Business leadership and market competitiveness new paradigms for design, governance, and performance

That said, the general notion is that a feminine leadership style is characterized by a dem-ocratic, relationship-oriented, participatory leader, who is also more of a transformational t

Business Leadership and Market Competitiveness

New Paradigms for

Design, Governance,

and Performance

Andrée Marie López-Fernández

“Corporate decision-making is becoming complex as society, business, and corporate governance are triangulated in the global marketplace today This book puts forth new dimensions in current business practices for strategic decision making over the traditional wisdom of managers The book offers a series of conceptual models that will lead to a shift in readers’ mindsets A must read for managers and change leaders…”.

—Rajagopal, PhD FRSA, Professor and National Researcher,

EGADE Business School, Mexico

ISBN 978-3-030-03346-0 ISBN 978-3-030-03347-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03347-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018964416

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information

in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover pattern © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com

This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Universidad Panamericana

Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico

There is a constant need to find an adequate balance between the thoughts, concepts, models, and techniques that created the very foundation of business and new and innovative propositions, in a context of overwhelm-ing changes in the environment Some organizational leaders make the mistake of engaging in business practices on the basis of tradition or because they are derived from classical theory without considering the particularities of the current climate

The volatility of the environment has become a constant variable in decision making The speed with which changes occur has significantly increased in the last two decades; the Internet boom and the emergence

of social media and social networking sites have without doubt been instrumental in the shaping of the current external conditions as well as organizational dynamics For one, current and potential stakeholders have become much more empowered and assertive in voicing their opinions and thoughts regarding business practices and tend to do so via social platforms Creating a dialogue with them is essential for the achievement

of desired performance as well as growth and development

The purpose of this book is to present a comprehensive view of the implications and attributes of business environments This book provides insights into business dynamics that provide satisfaction, added value, and enhanced performance Competitive paradigms, which are con-stantly being shifted, and turbulent environmental conditions, which are

a constant today, tend to dictate rather than inform strategic decision making regarding organization’s status quo and desired outcomes As such, there is a need for organizational leaders to re-examine current

Preface

practices The book intends to provide theoretical contribution in regard

to leadership, corporate governance, collaborator management, mance management and organizational design, as well as the relation of the aforementioned to types of organizations

perfor-Each chapter begins with a discussion on the corresponding tional concept on the basis of various definitions developed by practitio-ners and scholars Leadership Taxonomy, Chap 1, begins with a debate on nature versus nurture in order to determine the fundamentals of the con-cept The different styles of leadership, which have been significantly debated by scholars and practitioners in organizational literature, are pre-sented so as to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each style for the achievement of desired performance The practices of seeding and implanting leadership are discussed to draw attention to the role of society

organiza-in the shaporganiza-ing and development, and relevance of a streamlorganiza-ined ideology and its association with leadership and followership Three types of leader-ship, induced, purposive, and macro and global, are introduced to explain the new dynamics surrounding the concept in the current conditions Induced leadership refers to the effects of the organization’s internal and external dynamics on the development of leadership, organizational cul-ture, and performance outcomes Purposive leadership, which is associ-ated with the latter, is generated on the basis of particular strategic goals, while macro and global leadership emerge for global strategic goal achieve-ment The final section of the chapter includes propositions regarding the correlation between the concept of syntality (description of group behav-ioral traits) and leadership; it discusses its implications on team dynamics, effectivity, and performance

Chapter 2, Corporate Governance, offers a discussion on corporate governance; it is a concept that tends to resonate with current and poten-tial stakeholders when an organization’s decision making is questioned in traditional media and, increasingly, in social media The chapter addresses the differences among organizations that formally design, implement, measure, and control corporate governance versus those that steer away from its formal engagement Transparent communication, control, and accountability are discussed as leading attributes of the internal and exter-nal fit of corporate governance A model for internal fit, which depicts the systematic process where corporate goals and collaborators’ personal goals converge, is presented along with a model which explains how corporate goals and corporate social responsibility goals relate and correlate, in alignment with the internal fit Furthermore, it debates the role of media

participation in accountability and the consequences of its intervention on stakeholder satisfaction and perception of organizational dynamics by illustrating the value of social media, particularly social networking sites.Chapter 3, Performance Management, tackles the issue of organiza-tional performance and its correlation with individual performance, specifi-cally based on individual assessments Without disregarding the importance

of measuring performance, as it is an elemental managerial practice, the effectivity of traditional individual evaluations is questioned; there ought to

be a better approach to evaluating performance that does not stem from a coercive standpoint An analysis of individual evaluation implications for performance management is included, as well as details of the repercussions

of these assessments on individual and organizational satisfaction, tivity, and performance Moreover, this chapter describes the process to effectively align organizational performance strategic goals with collabora-tor strategic goal achievement (SGA) And, in order to do so successfully, a model is proposed to achieve an integral approach to performance manage-ment on the basis of individual and organization desired performance.Collaborators are definitely key to the achievement of desired organiza-tional performance and, therefore, growth and development; as such, Collaborator Management is examined in Chap 4 The dialogue of empowerment describes the characteristics and differences among collab-orator voice and silence, and effects of openness A model, 7Ss for collabo-rator dialogue, is proposed to achieve desired outcomes Also, the relation

produc-of empowering collaborator dialogue with leadership, and organizational culture and climate is discussed The maximization of collaborator MO is examined for achieving high levels of productivity, increased satisfaction, perceived added value, and performance; that is, as opposed to forcing collaborators into the contextually accepted organizational fold Further,

it evaluates the impact of SGA on collaborators’ well-being, satisfaction, productivity, and performance, which is also discussed for managerial implications Finally, intergenerational collaboration is addressed by ana-lyzing the negative effects of generational discrimination on individual well-being, satisfaction, productivity, and performance, as well as that of the organization

In the beginning of Chap 5, Organizational Designing, the first tion posed is whether to redesign or perish It includes a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of placing emphasis on redesigning as an ad hoc solution for sustained business growth and development by describing its association with the intent to adopt organizational design trends, as well

ques-as the effects of radical transformation The effects of keeping up with latest propositions and trends to maintain a “state-of-the-art” organizational design are evaluated and a model to manage potential shock received by the turbulent environmental conditions is proposed so organizational lead-ers can properly design their organization Finally, a layering approach to design, as opposed to a radical transformation, is described as an alternative

to achieve desired outcomes in regard to organizations’ particular needs The final chapter addresses future directions for organizations It discusses key elements that all organizations, regardless of size and line of business, should tackle in the pursuit of sustained growth and development

The idea for this book came from analyzing current organizational decision making as well as trends, which led me to examine whether or not

we are likely to tackle current and future challenges Thus, as we get pared to enter the third decade of the twenty-first century, it is only fitting that we ask the difficult and uncomfortable questions regarding our busi-ness practices

pre-Mexico City, pre-Mexico Andrée Marie López-Fernández October 2018

The process of writing this book has certainly been supported by lively discussions with colleges, family, and friends I thank Dr Rajagopal, my mentor, for always inspiring me to continue asking questions I would also like to thank Renée Valentina for motivating me to speak my mind, and Federico for his support and love I express my deepest gratitude to Anita for her unwavering support, love, and continuous motivation; she has been instrumental in this realization of this project as well as many others

