Journal of Business and Policy Research Volume 5. Number 2. December 2010 Pp. 119 – 130
The more things change the more they stay the same: A contemporary examination of leadership and management constructs Chris Booth*, Michael Segon** and Timothy O‟Shannassy*** A major issue in business literature over the years has been the debate as to whether leadership and management are different constructs and practices or are relatively the same. Many key researchers and writers specialising in the study and development of theory and practice on leadership and management have argued the case for difference (Zaleznik, 1977; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1990; Hickman, 1990; Rost, 1991) whilst others have argued that the two constructs are fundamentally the same (Drucker, 1988; Gardner, 1990). Yet for more contemporary writers and researchers, the issue is not so much black or white issue but more grey, the grey of complementarity or interrelationship (Yukl, 1989; Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2001, 2002; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2005). This paper seeks to review salient past literature on the themes of leadership and management considering difference and similarity of the concepts. It also considers more recent takes on the concepts and practice of leadership and management in the 21 st century business context. To aid this analysis the authors have looked at primary research on leadership and management practice undertaken by in depth interviews with 20 mid level Australian managers. The paper will present insights from this research to compare with both historic and contemporary views of leadership and management towards defining a series of key characteristics of leadership and management.
Field of Research: Leadership, Management, Organization Behaviour, Executive Education, Learning.
1. Introduction – Leadership and management constructs and practices: The same or different? One of the key issues in business literature over the years has been the debate as to whether leadership and management are different constructs and practices or are relatively the same. A number of key researchers and writers specialising in the study and development of theory on leadership and management have argued the case for difference (Zeleznik,1977; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1990; Hickman, 1990; Rost, 1991) whilst others have *Mr Chris Booth, Lecturer and Course Coordinator, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University. Email
[email protected] **Dr Michael Segon, Senior Lecturer and Course Coordinator, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University. Email
[email protected] ***Dr Timothy O‟Shannassy, Senior Lecturer and Course Coordinator, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University Email
[email protected]
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy argued that the two are fundamentally the same (Drucker, 1988; Gardner, 1990) For more recent writers and researchers however, the issue is not so much black or white but more grey, the grey of complementarity or symbiosis of the two constructs (Yukl, 1989; Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2001, 2002; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2005). This paper considers the debate of similarity or difference between leadership and management through a literature review. It then considers the concepts of leadership and management as presented in the literature from the perspective of 20 mid level Australian managers who undertook a leadership and management practice development program during the mid 2000’s.
2. The Debate on leadership and management Sternberg (2003) indicated that in the debate on leadership and management two major positions have emerged, namely that, „the concepts are distinct or that they are interrelated‟ (p. 386). A review of the critical literature indicates that the debate regarding the difference or link between leadership and management in the context of work and organisational life began in earnest some 30 years ago (Bass, 1990). The work of Bass (1990) in providing a comprehensive literature review of leadership and management theories has been reconfirmed and updated by writers such as Parry and Bryman (2006) on the development of organisational leadership theories. Bass (1990) in the Handbook of Leadership presents a thorough account of the theories and models of leadership and in Part V of that text covers the interrelationship between leadership and management. Bass posed a key question “Are managers leaders?” (Bass, 1990, p. 383). His research identified different activities undertaken by leaders and managers. Bass though acknowledging difference recognised the interrelationship between leadership and management “All these management functions can potentially provide leadership; all the leadership activities can contribute to managing. Nevertheless, some managers do not lead and some leaders do not manage” (p. 383). 2.1
Perspectives on the difference between leadership and management
Zaleznik (1977) was the first to bring to the fore the key debate as to whether leadership and management are the same or different. For Zaleznik, managers and leaders are different types of people in terms of temperament, motivations, thoughts, aims and ultimately behaviours in dealing with the tension of chaos and order. Managers focus on solving problems and impersonal goal setting towards organisational stability whilst leaders are visionaries who tolerate chaos, inspiring followers towards commitment and action in organisational change (Zeleznik, 1977). Other key writers to examine the difference between leaders and managers have been Bennis and Nanus (1985). Again the difference presented as a 120
