Leadership in a Cross-Cultural Context - Coursework Example

Leadership in a Cross-Cultural Context Introduction The milieu of trade in the modern era necessitate leaders and the management capacity extend everywhere within the company. In this regards, leadership is the most critical element of management in realising the concept whose main ingredients encompass ‘planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling’. It instigates activities to decode the resolution into tangible deeds. Accordingly, business leaders have to guide their staff by steering and inspiring them complete the allotted tasks. Leading requires perceptive control and exciting the personnel to execute essential responsibilities. Therefore, leadership virtues are mandatory to enable accomplish an assortment of administrative tasks efficiently. Every grouping of individuals occupied in a distinct duty desires a leader who can direct, synchronize and manage their labours. Subsequently, management is necessary for the means to out profitable, collective, political or enriching deeds. In discussing the assorted leadership concepts, this study is divided into two key segments whereby the first part examines the theoretical concepts involving the major leadership theories and styles while the second part explores the practical practice and examples of organisations that have or had outstanding leaders. Background There is no affirmative agreement amongst researchers concerning the source of leadership. Whether leadership is a natural characteristic, evolved skill or a blend of both, it is acknowledged by decision-makers that a large ingredient of what leaders apply to guide efficiently is derived from practice, rather than from prescribed schooling. According to Barnett (2010), three major leadership theorems have been predominant across the years. These encompass ‘the trait approach (1930s and 1940s), the behavioural approach (1940s and 1950s), and the contingency or situational approach (1960s and 1970s).’ [Table 1] The characteristic hypothesis of leadership integrates personal physique, look, upbringing, sentimental strength, confidence of verbal communication, and friendliness. This consequently engenders three approaches of leadership that are founded on a leader’s conduct that include despotic, egalitarian, and liassez-faire approaches. According to Robbins and Judge (2006), these theories subsequently regard individual virtues and quality, which therefore distinguish leaders from non-leaders. The authors describe seven qualities that can be attributed to successful leaders that encompass ambition, craving to direct, sincerity and honour, self-assurance, intellect, work related skills, and versatility Table: 1 Chronology of Leadership Theories Leadership Theory Time of Introduction Major Tenets Trait Theories 1930s Individual characteristics of leaders are different from those of non-leaders. Behavioural Theories 1940s and 1950s The behaviours of effective leaders are different from the behaviours of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of leader behaviour are task-oriented behaviour and relationship-oriented behaviour Contingency Theories 1960s and 1970s Factors unique to each situation determine whether specific leader characteristics and behaviours will be effective. Leader-Member Exchange 1970s Leaders range from high-quality relationships with some subordinates but not others. The quality of leader-subordinates relationship affects numerous workplace outcomes. Charismatic Leadership 1970s and 1980s Effective leaders inspire subordinates to commit themselves to goals by communicating a vision, displaying charismatic behaviour, and setting a powerful personal example Substitutes for Leadership 1970s Characteristics of the organization, task, and subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects of leadership behaviours. Source: Adapted from Barnett (2010) Nevertheless, the main leadership theories stem from the conventional ‘Great Man’ and ‘Trait’ theories to the relevantly more recent conceptualisation of ‘Transformational theories’. Thus, these range from seven major approaches: ‘great man, trait, behaviourist, situational, contingency, transactional, and transformational theories’ (Bolden et al. 2003). Great Man Theories This originated from the conviction that leaders are extraordinary persons, born with inborn merits, ordained to show the way. Great Man theories presuppose that the facility for leadership is congenital; hence, great leaders are born, not prepared. These hypotheses often describe great leaders as epic, mythic and ordained to ascend to management when required. The expression "Great Man" was useful since, then leadership was conceived of principally as a masculine feature, particularly in regards to military organization. Trait Theory The fundamental hypothesis underlying the trait theory was that successful ‘leaders are born, not made’ or the ‘great man theory’. This theorem, which emphasised on the bodily, cerebral, and communal features of persons although later heavily criticized, formed the basis of numerous