I thank Carla for always being a believer and her contagious enthusiasm, and Victor, my accomplice, for his continuous encouragement to follow

my dreams This project could not have been completed without you

2 Corporate Governance 27

3 Performance Management 49

4 Collaborator Management 71

6 Future Directions 111

Index 117

Fig 3.1 Negative effects of individual performance evaluations 62

Fig 5.1 Strategic corporate philosophy alignment 93

list of figures

Table 2.2 Hashtags from 2017 and 2018 scandal tweets 43 Table 3.1 Integral approach to performance management 64 Table 4.1 Current sayings about Millennials in the workplace 86

list of tables

of the nature of their strategic objectives and goals Granted, not all have had the best intentions, and their actions may have been somewhat disap-pointing and even manifestly unethical; however, their success ultimately lies in their followers and achievement of effective outcomes Their legacy

is, in fact, the continuous successes as leaders despite potential ing points of view

contradict-Defining LeaDershipThe concept of leadership, like so many others, has been widely debated by numerous scholars and practitioners searching for a worthy definition of the term As such, it has multiple definitions that vary according to firm size and core operations, organizational context, environment, and overall business dynamics According to Chemers (2014), leadership is a process

by which an individual assists another or others in fulfilling an undertaking common to all parties interested It is about influencing others (Yukl 2010)

to attempt to realize a group’s objectives (Terry 1960); thus, managers ultimately become leaders when they have followers who collaborate with them in the pursuit of goal achievement Leadership has been considered

to be a process through which a manager or organizational leader fully defines the path of other individuals (Smircich and Morgan 1982) In

success-a sense, it refers to msuccess-ansuccess-agers’ behsuccess-avior success-and the msuccess-anner in which they act with collaborators (Belias and Koustelios 2015) Therefore, leaders’ actions directly impact collaborators’ behavior and attitude toward the firm, as well as their performance (Lok and Crawford 2004)

inter-An effective approach to leadership has a positive effect on individual and organizational performance, cooperation, and degree of collaborator responsiveness to their leaders According to Bass (1997), leadership has been discussed from many perspectives and with various intentions; in fact, it has been researched; examined; and considered to be behavior, personality, a means of compliance and to fulfill objectives; infusion of persuasion, power, influence; and the result of a structure, relationships, as well as a mixture of the above-mentioned Therefore, leadership is a charged word, to say the least, which originates from a series of theories that have enriched our understanding of the concept and its virtue

initiating the Debate on born LeaDers

In the nineteenth century, the “Great Man Theory” dominated sions about leadership It was 1840 when historian Thomas Carlyle gave a

discus-series of lectures that would become the book On Heroes, Hero-worship,

and the Heroic in History He described how the accomplishments of such

heroes are intrinsic, in a way that leaders are destined to succeed as leaders (Carlyle 1840); therefore, theorizing that leaders are born not made Further, the theory suggests that groups or teams are high-performers

because they have the best leader, a Great Man (Borgatta et al 1954) Skip forward a couple of decades when sociologist Herbert Spencer described leadership as a trait influenced by environment and context In his book

The Study of Sociology (Spencer 1873), he stated that the origin of the great man is determined by the various elements and aspects that have influ-enced and caused the very social state in which said individual is found Moreover, he argues that as much power and influence an individual may have to change a nation whereby its structure and actions are modified, it

is equally plausible that the very nation attempting to be changed may, in fact, influence and impact the individual The leader, then, is first made by the society she/he is trying to transform; in a sense, leaders would not become leaders if a leadership role did not need to be filled According to Spencer, leaders are, in fact, made, thus, commencing a leadership debate

of nature versus nurture The debate is a draw; discussing leadership requires acknowledgment of the influence of both viewpoints.

Personality has also been at the center of leadership theory It is the Trait Theory that suggests that personality traits have a direct impact on leadership (Colbert et al 2012) Although it does not always accurately differentiate those that are leaders and those that are not (Zaccaro 2007), there are certain attributes that are considered to be particular to leaders

In fact, you may find over one million three hundred hits when you

Google Personality traits of leaders When some say that a person is a

natu-ral leader or born leader it is suggested that they have a certain personality

suitable for a leadership position Being proactive, working well under pressure, being forthright, collaborating well with others, and not being risk averse, are some trait examples These include elements of a Type A personality, such as being persistent, highly involved in their work and hard driving (Caplan and Jones 1975) Type A Behavior Pattern, accord-ing to Friedman and Rosenman (1974), is defined as an individual’s mul-tidimensional actions charged with emotion which drive optimal and prompt accomplishment of objectives against all odds The description of relentless drive to efficiently accomplish goals and objectives is undoubt-edly fit for what may be considered to be an effective leader; however, although it has been considered to be a performance indicator (Bartkus

et al 1989; Barling et al 1996), it is not characteristic of all leaders, both effective and ineffective

The effectivity of a leader is visible when she/he adequately aligns her/his policies and actions with their collaborators’ requirements (Hur 2008)

It is important for collaborators to feel they are working toward their growth and development as well as that of the firm Effective leaders also foster an amicable organizational climate where collaborators can share attitudes, beliefs, and values (Schneider 1987) They strategically commu-nicate their expectations regarding the work of the collaborators (Belias and Koustelios 2015), to fulfill strategic goals and desired performance And, not only are they aware of collaborators’ differences (Hersey and Blanchard 1993) but they also include them in pursuit of organizational goal fulfillment However, as much as these traits are commonly associated with effective leadership, they are not a guarantee of success

The debate on born leaders has extended to gender, in that many scholars and practitioners have questioned whether the best leaders are actually women

or men The 1980s brought forth conversation of the term glass ceiling

A concept that remains relevant in the discussion of qualified women and the obstacles and barriers they encountered to attain positions in higher echelons (Morrison et al 1987) The reality is that women still remain underrepre-sented in leadership positions (Adler 1993; Cook and Glass 2014) worldwide Ayman et al (2009) held a study and found that woman leaders were associ-ated with significantly less performance than their male counterparts, regard-less of their level of transformational leadership Furthermore, according to Ryan and Haslam (2005), women face a glass cliff effect as they tend to be

appointed to leadership positions when the organization endures financial problems and/or a decreased performance; therefore, they face a more than challenging context and environment It is no wonder some workers prefer not to collaborate with women leaders (Simon and Landis 1989) and distrust their effectiveness (Bowen et al 2000; Sczesny 2003)