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy binary relationship. According to the authors, managers have a narrow view of mastering routines and tasks to maintain order whereas leaders have a broader view of envisioning possibilities and implementing change. Bennis and Nanus (1985) emphasised that “Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing” (p. 21). The difference may be summarised as activities of vision or judgement – effectiveness, versus activities of mastering routines – efficiency. Burns (1978) argued that the real role of leadership was to bring about change referring to this approach as transformational leadership. Burns was the first to provide a detailed theory of transactional versus transformational leadership (Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders interact with followers by use of exchanges or transactions to achieve follower performance and provide either a reward or punishment based on follower success or failure in achieving the leader‟s valued objective. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, inspire and motivate others to excel in their organizational roles (Bass & Avolio, 1994a). Bass (1985) and Bass and Avolio (1994b) emphasised the difference between transactional leaders and transformational leaders in their research arguing that the study of organisational leadership was shifting in the mid 1980s and 1990s from a purely transactional construct between leaders and followers. Bass and Avolio (1994b) outline this shift in a conceptualisation of leadership practice in that „leaders evaluated as transformational move followers to go beyond their self-interests to concerns for the group or organization‟. (p. 552) Tichy and Devanna (1986) confirmed the value of transformational leadership reporting on the transformational leadership provided by Jack Welch at General Electric (GE) and Lee Iacocca at Chrysler. Both leaders transformed their corporations through recognising the need for revitalisation, creating new visions and institutionalising change through motivating and developing people. The development of the next generation of leaders became a recurring theme in leadership and management literature taking a cue from earlier leading change articles. Tichy and Cohen (1997a, 1997b) in particular, advocated leaders teaching other potential leaders and developing leadership at all levels. The work of Spreitzer and Quinn (2001) on building a company of leaders and the earlier work of Senge (1990) much earlier on the leader‟s new work building learning organisations were consistent with the view in which the role of leadership was seen to mean the development of a new generation of leaders. Since the 1990s the need for some transactional leadership but greater levels of transformational leadership was generally accepted as a model of contemporary business leadership (Bass & Avolio: 1994a; Bass, Jung, Avolio, & Yair, 2003; Kotter, 2001; Sarros & Butchatsky, 1996; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). However, other contemporary leadership theorists such as Kotter (1990, 2001) reinforced the distinction between leadership and management on the basis of order and change. For Kotter (1990, 2001) management is about coping with complexity and leadership is about coping with change (Kotter, 1990, 2001). Throughout the 1990s key writers have continued to elaborate on the differences. Hickman (1990) and Rost (1991) 121
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy reaffirmed a difference between the roles and practices of leaders and managers. Katzenbach, (1995) wrote about the need for real change leadership and confirmed the Bennis and Nanus (1985) notion of leaders needing to do the right things and that leading organisational change involves more than management. Katzenbach‟s insights on leadership and management again emphasised the difference between leaders and managers as change orientation versus order orientation. Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000) proposed a link between organisational management and dealing with complexity thus supporting Kotter‟s view of management as predominantly dealing with complexity. More recently Stacey and Griffin (2005) considered complexity and leadership within organisations. The writers taking the view that there will be greater levels of business environmental uncertainty and increased complexity in the modern organisation facing the 21st century. The argument presented by Stacey and Griffin is that complexity affecting the modern organisation impacts upon both leadership and management practices. Most recently Buckingham (2005) has argued that there is a difference between great leaders and great managers. Great leaders identify what is universal to followers and capitalise on it by cutting through difference towards an improved future. Great managers on the other hand identify the unique values and characteristics of each employee discovering how best to integrate these qualities towards success. 2.2
Perspectives on the interrelationship between leadership and management
In contrast to those who clearly see leadership and management as separate, other writers see the two as more intertwined. Yukl (1989) suggested that organisational managers need to be both a leader and a manager. He proposed that leadership is a group oriented activity and that the “… terms manager and leader are used interchangeably” (p. 253). Gardner (1990) also saw the connection between leader and manager identified a distinction between the leader-manager and the routine manager. Leader-managers think long term, look beyond the immediate work group to the larger organization and influence others outside the work group. In contrast, routine managers follow a transactional approach focused on short term immediate tasks, goals and resource efficiencies. Mintzberg (1973) has been one of the more influential writers on the practice of management. His research on the managerial practices of business executives culminated in a landmark treatise on the nature of managerial work. Based on diarised reports of the work activity of executives, Mintzberg‟s findings indicated that managers worked at an unrelenting pace with a bias for action as opposed to reflection. Managers undertook work activity “characterised by brevity, variety and discontinuity and that they were strongly oriented to action and disliked reflective activities” (Mintzberg, 1990, p. 164).
