offer assurance that decisions will have minimum risk. Maintain ongoing contact.
Be energetic and fast paced; and have direct eye contact. Allow time for socializing. Talk about experiences, opinions and people. To a degree, reflect a joyful-type behavior. Creators like arguments to a point. Avoid becoming too dogmatic. Discover dreams and intuitions. In support of ideas, use testimonials from people seen as prominent. Keep a balance between flowing with the Creator and getting back on track. Focus first on the “big picture.” Follow up with action plans and details. Ensure that action plans are made and followed, and that details are taken care of.
In reality, style flex is a very valuable technique for use in leadership team-building in an entrepreneurial venture. Style flex basically involves sensing another person’s leadership style and preferred ways of relating and communicating, modifying one’s style to achieve congruence with some of those preferred ways of interacting, carefully monitoring the interaction, and then evaluating and responding to the feedback one receives from the other individual. If two individuals share the same leadership style, it may require a flexing from the strengths of their style (see Figure 3) due to the fact that leaders functioning within the same style will typically encounter greater conflict between themselves than with leaders functioning from different styles. This is so because individuals with the same leadership style, in many cases, unconsciously participate in similar interactive games based on the characteristic similarities of their style. Style flex must be based on respect, fairness and honesty in leadership situations. One’s ability to flex his/her leadership style at crucial times will help to contribute to effective and compatible relations in a leadership team, as well as lead to increased productivity and satisfaction among the individuals involved in the team. In essence, Johnson made a genuine effort to restrain her behavioral inclination to actively force action on the part of Newman,
370
darling and leffel
thereby implementing a flexing mode in the direction of her colleague’s leadership style. Johnson also took additional actions to assist Newman in carefully discussing and analyzing the importance of a new marketing plan for Europe, a strategy that eventually facilitated his commitment and action to the expeditious development and implementation of the plan. She also arranged a meeting and additional time to discuss the financial implications of the plan and the objectives to be achieved by implementing the plan. That marketing plan subsequently proved quite successful for MedTech in the European market, and enabled the firm to gain a significant competitive advantage and commensurate market share within a relatively short period of time. With committed mentoring by Kristine Johnson, Charles Newman also became one of MedTech’s most successful operational vice-presidents. Summary and Conclusions In the present contemporary marketplace heavily influenced by the forces of innovation and competition, entrepreneurial firms must increasingly be involved in effective leadership team development. This is particularly relevant for entrepreneurial functioning across cultural boundaries (Friedman, 2005). A focus on leadership style can be a very important focus on this development. The key paradigm of leadership styles herein described and analyzed is developed on the basis of two major dimensions—assertiveness and responsiveness. On the basis of those dimensions, the paradigm focuses on four primary leadership styles—Analyzer, Director, Creator and Connector. Use of this paradigm enables leaders in entrepreneurial-based organizations to have a point of reference whereby: improved interactional behavior can be achieved; communications enhanced; backup leadership styles that occur due to high levels of stress, dealt with; and effective style flex enhanced as a very important tool in leadership dynamics. The leadership styles paradigm can therefore be a very important reference point in the process of entrepreneurial team-building. To incorporate leadership style in team-building, the idea is neither to change one’s basic leadership style nor to imitate another person’s style. The best and perhaps most productive interpersonal relationships and communications occur when two styles become complementary, with each individual’s strengths compensating for the weaknesses of the other. In the case of MedTech, Inc., such complementarities resolved the interactional issue that existed between Senior Vice-President Kristine Johnson and Charles Newman, the firm’s new Vice-President for European Operations. As Johnson learned to understand and to be more sensitive to the leadership style of her vice-president, she began to use Newman’s strengths to help make their interpersonal interactions and communications more effective with fewer misunderstandings. The paradigm of leadership styles can be a valuable tool for the further research and understanding of the process of leadership team-building in entrepreneurial organizations. An interesting view and contribution of this article is the way that the leadership styles and communication dimensions can be linked. The strengths and weaknesses of the various leadership styles, successes achieved through an improved understanding of these strengths and weaknesses within organizational settings, procedures used by leadership teams in dealing with backup styles, and techniques developed and implemented in facilitating style flex, provide valuable bases for further research on effective entrepreneurial leadership. Comments and suggestions of other scholars and practitioners who have an interest in further pursuing the ideas regarding the paradigm of leadership styles herein described as a key for leadership team-building in entrepreneurial firms are welcomed by the authors. There are many opportunities for further entrepreneurial research associated with this leadership style paradigm.
developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture
371
Contact For further information on this article, contact: John Darling, Ph.D., Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of Business, University of Texas – San Antonio E-mail:
[email protected] Anita Leffel, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, College of Business, University of Texas – San Antonio E-mail:
[email protected]
References Bennis, W., and P. Biederman. 1998. Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA. Birkman, R. 1995. True Colors. Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. Bolton, R., and D. Bolton. 1984. Social Style/Management Style. American Management Association: New York. Darling, J., and S. Beebe. 2007. “Enhancing Entrepreneurial Leadership: A Focus on Communication Priorities.” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Winter: 151-168. Darling, J., and M. Gabrielsson. 2004. “Conflict Management in Export Distribution: A Case Focusing on Skills to Improve Operations.” The Finnish Journal of Business Economics Fall: 377-403. Darling, J., M. Keeffe and J. Ross. 2006. “Entrepreneurial Leadership Strategies: Keys to Operational Excellence.” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Fall: 41-54. Day, G. 1999. The Market Driven Organization. The Free Press: New York. Drucker, P. 1973. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices. Harper and Row: New York. Drucker, P. 1999. “Managing Oneself.” Harvard Business Review March-April: 65-74. Elsea, J. 1987. “Management Communications: Form and Substance.” Clinical Laboratory Management Review 37: 37-41. Friedman, T. 2005. The World is Flat. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York. George, J., and G. Jones. 2005. Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior (Fourth Edition). Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bantam: New York. Hawkins, D. 2002. Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Hay House, Inc.: Carlsbad, CA. Hughes, R., R. Ginnett, and G. Curphy. 2009. Leadership (Sixth Edition). McGraw-Hill/Irwin: Boston, MA. Keirsey, D., and M. Bates. 1984. Please Understand Me. Prometheus Nemesis: Del Mar, CA. Kofodimos, J. 1991. “Teamwork at the Top: The Need for Self-development.” Issues and Observations 11:1-3. Kreitner, R., and A. Kinicki. 2004. Organizational Behavior (Sixth Edition). McGraw-Hill/Irwin: New York. McCall, M., and M. Lombardo. 1983. “What Makes a Top Executive?” Psychology Today 17: 26-31. McKenna, M., S. Shelton, and J. Darling. 2002. “The Impact of Behavioral Style Assessment on Organizational Effectiveness: A Call for Action.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal Summer: 314-322. Mehrabian, A. 1971. Silent Messages. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. Merrill, D., and R. Reid. 1981. Personal Styles and Effective Performance. Chilton: Radnor, PA. Meyerson, D. 2001. Tempered Radicals: How People Use Difference to Inspire Change at Work. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA. Morrison, A. 2000. “Developing a Global Leadership Model.” Human Resource Management 39: 117-131. Nurmi, R., and J. Darling. 1997. International Management Leadership: The Primary Competitive Advantage. International Business Press: New York. Robbins, S. 2005. Organizational Behavior (Eleventh Edition). Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Schermerhorn, J., J. Hunt, and R. Osborn. 2005. Organizational Behavior (Ninth Edition). John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ. Shelton, C., M. McKenna, and J. Darling. 2002. “Leading in the Age of Paradox: Optimizing Behavioral Style, Job Fit and Cultural Cohesion.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal Fall: 272-279. Soriano, D., and J. Martinez. 2007. “Transmitting the Entrepreneurial Spirit to the Work Team in SMEs: The Importance of Leadership.” Management Decision 45(7): 1102-22.
Contributors Mohani Abdul is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti
Putra Malaysia. Her areas of interests are entrepreneurship, SMEs, and organizational behavior. Raduan Che-Rose is a professor at the Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti
Putra Malaysia. His areas of interests are HRM and Japanese style of management.
is the Distinguished Visiting Professor of Management and Marketing, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio. His current research interests focus primarily on entrepreneurial leadership, international management leadership, strategic international marketing, and conflict and crisis management. John Darling
is professor of Management at the John Molson School of Business (JMSB), Concordia University. She studies small business owner-managers’ interactions with business advisors as well as with employees. Linda Dyer
is professor emeritus, Université Laval, Quebec. His research interests include Corporate Governance and Corporate Finance. Jean-Marie Gagnon
is a lecturer at the Faculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Malaysia. His research interests are in the areas of knowledge management, ICT and social issues, health informatics, and business strategy. Gerald Guan Gan Goh
is senior lecturer of Management and Organization at the Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) School of Business, Finland, specializing in entrepreneurship and small business management, SME development and consultancy. His research interests include SME management, ownership issues, family businesses, and entrepreneurship education. Markku Ikävalko
is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Malaysia. His research interests are mainly in the areas of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, e-commerce, and entrepreneurship. Hishamuddin Bin Ismail
is professor of Finance and Desjardins Chair in the management of derivative products at the Université du Québec à Montréal. His research interests include Financial Derivatives Markets Microstructure and Interlisting of Financial Derivatives. Nabil Khoury
is assistant professor (Research) for Entrepreneurship at the University of Liechtenstein. Also, he is Extraordinary Professor for Entrepreneurship at Utrecht University, The Netherlands, and Guest Professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain. Before his current positions, he was Evald and Hilda Nissi Foundation International Fellow at the University of Vaasa, Finland and Substitute Professor at the Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Austria. Sascha Kraus
is the Roland-Chagnon Accounting and Tax professor at HEC Montreal. Her research interests include performance evaluation, corporate taxation and reorganisations, taxation of the owner-shareholder and family business. She is a member of the International Business Families Centre. Suzanne Landry
Anita Leffel has fifteen years experience in senior management positions in organizations
in Texas and holds a Ph.D. from Texas A & M University. She is assistant director for the Center for Innovation and Technology Entrepreneurship and one of the founders of the New Technology Venture Start-Up Competition.
481
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