Many have studied the differences between male and female leaders Although differences have been identified, feminine and masculine leader-ship styles have been said to be less contrasting than one would assume; meaning that, the differences are quite small (Eagly 2013) That said, the general notion is that a feminine leadership style is characterized by a dem-ocratic, relationship-oriented, participatory leader, who is also more of a transformational than a transactional leader (Bass and Avolio 1994); while

a masculine leadership style is more associated with an autocratic and task- related style of leadership (Gardiner and Tiggemann 1999; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001; Van Engen et al 2001) Under such assump-tions, (1) all men would be autocratic leaders, which means no empower-ment, or participation in decision making, and reduced or null innovation and creativity; (2) all women would be democratic leaders, meaning empowerment, participation in decision making, and increased innova-tiveness and creativity; (3) since small firms’ structure is more aligned with

a centralized decision making, most of these firms would be effectively managed by male leaders; and (4) because decision making in larger firms

is decentralized and even collaborative, these firms would be effectively managed by female leaders

While reaching top management and senior positions in large and tinational enterprises has proved to be difficult to say the least, finding women entrepreneurs in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is not unusual To be fair, it does not mean that women-owned/managed SMEs are the majority, rather they are less atypical However, there are examples that somewhat contradict common cultural practices In other words, it is

mul-suggested that there are certain roles still thought should be strictly

per-formed by women and others by men Consider the example of taquerías

(taco restaurants) in Mexico; these are mostly small businesses that are par excellence owned, managed, and run by men This, of course, includes preparing and serving meals which is customarily considered a woman’s responsibility, one of women’s roles in society Thus, it seems clear that the optimal style of leadership is not a one-size-fits-all style; it rather depends

on organizational context, environment, and, specially, the characteristics

of the group and its personality

styLe of LeaDershipThere are many styles of leadership that have been widely discussed by scholars and practitioners for decades Table 1.1 includes a brief descrip-tion of leadership styles that have been previously researched and dis-cussed That said, the most commonly discussed leadership styles include task-oriented, relationship-oriented, autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership (Bass and Stogdill 1990; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001; Nikezić et al 2012; Ehrhart and Klein 2001; Tabernero et  al 2009) These styles tend to be associated with type and/or size of the organization, context, and environment; moreover, they often determine how collaborators perceive not only lead-ership, but also their tasks, work environment, and effects of performance According to Bass and Stogdill (1990), leadership style is defined as the different approaches of leaders’ behavior related to their interaction with team members—collaborators Meaning that, there is not one style of

Table 1.1 Brief description of leadership styles

Democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire leadership Lewin and Lippitt ( 1938 )

Undemocratic leadership Manz and Sims ( 1989 )

Transformational leadership Burns ( 1978 )

Instructional leadership Marks and Printy ( 2003 )

Participative, supportive, and instrumental leadership Pedraja-Rejas et al ( 2006 ) Mechanistic and humanistic based leadership Zehir et al ( 2011 )

leadership, a one size fits all, but a range of styles Further, Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) have posited that leadership styles are the manner in which leaders behave, which remains fairly unchanged Therefore, it suggests that leaders are persistent in the manner they accom-plish objectives In a sense, leaders tend to maintain a selected style of leadership unless they are convinced that their approach is no longer satisfactory.

A leadership style that is task-oriented prioritizes the completion of tasks and activities by complying with strategic goals and objectives over most any other aspect; and a leadership style that is relationship-oriented prioritizes the connections made between leader and collaborators, the latter’s well-being, satisfaction, and added value, above all else (Blake et al

1964; Hersey and Blanchard 1993; Ehrhart and Klein 2001; Tabernero

et al 2009) Supportive leadership prioritizes collaborators’ well-being by fostering an amicable environment; it is aligned with the accomplishment

of policies, functions, and tasks (Pedraja-Rejas et al 2006) And a pative leadership style suggests that leaders’ approach is based on empow-erment so collaborators are active in decision making

partici-A democratic style of leadership is participative (Gastil 1994) Decision making is decentralized enabling collaborators to actively and, in many cases, proactively participate in decision making; and they are inspired and motivated by their leaders (Daft and Marcic 2006; Yukl 2010) These leaders have a considerable amount of power, yet are not dictatorial or authoritarian (Oparanma 2013); rather, they not only encourage collabo-rators to partake in the power (Srivastava et al 2006) but also empower them Thus, they intend to positively influence collaborators (Daft and Marcic 2006) This style of leadership has been found to increase collabo-rators’ satisfaction, effectivity, and autonomy (Cuadrado et  al 2012) Because of the continuous encouragement, collaborators are not only pro-active and participative, but they also tend to exhibit more creativity and innovativeness Moreover, they are made aware of the effects of their work and influence on organizational productivity and performance

According to Burns (1978), a manager’s leadership style may either

be transactional or transformational A transactional leadership style is characterized by a focus on supervision (Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013)

in an effort to effectively accomplish activities and functions in ment with strategic goals and objectives It is also regarded as a leader-ship focused on compliance with organizational policies, norms, and standards (Ng and Sears 2012) that leads to the achievement of desired

align-individual and organizational productivity and performance These leaders are concerned with collaborators’ well-being and do watch over the protection of their human rights; however, they are significantly more concerned with setting objectives, generating added value for stakeholders, and the maximization of the bottom line (Kanungo 2001; Aronson 2001) Transactional leadership leans on managerial practices that revolve around the evaluation of behavior and performance as well

as their reinforcement (Aarons 2006)

These leaders utilize a reward system (Belias and Koustelios 2015) to promote good behavior and performance (Odumeru and Ogbonna

2013) and punishments to dissuade bad behavior and poor mance Therefore, there is a particular transaction that occurs whereby the collaborators (1) are compensated for their efforts and (2) are sys-tematically disciplined and rewarded for their efforts Due to the above-mentioned particularities, this style of leadership is often related to a bureaucratic environment and authority style (Ng and Sears 2012) With transactional leadership, most everything is a conditioned to

perfor-something else It is more of a quid pro quo situation, which goes from

top-bottom and bottom-up Leaders condition compensation to desired outcomes, and collaborators condition productivity and performance to proper compensation, validation, and recognition Thus, the relation-ship between leaders and collaborators is characterized by a somewhat cold, calculated, and controlling rapport

A transformational leadership style, on the contrary, is often associated with more of a democratic leadership style The focus of this leadership is

on transformation, where collaborators (1) are guided toward self- awareness of their work, degree of productivity, and performance, and (2) are in continuous pursuit of their and the organization’s growth, as well as the pertinent rewards (Ruggieri and Abbate 2013) for their efforts in accomplishing favorable outcomes The relationship between leaders and collaborators is far from a mere exchange of conditioned results; rather it

is based on a participatory environment According to Bass and Riggio (2006), transformational leadership is characterized by the following attri-butes: idealized influence (II), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individualized consideration (IC) Consequently, Bass and Stogdill (1990) have posited that this style of leadership is visible when collaborators’ interests are aligned with those of the leader, they acknowledge and accept the mission, and seek the good of the group, team, and organization