122
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy The original model identified three categories and ten integrated roles. Many of the roles can be seen as managerial in nature according to those theorists espousing a difference between leadership and management yet there are other roles that appear to have more connection to leadership. In the interpersonal category, Mintzberg identified a leader role as a subset of managerial practice. Moreover in the decisional category of his model, he identifies the entrepreneur role and disturbance handler role (Mintzberg, 1975, 1990). These three roles have a connection to leadership practice as identified in the leadership literature, particularly regarding capabilities in dealing with change and conflict and the capacity to influence (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Mintzberg‟s (1994) further thinking on the nature of managerial work culminated in a reconsideration of a more integrated model of managerial work first hinted in his earlier discussion of an integrated gestalt of management practice (1975). Mintzberg (1994) reviewed his conceptual framework of managerial work and presented an integrated model of managerial practice. Mintzberg (2001) further refined the model managerial work with the manager and their personality and preferences central to expanding layers of activity involving a communications level, an interpersonal level and an action level. Once again leadership (located at the interpersonal level) was an activity within the model of the manager‟s job (Mintzberg, 1994, 2001). Boyatzis (1982) work on managerial competency developed a six-cluster integrated model comprising 21 competencies. Identified as one of the six clusters, the Leadership cluster consisted of four job competencies: selfconfidence, use of oral presentations, logical thought and conceptualization. According to Boyatzis (1982) “a job competency is an underlying characteristic of a person in that it may be a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one‟s self image or social role, or a body knowledge which he or she uses.” (pp. 20-21). The competent manager model identified the use of such competencies as leading to superior performance in a job (Boyatzis, 1982). More recent work by Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2001, 2002) in their Primal leadership model confirmed the need for both dissonant (transactional) styles of leadership and resonant (transformational) styles. The Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee model of leadership under Emotional Intelligence (EI) competency was linked to Boyatzis‟ earlier competent manager framework (Boyatzis, 1982). Goleman et al. (2001, 2002) based their concept of an emotional competency and many of the intra-personal and interpersonal competencies in their primal leadership model on the intrapersonal and interpersonal clusters of Boyatzis‟ (1982) research on managerial competencies. Two of the four major competency clusters supporting the Emotional Competence Inventory that further underpins the theory of Primal Leadership are; Managing Self and Managing Relationships (Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, 2001, 2002). Once again there appears a substantive interrelationship between leadership and managerial constructs within a contemporary theory of practice. The concept of transactional and transformational leadership was also connected to McGregor‟s (1960) Theory X and Y management. Theory X 123
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy managers distrust workers and believe they require direction and coercion to perform, whereas Theory Y managers trust and encourage employees towards self-directed performance. The link between leadership and management as a hand in hand concept began to appear in the literature toward the 1990s (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989, 1994). Yukl and Lepsinger (2005) most recently made the case that leadership and management roles need to be integrated to achieve organisational effectiveness. It would appear then that many leadership models contain elements of managerial practice and many managerial models contain elements of leadership practice. As Gardner (1990) has suggested “Everytime I encounter an utterly first-class manager he [sic] turns out to have quite a lot of leader in him” (p. 387). More recently, Kent (2005) attempted to revisit the definition of “the processes of leading and managing in a way that enables both the separation and distinction of the concepts for study as well as the integration of the concepts for practical application” (p. 1010). Kent suggested that there is a need to define the two concepts separately to ensure clarity in debate and discussions in the field of leadership and management practice. However, he saw the two as immutably linked. He argued that the two processes were distinct but could not effectively work without each other. They were integrative in nature. An interesting analysis of 80 works on the topics of leadership/management by Nienaber (2010) considered the content, tasks and activities as well as similarities and differences purported in concepts of leadership and management. Results indicated a significant crossover of the content, activities and tasks of leaders and managers, with some specialist tasks relating to; maintaining an organisational view and a customer view, and dealing with information through establishing needs, gathering and evaluating, and finally using information. The three information aspects of defining, gather and evaluate, and using information have strong links to Mintzberg (2001) most recent theory of managerial work in which information gathering, transfer and use are present at the communications level of this model. Nienaber (2010, p. 670) further concludes that the literature demonstrates that „leadership and management are inextricably interwoven‟.
3. Research Methodology A group of 20 mid-level Australian managers were interviewed on the subject of leadership and management practice in the late 2000’s. Each of the managers had undertaken a year, long leadership and management practice development program during the mid 2000’s. Interviews were face to face and used semi-structured interview approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). The interviews were recorded and key themes and categories associated with leadership and management practice could be identified and analysed (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data analysis enabled the identification of concepts associated with similarity or difference between leadership and management practice as well as issues of interrelationship between the two concepts (Dey, 1993; Ritchie, Spencer & O’Connor, 2003). 124
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy 4. Discussion and Findings The managers interviewed in undertaking a leadership and management development program were introduced to a variety of leadership and management theories and concepts. Key articles and concepts from the following writers from the literature review were used throughout the course: Zaleznik (1977), Sarros and Butchatsky (1996), Kotter, (1990), Mintzberg, (1994, 2001), Senge, (1990), Tichy and Cohen (1997a, 1997b), Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2001, 2002). Many others were used in developing practice and insights. The managers therefore had a reasonably informed perspective on leadership and management theory into practice. In developing knowledge and insight on leadership and management theory participants would have the opportunity to reflect and consider their practice as well as act to change practice. One of the key themes that emerged in the interviews was a strong sense that many participants were aware of delineation in the attributes of leadership and management. Categories of Change, Influence, Vision and Inspire associated with leadership and the category Processes associated with management were developed from the data. Participant SR „The biggest change is that obviously I have a much broader understanding of the complex differences between leadership and management.‟ Participant MC „That management and leadership are distinct things and then actually you can be a good manager and do the administration processes and there are reasonable, certainly not managers of people, but managers of process here, but when you‟re talking about managers of people or leaders, you know, just doesn‟t sort of happen.‟ Participant MJ „And I am looking at the way you practice your leadership as opposed to how you were as a manager, and it won‟t work for me. So I had to go.‟ ‟ Participant DM „I guess one of the things that came out of it is the language, the idiom the leadership is on, influence and persuasion and how in my working life, how important that is and how that has really matured.‟ Participant MC „Personal leadership styles and so forth, effectively it was take responsibility for yourself and work out where you can influence, what you can influence.‟ Participant NH „How do you be the leader even if you don‟t have leadership around you, so inspiring, you being the inspiring leader if you don‟t see it around you.‟ These comments point to an understanding of the difference between leadership and management and clear links to constructs within the literature. The first and second participants‟ comments appear to agree with the key 125
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy writers on the difference between leadership and management (Zaleznik, 1977; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1990, 2001). The second participant‟s comments have a clear link to Mintzberg‟s model of managerial work referring managers dealing with „processes‟ (Mintzberg, 1994, 2001). The third participant in commenting on perceptions of difference between leadership and management highlighted her need for clarity of vision in leadership in the organisation. This connects to the theories Tichy and Devanna (1986) and Tichy and Cohen (1997a, 1997b) in transformative actions of creating new visions and institutionalising change. The fourth and fifth participants‟ comments clearly identify with Kotter (1990, 2001) on leadership focusing on change in which influencing followers becomes an important focus and Buckingham (2005) with his concept of leaders cutting through difference. The sixth participant considers the issue of rising to the leadership challenge when others in the organization cannot or will not provide it. Contemporary concepts of leadership and management practice were also reflected in many of the comments particularly around issues of selfawareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management aspects under emotional intelligence (Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, 2001, 2002). Categories of Self Awareness, Self Management, Social Awareness and Relationship Management were evident in the coding. Participant AW „Working on the Program, heightened my awareness about, yeah about putting yourself out there, out of your comfort zone to learn more really.‟ Participant NG „The reflective process had such a huge benefit for me in terms of what I was doing in the workplace and how I could improve my own personal style and management approach.‟ Participant HB „There was a sense of release of actually having a hand on who you are and it helping you to understand the reactions that you get from people and how you click with people and then from there it‟s how to manage yourself.‟ Participant MJ „I think a little bit more questioning about the way that I manage relationships with clients. A lot more relaxed about some of the anger and fear that we see as consultants when we walk onto a site.‟ The first participant above presents comments with a clear connection to aspects of Self-Awareness and also Self-Management particularly through concepts of Achievement and Adaptability both competences of the Goleman and Boyatzis Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) under the SelfManagement Cluster (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). Similarly, the second participant‟s also connect to aspects of Self-Awareness and also Self-Management, once again through the Achievement competence of Goleman and Boyatzis ECI model. 126