These leaders are aware that constant motivation and encouragement drives collaborators to increased levels of effectivity and productivity under various conditions; for instance, according to Faupel and Süß (2018), transformational leaders can have a significant impact on followers’ behav-ior during processes of organizational change Further, collaborators know that constant improvement of their performance is a result of the leader-ship’s attention to their individual needs as well as those of the firm Managers with a transformational leadership style have a positive influence

on collaborators’ personal and professional development and performance (Dvir et al 2002) They “motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible” (Bass and Riggio 2006); in fact, this style of leadership is financially, emotionally, and intellectually motivating for collaborators Followers are compensated and rewarded for their efforts and outcomes and the protection of their human rights and dignity is one of the leader’s top priorities (Kanungo 2001; Aronson 2001) Leaders challenge collaborators intellectually to solve problems innovatively (Bass and Riggio 2006) which has a positive influ-ence on their creativity (Avolio et  al 1999; Berson and Linton 2005; Herrmann and Felfe 2014) Furthermore, collaborators are made aware of their influence on the organization’s research and development (Elkins and Keller 2003; Chen et al 2009) Therefore, collaborators perceive that they are motivated on various levels and are stimulated not only to comply with requested tasks, but also to do more than the minimum required.One of the aims and effects of transformational leaders is the develop-ment of other leaders; that is, the actual transformation of other individu-als, team members, and collaborators, from followers to leaders Therefore, collaborators working with a transformational leadership style are signifi-cantly more committed to the organization itself and are more satisfied (Bass and Riggio 2006) which, in turn, increases their strategic goal achievement and levels of productivity (Belias and Koustelios 2015), as well as their effectiveness and individual and organizational performance The most adequate and effective leaders are frequently associated with a transformational leadership style (Bass 1985; Judge et al 2006) When other styles of leadership are discussed examples of passive non-effective leaders arise That said, the effects of transactional and transformational leadership styles are well associated because the latter influences the for-mer (Judge and Piccolo 2004)

Bureaucratic leadership is not participatory and decision making is more than often centralized This style of leadership leans on strict standards and

rules that collaborators must abide by in order to complete their functions Collaborators are not motivated, they excel when following instructions, and are expected to perform their tasks without asking many questions as

processes and procedures are strictly done by the book The leader makes all

decisions, that are later dictated to all parties interested, which significantly reduces collaborator’s creativity and innovativeness Furthermore, collabo-rators are focused on individual productivity and are less concerned with their impact on the organization’s overall performance

An autocratic style of leadership is described as being highly centralized as the decision making is solely in the hands of the leader (Bass and Stogdill

1990; De Cremer 2007), which means that the style is non-participatory Every task and assignment is dictated; collaborators do as they are told, no questions asked In fact, the mere act of asking questions may provoke repres-sive answers, and swift reprimand Only one individual, the leader, holds total power over all decisions; these include the use of coercive measures and, although less likely, allocation of rewards (Daft and Marcic 2006) for strate-gic goal achievement or lack thereof Collaborators are certainly not moti-vated and inspired; they are not required to be creative or innovative, as that would mean making waves in a highly standardized environment

The assumption would be that collaborators prefer to work at an nization known for its prominent democratic leadership style, to work in

orga-an amicable environment where proactivity orga-and creativity are fostered through continuous inspiration and motivation However, such prefer-ence well depends on the characteristics of collaborators; that is, their per-sonality traits, method for carrying out tasks and activities, approach to processes and procedures, and their appreciation for discipline and appren-ticeship For instance, an autocratic leadership style may be preferred by collaborators that are responsive to hierarchical environments that provide

a sense of security (De Hoogh et al 2015), stability, and confidence in their work While some collaborators may prefer a less structured working environment, others may, in fact, thrive under such circumstances

The laissez-faire leadership style has been considered to be the tion of a managers’ lack of responsibility (Bradford and Lippitt 1945) in their role as organizational leaders In fact, Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008) found that this style of leadership is actually well associated with a lack of leadership, meaning that these leaders avoid supervision functions (Judge and Piccolo 2004), leading them to the failure of completion of tasks and activities commonly assigned to organizational leaders Laissez-faire lead-

depic-ers are not proactive, avoid decision making, and show little to no concern with collaborators’ individual needs and wants as well as the requirements

of the organization

Therefore, collaborators receive scant to zero guidance in the ment of strategic goals and objectives which would require them to be proactive in the design, development and execution of strategic plans These leaders may hold power for decision making yet, decide to allocate

fulfill-it to the collaborators In other words, collaborators have all power on decision making and are in charge of business dynamics Furthermore, these leaders do not motivate and/or inspire followers; rather, they are expected to motivate themselves Incidentally, since collaborators are self- motivating, self-supervising, and make all decisions, they are not necessar-ily followers Thus, it would seem as though this style requires neither a leader that leads nor followers, per se

Skogstad et al (2007) held a study and found that this style of ship is akin to a destructive leadership style This would mean that this particular style of leadership is irrelevant when debating effectivity among organizational leaders, as well as their impact on strategic goal achieve-ment and individual and organizational productivity and performance However, some collaborators, just like with all styles of leadership, thrive while working in an environment with a laissez-faire leadership, where supervision is a nonissue; for instance, writers, researchers, and scientists are able to effectively perform in an environment that promotes a laissez- faire leadership style

Not everyone is intended to be a leader Some simply do not have the traits commonly associated with leadership which is not a negative

reflection on their abilities nor does it diminish their contribution to goal achievement Instead of encouraging individuals to nurture their innate talents and develop skills and competencies within the bounds of their

capabilities, we tend to push a good leader agenda; that is, the right and

effective way to lead others This, undoubtedly, causes frustration in both

the struggling leader and those she/he is attempting to lead

Not everyone wants to be a leader Consider a person who is told that she/he has a talent for leadership and is perfect to lead others, yet never takes on a leadership position or decides against it In such cases having personality traits fit for a leadership position is no guarantee that the per-son will become a leader Not every person who is proactive, goal oriented and not risk averse is qualified or desires to undertake a task such as guid-ing others toward the achievement of goals and objectives There are many reasons why people skilled to be a leader choose not to be (Goffee and Jones 2006), and compelling an individual that, although capable, does not wish to lead others is a disservice to them and potential followers.Not everyone should be a leader Not everyone can be the coach of a sports team, the president or prime minister of a nation, or the Secretary General of the United Nations and, for that matter, not everybody should

be For instance, it is possible to be a good enough leader of a successful business and, yet, be an incompetent Chief of State This exemplifies how even good leaders do not always produce good results (Goffee and Jones

2006) Having certain leadership traits and/or respectable past results as a leader does not ensure that a person will be an effective leader in the future

or in different realms; in fact, the results of insisting that a person be a leader when they ought not to be can be catastrophic

In learning that becoming a good leader is synonymous with success,

we forget the value of being a follower On the one hand, this suggests that a person transcends and grants true meaning to their professional lives, if not also personal, by becoming a successful leader On the other hand, none of the mentioned leaders, along with many more, are success-ful without the effective and continuous collaboration of their followers

It is clear that a team requires good leadership as much as the latter requires effective collaborators (Chemers 2014); therefore, why not del-egate efforts toward the development of skilled followers that enrich a leader’s results and enhance the team’s performance? It does not mean that leadership skills should not be instilled; on the contrary, they should

be encouraged yet not forced upon those that are not intended to be, want to be, or should be leaders

impLanting LeaDership

As mentioned earlier in the chapter, one of the characteristics of mational leadership is the leader’s efforts to continuously motivate col-laborators to not only fulfill their tasks effectively but also be creative, innovative, and proactive In this sense, leaders are able to develop stream-lined ideologies that are intended to seep through the organization and directly impact individual, team, and organizational performance

transfor-Implanting leadership requires a leader with a clear vision of what she/

he aims to achieve, what the finish line should look like, and a mission describing how members should reach the finish line Meaning that, the first step in implanting leadership involves developing and implementing strategic goals and objectives, and a strategic plan to accomplish them Then, the leader creates and executes a philosophy that encompasses val-ues, beliefs, principles, norms, policies, and standards that dictate the manner in which members’ behavior and attitude toward the vision and mission ought to be By doing so, organizational direction is clarified by a streamlined ideology

Take Vincent Thomas Lombardi as an example He successfully led the Green Bay Packers to win five World Championships and two Super Bowls (Lombardi 2001) He has gone down in history as one of the best leaders because of his inspirational and motivational approach to leadership In Lombardi’s famous speech on leadership he said that leaders are made through continuous effort and hard work in order to account for success (Lombardi 2001) He recognized that there are certain attributes which a person must embody in order to become an effective leader, in that leader-ship is nurtured by a mixture of talents and qualities He created an ideol-

ogy that described winning as a habit and victory as only the moment when a person has worked their heart out and lies exhausted on the field of

battle (Lombardi 2001) His ideology of what a team should do and how

it must be done is as celebrated as his inspirational speeches; he ted his expertise through them which not only made him one of the great-est leaders ever but also led a high-performing team to success

transmit-SMEs and particularly family businesses are also associated with the practice of implanting leadership In reference to SMEs, owners bring forth their ideology and, because of the shorter distance between them and collaborators, they are able to effectively transmit it and ensure its execution throughout the organization Family businesses have a certain familiness, the organization’s individuality (Habbershon and Williams

2000), that dictates the organization’s ideology and permeates its business dynamics In both cases, the ideology is implanted through the owners’ leadership which is, in turn, experienced through the organization’s cor-porate culture.

inDuceD LeaDership

In many cases, leadership is influenced by internal factors as much as by external factors that surround and affect the organization These factors not only delineate the leadership style but also impact decision making and individual, team, and organizational performance Contingency leadership theories suggest that there is no sole way to lead others meaning that, leadership style is based on context, environment, and is situational (Horner-Long and Schoenberg 2002) These are the it depends theories;

leadership styles are adopted in accordance with the requirements of given circumstances, strategic goals, and desired performance Further, the lead-ership style might depend on a team’s characteristics and the members she/he is leading; and, style may also vary with the size of the organization and line of business

There are various points of view regarding organization size, the style

of leadership and their performance, including the fact that there are diverse variables associated with size that may be equally relevant to lead-ership, decision making, and performance (Hart and Banbury 1994); fur-ther, industrial characteristics determine organizational strategic behavior

as much as organizational size impacts the latter (Dean et  al 1998) Therefore, there may be aspects that prove to be more challenging for smaller firms than that for larger firms; and, vice versa, some strengths for larger, multinational organizations turn out being areas of opportunity for smaller ones Organizational leaders from larger firms place emphasis on the abilities and skills to effectively and swiftly react when decisions have been made (Chen and Hambrick 1995) Larger, multinational enterprises (MNEs) are usually characterized by formal and institutionalized pro-cesses and procedures, as well as collaborative decision making; that is, the decisions are usually made by a group (Matlay 1999), or team, of people working toward a particular strategic goal and objective Smaller organiza-tions are characterized by a certain degree of informality in the way leader-ship relates with collaborators (Matlay 1999) as well as with the design, development, and execution of policies, processes, and procedures

One of the main reasons reported for lack of success in small tions is unsatisfactory leadership (Davies et  al 2002) Decision making tends to be highly centralized in entrepreneurial (Mintzberg 1973), smaller organizations, meaning that, in SMEs the power over decision making is usually in the hands of one person (Matlay 1999) who is often the owner/manager of the firm According to Byers and Slack (2001), one reason for the degree of power and decision making centralization is the leader’s interest in preserving control and preference for speedy deci-sion making Chen and Hambrick (1995) have posited that one of the aspects most valued in smaller organizations is the velocity with which leaders make decisions Therefore, as would seem, smaller firms are struc-turally more aligned with a bureaucratic and autocratic leadership style, and larger firms with a democratic leadership style However, it is not the size of the firm which determines the optimal style of leadership that will ensure desired outcomes, productivity, and performance; rather, it is the perception of style, and characteristics of the group, team and/or organi-zation itself that best determines the style of leadership required to fulfill strategic goals and objectives.

organiza-Puni et al (2014) posit that organizational success has as much to do with leadership style as with the work environment created for collabora-tors Leadership style has been considered a guideline to predict organiza-tional outcomes and performance It seems straightforward to correlate a type of leadership with elements such as strategic goal achievement, empowerment, stakeholder satisfaction and added value, innovativeness, and competitive advantage Furthermore, it should be well associated with active participation in decision making, organizational climate and design, justice, and social responsibility However, this is not always the case because a significant aspect leadership style effects is its actual perception

In other words, leadership is in the eye of the beholder…and rators too Each manager selects or adopts a style of leadership and may

collabo-or may not be aware of using such style Further, collabcollabo-oratcollabo-ors may not always perceive the leadership style as intended by the manager It is not uncommon for managers to perceive themselves as democratic, partici-patory, and/or transformational when in reality their behavioral pattern

of leadership is much closer to an autocratic or laissez-fair style The same applies to collaborators; although a leader may have the best inten-tions, collaborators may perceive their actions inflexible, uninspiring, and even questionable

External stakeholders’ perceptions are also a strong determinant in leadership Think back to a time you opened a newspaper, logged onto Facebook or Twitter, or visited a news site, and saw a report on yet another organization that was exploiting their collaborators Now, think back to a time you found a report on an organization that was delegat-ing efforts toward the improvement of collaborators’ quality of life Granted the first example is more common that the latter, nonetheless, the fact remains that stakeholders’ perceptions are shaped by the infor-mation they receive regarding business dynamics And, it is this percep-tion which can influence organizational decision making regarding its leadership Further, today social media enables stakeholders to commu-nicate directly with organizational leaders in real time, thus, accelerat-ing the potential influence.