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy The comments from the third participant identify with the Self-Awareness, Self-Management and Social Awareness categorisations. These align with the clusters outlined by Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee (2002). The final participant‟s comments connect to the categorisation of Relationship Management. Again the categorisation maps with the cluster in Goleman and Boyatzis Emotional Competence Inventory (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). Participants also indicated a connection of management to the notion of complexity, chaos and an orientation towards a system perspective. Key writers such as Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000) and Stacey and Griffin (2005) supported the concepts of dealing with complexity and system perspective. Similarly Zaleznik (1977) and Kotter (1990, 2001) supported the notion of management as dealing with order out of chaos and Buckingham (2005) advocating managers to integrate disparate values and characteristics of employees. Categories relating to management such as Dealing with Complexity, Systemic Focus and Integration were evident in the coding. Participant CH „So again with the centre management role and learning some of those skills about different approaches that people have to learning and different styles, different personalities, all those sorts of things help with your interaction. Also feedback and that big picture of you is all part of it, that complexity. All of those are applicable to this role in centre management.‟ Participant HB „This systems thinking is really useful for getting a job done. What‟s really important is managing yourself too in the context of your work environment.‟ Participant MC „The sort of the management side, how do you actually work with other people, operate in it an organizational environment to actually make things happen with other people.‟ The above participant extracts reflect concepts of complexity in terms of personal difference and work environments with the need to manage situations though effectively Dealing with Complexity of environments (Kotter, 1990, 2001; Stacey, Griffin & Shaw, 2000), applying Systemic practices (Stacey & Griffin, 2005), and Integration of disparate elements (Buckingham, 2005). The analysis of themes and categories also identified a strong sense that leadership and management practice were immutable. Both were necessary to be a complete practitioner in dealing with contemporary business challenges and envisioning alternate possibilities in the business environment. Several comments in discussing leadership and management invariably included comment on a range of concepts across leadership and management that assisted each practitioner. Participant JH exemplifies this amalgam of leadership and management towards an integrated practice suited to the participant‟s role as a leader and manager. 127
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy Participant JH „There is a whole lot of sort of thinking around leadership and management and the difference, thinking through sort of the emotional intelligence and how teams operate, all that kind of stuff, that‟s what a I really use a lot,‟ Consistent with Kent (2005) most participants reported a decided awareness of distinction between leadership and management but a true “integration of the concepts for practical application” (p. 1010).
5. Conclusion The findings from this paper support the concept that leadership and management may be considered different constructs based upon aims and arena of activity of each construct. Based upon the literature review and research analysis of a group of 20 mid level Australian managers who have undergone a program of development for leadership and management practice, the following has emerged: The defining features of leadership are aspects relating to creating Vision, applying Influence, dealing with Change. As presented in the discussion section above key theoretical constructs support these characteristics. The key theoretical constructs were determined from Zaleznik (1977), Tichy and Devanna (1986), Tichy and Cohen (1997a, 1997b), Kotter (1990, 2001) and Buckingham (2005). The defining characteristics of management are aspects relating to; effecting Processes, dealing with Complexity, having a Systemic focus, developing Integration and focusing on critical Emotional Competence attributes of Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness and Relationship Management. As outlined in the discussion section above key theoretical constructs support these characteristics. The key theoretical constructs were determined from Mintzberg (1994, 2001), Kotter (1990, 2001), Stacey, Griffin & Shaw (2000), Stacey & Griffin (2005), Buckingham (2005) and Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, (2002). . There appears to be a strong sense within the interview group that leadership and management practice are interwoven and immutable in terms of capacity towards effective practice. This finding is consistent with Gardner (1990) and Kent (2005). Clearly further research to develop propositions to determine defining characteristics of leadership and management is warranted. Identifying both similarities and difference will provide some useful aids to both theoretical discussion and also informed practice as evidenced by the responses from the group of managers interviewed in this research. A critical finding though still remains that under practice both leadership and management are necessary interwoven aspects to an effective business practice.