Leadership is also influenced by the internal and external ment In the internal environment, for instance, corporate culture plays a significant role that definitely influences leadership Culture can act as an indicator of the degree to which collaborators’ expectations match those of leadership (Aycan et al 1999) SMEs and family busi-nesses have a greater chance of determining and controlling the bounds

environ-of corporate culture because environ-of the distance between owners and laborators, meaning, the possibility of both controlling undesired man-ifestations of corporate culture and obtaining information directly from collaborators’ behavior and attitude, beliefs, and values, are higher However, this is not always the case with larger firms and MNEs In the latter, greater distance exists between owners and CEOs and collaborators which can cause greater amount of noise in the com-munication channel and can distort the information Also, the larger the organization, the greater the possibility of subcultures forming, which are harder to detect and manage In any case, the internal envi-ronment influences leadership and their decision making The external environment includes a series of elements, political, economic, social, and technological, that individually and collectively influence leader-ship and performance, as do the abovementioned external stakehold-ers Any alteration in, for instance, inflation, fiscal policy, disruptive innovations, or even presidential elections, can influence the organiza-tion’s leadership For such reasons, leadership is also induced by both internal and external environments

col-purposive LeaDershipSometimes leaders emerge with a sole purpose, meaning that they are objective oriented and only focused on the achievement of a single objec-tive This leadership may dissipate as fast as it materialized; that is, more often than not, once the objective has been accomplished the person leaves her/his leadership position This does not mean that person will not take on another leadership role, rather, that they may choose another objective to pursue.

Purposive leadership generates from an ideology that grows with a given situation in a given context and environment In the majority of cases, the objective may be seen as a cause, in that the leader demonstrates deep commitment toward advocating or standing up for a cause In order

to achieve the objective, this leadership is embedded in others, i.e laborators, through their streamlined ideology (implanted leadership) In other words, the ideology, the cause, and the objective are taken on by others in its pursuit

col-Examples range from parents who decide to coach a little league team for a season, or as long as their child plays on the team, leading a food drive for victims of a natural disaster, leading a protest or a campaign, becoming interim business director or the president of a nation, to eradi-cating extreme poverty in a region This type of leadership is untainted as

no other interests are added to those of the leader This also means that the leader is extremely focused on the task at hand and is not easily swayed

by third-party concerns For instance, it is unlikely that parents coaching little league will compromise their leadership efforts because of interests of the opposing team, and a protest leader will not give in before the protest objective has been accomplished It is not surprising that purposive leader-ship is, in many cases, the starting point for other types of leaders intend-ing the achievement of objectives on a larger scale and in the long term

macro anD gLobaL LeaDership

As mentioned, purposive leadership is sometimes the inception of a greater type of leadership; such is the case of macro and global leadership In both instances, leaders draw on a streamlined ideology (implanted leadership), and the determination to achieve an objective (purposive leadership) or a series of objectives, in the short, medium, and long term, and are influ-enced by internal and external factors (induced leadership)

Macro leadership suggests that leaders focus their efforts on social ism They are the proverbial agents of change Although their ideology adheres to a specific direction, it is influenced by the small and large changes they cause, variations in the internal and external environment, and cre-ations of subcultures Consider Hugh Evans, Co-founder and CEO, and Wei Soo, Co-Founder and Managing Director, of Global Citizen The orga-nization, a social action platform dedicated to the eradication of extreme poverty, as well as its leadership has been transformed by growing needs Evans co-founded the organization originally named the Global Poverty Project focused on education and advocacy toward action to end extreme poverty (Global Citizen 2017) Throughout the years, many causes have been addressed, leadership has developed and six million actions have been taken since 2012 in the pursuit of ending extreme poverty (Global Citizen

activ-2017) It all started with Hugh Evans’ ideology and commitment to achieve

an objective which has rapidly been adopted by millions

Global leadership refers to those leaders that operate in an international arena; their ideology is, for the most part, derived from the institution, organization, or nation they lead Their objective is to serve a greater pur-pose, the common good, whose positive impacts outnumber the negative effects on the majority Their leadership is confined by standards and law, both domestic and international, and their affairs are those of the people They are absolutely influenced by internal and external environmental changes and intend to effectively manage them, while tending to their objectives Global leaders tend to work alongside purposive and macro leaders as they acknowledge the potential positive benefits for the major-ity This is the case, or should be, of MNEs, as well as chiefs of state, prime Ministers, among others

syntaLity for effective LeaDership

Strategic goals and objectives are achievable with any of the tioned styles of leadership, as long as there are followers willing to collabo-rate toward their achievement and align with the style In a sense, these styles of leadership may drive effective practices and successfully deliver results However, there is a difference between an effective leader and a high-performing leader; the former consistently gets the job done and the latter starts by acknowledging the vast differences among collaborators, leaders, and the firm’s particularities that coincide in an organization, and ends by getting the job done Hence, it is suggested that there are two ele-

abovemen-ments to the achievement of high-performing leadership: (1) analysis, acknowledgment, and adoption of the team’s syntality, and (2) equal acces-sibility to leadership among team members, or distributed leadership.Syntality is to a group what personality is to an individual (Cattell et al

1953) According to Cattell et al (1952), syntality refers to the tics of the group when acting as a group” In such case, the leader’s personal-ity traits are not central, rather all traits of collaborators, as a group, are of interest By identifying the behavioral patterns of a group when acting as a group, organizational leaders are able to effectively and optimally drive stra-tegic goal achievement Furthermore, knowing and understanding group attributes enable leaders to accurately motivate and inspire them to go

“characteris-beyond the call of duty, enhance innovativeness, creativity, empowerment,

and proactivity, consequently, successfully achieving desired individual, group, and organizational levels of performance

Perhaps the optimal style of leadership is, then, a combination of shared leadership and distributed leadership Shared leadership is about sharing responsibility According to Carson et al (2007), this style of leadership is

“an emergent team property that results from the distribution of ship influence across multiple team members” Goldsmith (2010) has pos-ited that this style of leadership suggests that collaborators are empowered and granted leadership attributes and positions in the areas in which they are experts; moreover, it suggests that some tasks require multiple leaders; thus, the maximization of collaborators leadership skills enables a shared leadership in such way that motivation, inspiration, support, and direction

leader-is provided by all collaborators not just the leader (Pearce and Conger

2003) Distributed leadership has been defined by Bennett et al (2003) as

“not something ‘done’ by an individual ‘to’ others, or a set of individual actions through which people contribute to a group or organization…[it]

is a group activity that works through and within relationships, rather than individual action”

These leadership styles, together, require horizontal delegation of ities, when required, and a willingness to give and receive feedback from all collaborators, or team members Combining these styles promotes diversity within the group, meaning that, it is possible to tend to the needs and requirements of collaborators that perform better when they empow-ered, more autonomous, and constantly motivated and inspired; while tending to those collaborators that are less independent, and require a greater degree of control and supervision, as well as those collaborators who have a greater need for structure, standardized instructions, and

activ-reward and punishment systems to perform adequately and optimally It is about recognizing strengths and taking advantage of them to the fullest extent possible Each member takes on the function of a leader when the tasks involved are her/his forte, area of expertise In the sense that all col-laborators are constantly aware of their role as an expert in certain areas, aspects, activities, tasks, and functions Collaborators are not only empow-ered, but power is distributed through the team or group members; there-fore, there is a significant decrease in conflict and improvement in conflict resolution This principle applies to any and all organizational echelons and any organization, regardless of line of business and/or the size of the firm Therefore, a combination of shared and distributed leadership along with a grasp of the group’s syntality may yield results of a high-performing leadership, rather than just effective leadership.

references Aarons, G.  A (2006, August) Transformational and transactional leadership:

Association with attitudes toward evidence-based practice Psychiatric Services, 57(8), 1162–1169.

Adler, N. J (1993) An international perspective on the barriers to the

advance-ment of women managers Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42(4),

289–300.

Aronson, E (2001) Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 244–256.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I (1999) Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership

questionnaire Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4),

441–462.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., & Sinha, J. B (1999, July) Organizational culture

and human resource management practices: The model of culture fit Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(4), 501–526.

Ayman, R., Korabik, K., & Morris, S (2009, April) Is transformational leadership always perceived as effective? Male subordinates’ devaluation of female trans-

formational leaders Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 852–879.

Barling, J., Cheung, D., & Kelloway, E.  K (1996) Time management and

achievement striving interact to predict car sales performance Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 821–826.

Bartkus, K.  R., Peterson, M.  F., & Bellenger, D.  N (1989) Type A behavior,

experience, and salesperson performance Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 9(2), 11–18.

Bass, B. M (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations New York:

Free Press.

Bass, B. M (1997, February) Does the transactional-transformational leadership

paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J (1994) Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make

better managers Human Resource Management, 33(4), 549–560.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E (2006) Transformational leadership New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications New York: Free Press.

Belias, D., & Koustelios, A (2015) Leadership style, job satisfaction and

organi-zational culture in the Greek banking organization Journal of Management Research, 15(2), 101–110.

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A., & Harvey, J. A (2003) Distributed ship Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

leader-Berson, Y., & Linton, J. D (2005) An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administra-

tive environments R&D Management, 35(1), 51–60.

Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., Barnes, L. B., & Greiner, L. E (1964) Breakthrough

in organization development Harvard Business Review, 42(6), 133–155.

Borgatta, E. F., Bales, R. F., & Couch, A. S (1954, December) Some findings

relevant to the Great Man Theory of leadership American Sociological Review, 19(6), 755–759.

Bowen, C.-C., Swim, J. K., & Jacobs, R. R (2000, October) Evaluating gender

biases on actual job performance of real people: A meta-analysis Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(10), 2194–2215.

Bradford, L. P., & Lippitt, R (1945) Building a democratic work group Personnel, 22(3), 142–148.

Burns, J. M (1978) Leadership New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Byers, T., & Slack, T (2001) Strategic decision-making in small business within

the leisure industry Journal of Leisure Research, 33(2), 121–136.

Caplan, R. D., & Jones, K. W (1975, December) Effects of work load, role

ambi-guity, and Type A personality on anxiety, depression, and heart rate Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 713–719.

Carlyle, T (1840) On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history London:

Chapman and Hall.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A (2007) Shared leadership in teams:

An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.

Cattell, R. B., Breul, H., & Hartman, H. P (1952, August) An attempt at more refined definition of the cultural dimensions of syntality in modern nations

American Sociological Review, 17(4), 408–421.

Cattell, R. B., Saunders, D. R., & Stice, G. F (1953, November) The dimensions

of syntality in small groups Human Relations, 6(4), 331–356.

Chemers, M. M (2014) An integrative theory of leadership New York: Psychology

Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Chen, M.-J., & Hambrick, D. C (1995) Speed, stealth and selective attack: How

small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453–482.

Chen, C.-H. V., Li, H.-H., & Tang, Y.-Y (2009) Transformational leadership and creativity: Exploring the mediating effects of creative thinking and intrinsic

motivation International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 6(2), 198–211.

Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G (2012, August) Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The

mediating role of contributions to group success The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670–685.

Cook, A., & Glass, C (2014, January) Women and top leadership positions:

Towards an institutional analysis Gender, Work & Organization, 21(1),

91–103.

Cuadrado, I., Navas, M., Molero, F., Ferrer, E., & Morales, J. (2012) Gender differences in leadership styles as a function of leader and subordinates’ sex and

type of organization Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 3083–3113.

Daft, R. L., & Marcic, D (2006) Líderes Autocráticos o Democráticos In E. B

Fincowsky (Ed.), Introducción a la Administración (pp.  417–418) Mexico:

Cengage Learning Editores.

Davies, J., Hides, M., & Powell, J. (2002) Defining the development needs of

entrepreneurs in SMEs Education + Training, 44(8/9), 406–412.

De Cremer, D (2007) Emotional effects of distributive justice as a function of

autocratic leader behavior Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6),

transfor-ment Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–744.

Eagly, A. H (2013) Women as leaders: Leadership style versus leaders’ values and attitudes Retrieved December 23, 2016, from Harvard Business School

Gender & work: Challenging conventional wisdom: ulty/conferences/2013-w50-research-symposium/Documents/eagly.pdf Eagly, A.  H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M.  C (2001) The leadership styles of

http://www.hbs.edu/fac-women and men The Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781–797.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J (2001) Predicting followers’ preferences for

char-ismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality The Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 153–179.

Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T (2003) Leadership in research and development

orga-nizations: A literature review and conceptual framework The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 587–606.

Faupel, S., & Süß, S (2018) The effect of transformational leadership on

employ-ees during organizational change – An empirical analysis Journal of Change Management, 1–21 https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1447006.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.  H (1974) Type A behavior and your heart

New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Fry, L.  W (2003, December) Toward a theory of spiritual leadership The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727.

Gardiner, M., & Tiggemann, M (1999, September) Gender differences in ship style, job stress and mental health in male  – And female  – Dominated

leader-industries Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(3),

301–315.

Gastil, J. (1994, August) A meta-analytic review of the productivity and

satisfac-tion of democratic and autocratic leadership Small Group Research, 25(3),

384–410.

Global Citizen (2017) Our leadership Retrieved May 7, 2017, from About Us:

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/about/who-we-are/our-leadership/

Goffee, R., & Jones, G (2006) Why should anyone be led by you?: What it takes to

be an authentic leader Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Goldsmith, M (2010, May 26) Sharing leadership to maximize talent Retrieved

December 22, 2016, from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr org/2010/05/sharing-leadership-to-maximize

Greenleaf, R. K (1977) Servant leadership New York: Paulist Press.

Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L (2000) A model for understanding the competitiveness of family-controlled companies In P.  Poutziouris (Ed.),

Tradition or entrepreneurship in the new economy (pp.  94–115) Manchester:

Manchester Business School.