128
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy References Bass, B.M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership; Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, Free Press, New York. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1994a. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1994b. „Shatter the Glass Ceiling: Women May Make Better Managers‟. Human Resource Management, Winter, Vol 33, No 4, pp. 549-560. Bennis W. & Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders; The strategies for taking Charge. Harper Perennial, New York. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S.K. 1992, Qualitative Research For Education, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Boyatzis, R.E. 1982, The Competent Manager, Wiley, New York. Buckingham, M. 2005. „What great managers do‟, Harvard Business Review, March, pp. 70-79. Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership, Harper & Row, New York. Dey, I. 1993. Qualitative Data Analysis, Routledge, London. Drucker, P. 1988. „Drucker on Management: Leadership: More Doing Than Dash‟. Wall Street Journal, January 6, p. A1. Gardner, J.W. 1990. On Leadership, The Free Press, New York. Goleman, D. Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2001, „Primal leadership‟, Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 43-51. Goleman, D. Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2002, The New Leaders, Little Brown, London. Heifetz, R.A. 1994. Leadership Without Easy Answers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Hickman, C.F. 1990. Mind of a Manager, Soul of a Leader, John Wiley, New York. Katzenbach, J. 1996. Real Change Leaders, Nicholas Brearley, London. Kent, T.W. 2004. „Leading and managing: It takes two to tango‟. Management Decision, Vol 43, Iss (7/8), pp. 1010-1017 Kotter, J. 1990. A force for Change: How Leadership differs from Management. Free Press, New York. Kotter, J. 2001. „What leaders really do‟. Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 85-96. McGregor, D. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill, New York. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Mintzberg, H. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York. Mintzberg, H. 1975. „The manager‟s job: Folklore and fact‟. Harvard Business Review, August, pp. 49–61. Mintzberg, H. 1990. „The manager‟s job: Folklore and fact‟. Harvard Business Review, March- April, pp. 163-176. Mintzberg, H, 1994. „Rounding out the manager‟s job‟. Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 11-26. Mintzberg, H, 2001. „Managing exceptionally‟. Organization Science, Nov – Dec, Vol 12, No 6, pp. 759-771. Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O‟Connor, W. 2003, „Carrying out Qualitative Analysis‟. In J. Ritchie & J, Lewis. (Eds.). Qualitative research 129
Booth, Segon & O’Shannassy Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage Publications, London Rost, J.C. 1991. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT. Senge, P. 1990, „The Leader‟s New Work‟ Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, Iss. 1, pp. 7-23. Spreitzer, G.M. & Quinn, R.E. 2001. A Company of Leaders, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Stacey, R.D. & Griffin, D. 2005. A complexity perspective on researching organizations, Routledge, London. Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. 2000. Complexity and management: fad or radical challenge to systems thinking? Routledge, London. Sternberg, R. 2003. „WICS: A model of Leadership in Organizations,‟ Academy of Management Learning and Development, Vol 2, Iss 4, pp. 386-401. Tichy, N. & Cohen, E. 1997a. The Leadership Engine: How winning companies build leaders at Every Level, Harper Business Essentials, New York. Tichy, N. & Cohen, E. 1997b. „How leaders develop leaders‟, Training and Development Journal, Vol 51, No 5, pp. 58-73. Tichy, N. & Devanna, M.A. 1986. „The Transformational leader‟, Training and Development Journal, Vol 40, No 7, pp. 27-32 Yukl, G. 1989. Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Yukl, G. 1994. Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Yukl, G. Lepsinger, R. 2005. „Why integrating the leadership and management roles is essential to organisational effectiveness‟. Organizational Dynamics, Vol 34, No 4, pp. 361-375. Zaleznik, A. 1977. „Managers and leaders: Are they different?‟ Harvard Business Review, May-Jun, Vol 55, Iss 3, pp. 67-78.
130