Hart, S., & Banbury, C (1994) How strategy-making processes can make a

dif-ference Strategic Management Journal, 15(4), 251–269.

Herrmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2014) Effects of leadership style, creativity technique

and personal initiative on employee creativity British Journal of Management, 25(2), 209–227.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H (1993) Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A (2008, November) An examination of leadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and pun-

“non-ishment omission Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1234–1248.

Horner-Long, P., & Schoenberg, R (2002, December) Does e-business require

different leadership characteristics?: An empirical investigation European Management Journal, 20(6), 611–619.

Hur, M. H (2008) Exploring differences in leadership styles: A study of manager tasks, follower characteristics, and task environments in Korean human service

organizations Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(3), 359–372.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F (2004) Transformational and transactional

leader-ship: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.

Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B (2006) Charismatic and transformational leadership A review and an agenda for future research

Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie A&O, 50(4), 203–214.

Kanungo, R. N (2001) Ethical values of transactional and transformational

lead-ers Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257–265.

Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R (1938) An experimental approach to the study of

autoc-racy and democautoc-racy: A preliminary note Sociometry, 1(3/4), 292–300.

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004) The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national com-

parison Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 321–338.

Lombardi, V (2001) What it takes to be #1 Vince Lombardi on leadership

Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.

Matlay, H (1999) Employee relations in small firms: A micro-business

perspec-tive Employee Relations, 21(3), 285–295.

Mintzberg, H (1973) Strategy-making in three modes California Management Review, 16(2), 44–53.

Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E (1987) Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s largest corporations? Reading: Addison-

Wesley Publishing Company.

Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J (2012, January) CEO leadership styles and the mentation of organizational diversity practices: Moderating effects of social val-

imple-ues and age Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 41–52.

Nikezic ́, S., Purić, S., & Purić, J. (2012) Transactional and transformational

lead-ership: Development through changes International Journal for Quality Research, 6(3), 285–296.

Odumeru, J. A., & Ogbonna, I. G (2013, June) Transformational vs Transactional

leadership theories: Evidence in literature International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2), 355–361.

Oparanma, A. O (2013) Democratic leadership: The sine qua non for efficiency

and effectiveness in Nigeria business International Journal of Management and Innovation, 5(2), 24–33.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A (2003) Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pedraja-Rejas, L., Rodríguez-Ponce, E., & Rodríguez-Ponce, J.  (2006, July)

Leadership styles and effectiveness: A study of small firms in Chile Interciencia, 31(7), 500–504.

Puni, A., Ofei, S. B., & Okoe, A (2014, January) The effect of leadership styles

on firm performance in Ghana International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(1), 177–185.

Quong, T., & Walker, A (2010) Seven principles of strategic leadership

International Studies in Educational Administration, 38(1), 22–34.

Ruggieri, S., & Abbate, C.  S (2013) Leadership style, self-sacrifice, and team

identification Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(7),

1171–1178.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A (2005, June) The Glass Cliff: Evidence that women

are over-represented in precarious leadership positions British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81–90.

Schneider, B (1987) The people make the place Personnel Psychology, 40(3),

437–453.

Sczesny, S (2003) The perception of leadership competence by female and male

leaders Zeitscrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 34(3), 133–145.

Simon, R. J., & Landis, J. M (1989) A report: Women’s and men’s attitudes

about a woman’s place and role The Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(2), 265–276.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H (2007,

January) The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80–92.

Smircich, L., & Morgan, G (1982, September) Leadership: The management of

meaning The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257–273.

Spencer, H (1873) The study of sociology London: Henry S. King & Co.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E (2006) Empowering leadership in agement teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance

man-Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.

Tabernero, C., Chambel, M. J., Curral, L., & Arana, J. M (2009) The role of task-oriented versus relationship-oriented leadership on normative contract and

group performance Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(10), 1391–1404.

Terry, G. R (1960) Principles of management Homewood: Richard D. Irwin,

Inc.

Van Engen, M. L., Van der Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M (2001, December)

Gender, context and leadership styles: A field study Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(5), 581–598.

Yukl, G. A (2010) Leadership in organizations Thousand Oaks: Prentice Hall Zaccaro, S. J (2007, January) Trait-based perspectives of leadership American Psychologist, 62(1), 6–16.

Zehir, C., Ertosun, Ö G., Zehir, S., & Müceldili, B (2011) The effects of ship styles and organizational culture over firm performance: Multi-national

leader-companies in Istanbul Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1460–1474.

Defining Corporate governanCeCorporate governance refers to the way in which an organization is gov-erned; it depicts how decisions are made, objectives are set, and strategies are planned and executed It fixes and regulates an organization’s guidelines that determine the way it is both directed and controlled and is, therefore, considered to be a business fundamental (Bevir 2009) It is also the compo-nent that determines the organization’s direction and bounds of operation Bounds refer to the policies, norms, and standards that limit the processes and procedures of decision making It is also a process by which assets, resources, and capabilities are used and managed; a systematic process by which an organization’s owner, CEO, president, founder, etc., directs and controls the utilization of resources In other words, it is the organization’s

controlled direction toward strategic goal achievement (SGA) Corporate governance is typically associated with regulation systems and internal and external control systems to ensure compliance with a set of instructions, a collection of rules and bylaws; however necessary rules are, governance is much more than them as it derives from corporate philosophy and seeps through the organization for purposes of consistency, quality, and demo-cratic processes and procedures For such reasons, corporate governance is commonly associated with effectivity and best practices.

Scholars have been debating the elements of corporate governance with the aim of clarifying the definition of the concept as well as determining the basis for best practices For instance, Demb and Neubauer (1992) have argued that the basic attributes of corporate governance include owner-ship, board structure, regulations or codes, and direct social pressure Black

et  al (2006) mention shareholder rights, board structure, board dures, audit committees, and disclosure; and Drew et al (2006) indicate that culture, systems, structure, leadership, and alignment are elemental to corporate governance

proce-The discussion on corporate governance has been enhanced with the input of several international organizations working on the subject matter According to the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN), the attributes that should be considered in the disclosure of corporate gov-ernance are much more detailed and include: board responsibilities, leader-ship and independence, composition and appointment, general meetings and remuneration, corporate culture and risk, reporting and audit, monitor-ing, risk oversight, engagement, shareholder rights, institutional investors’ responsibilities, capacity, leadership and independence, remuneration, con-tract terms, conflicts and interests, code of best practice, anti-corruption practices, lobbying and donations, gender diversity on boards, and voting (ICGN 2014) A common element linking the abovementioned authors and institution is the board of directors, which means that structure and institutionalization are crucial to corporate governance

governanCe formality anD informality

Organizations that choose not to design and execute corporate governance system tend to do so because they see it as an unnecessary cost, increased bureaucratic processes and procedures, decreased rights and authority, and potential scenario for a power struggle Naturally, these inconveniences, to say the least, potentially pose conflict and would significantly obstruct organizational productivity and overall performance However, since