subsequent theories. One of the criticisms levelled against the trait theory was that it failed to expressively identify common individuality that regularly isolated successful leaders from other people (Zaccaro, 2007). The lack of advanced research instruments in the formative years hindered the effective formulation of the theory, thus most of the early study were largely theoretical. Nonetheless, the most telling indictment was that the theory failed to consider the likelihood of conditional attributes that might influence the efficacy of the leader (Barnett, 2010). Figure 1 The trait theory therefore failed to prove that leaders are inherently born and not made. Historically this can be illustrated by the examples of numerous leaders who lacked the criteria including the right character, intellect, self-assurance, or valour applied in the trait theory but still went on to become renown leaders. Thus, these traits are not an essential prerequisite for effective leadership since some have become very popular while lacking them. These include former American presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and in business Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg among others. This contrast with typical charismatic leaders like Henry Ford, J P Morgan, Virgin’s Richard Branson or John D. Rockefeller, all displayed the archetypal leadership features. Behavioural Leadership Theories This emerged form the trait theory by expanding the concept of individual characteristics as sometimes deviating from the norm depending on specific situations. Thus, the theory is founded on the behaviour of a leader, which is guided, by past deeds and experience that influence the decisions made. The leader therefore reacts to each situation as per the necessary requirements then hence is flexible and does not follow a specific route. The most common behavioural concepts are Douglas McGregor’s Theory X–Theory Y and Rensis Likert's Four Management Systems (System 4) concepts of management; nevertheless, McGregor’s Theory X–Theory Y has been the most often cited. McGregor, in his motivation theory espoused two divergent types of leaders or angles. In Theory X, one type of leader envisages negative attitude towards line workers as untrustworthy and indolent while on the contrary, the other leader (Theory Y) has a positive outlook of the workforce as responsible and unfailing. In this regard, leadership thus necessitates the leader to espouse Theory Y to develop a healthier functional bond with line workers (Chirino-Klevans, 2008). However, Likert's behavioural leadership conjectures a four-framework model that encompasses ‘exploitation-authoritative, favourable/authoritative, consultant-democratic, and democratic’ methods (Adeak, 2010). Contingency/Situational Approach Theory or Blanchard's Leadership Theory This premise is also an offshoot of the trait theory whereby it postulate that leaders do not necessarily shape events but events actually shape them as eloquently admitted by former US president Abraham Lincoln. Thus it is apparent that leaders react to the situation prevailing and not the other way around as proclaimed by the trait theory. Following Lewin et al (1939) leadership styles identification, a model leader thus reviews the general existing condition, makes decisions concerning the total circumstances and implements the leadership style that is most suitable to the current state of affairs. He is therefore not worried about any single specific leadership approach to apply, but will utilize any method depending on the practical circumstance (Adeak, 2010). The contingency leadership style is based on the supposition that the accomplishment of a leader is pegged upon a range of attributes like the type of admirers he has, the circumstances the leader prevailing in and the sort of leadership approach applied to handle the condition. Consequent to this premise, a leader cannot depend on the identical type of leadership approach but has to acclimatize it dependent on the state of affairs. There are four main contingency theories that are commonly propagated, including Fiedler's contingency theory, path-goal theory, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership, and the situational leadership theory. Fiedler's (1967) contingency theory affirms the influence of circumstances on the leader’s decisions whereby it asserts that the positive or negative outcome of a decision depends on the ‘favourability’ of the situation. This favourability is subject to the esteem from subordinates; level their tasks can be assessed; and control from the leader. Path-goal theory (1971) employees’ quality and value of the job setting establish the specific leader’s conduct can be more successful. These vital qualities encompass focus of direction, job skills, aptitude, and hence necessitates close rapport between the leaders and subordinates. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago (1973) decision-making model stresses on the administrative approach of the leader (Adeak, 2010). Situational Theory The situational theory formulated by Hersey and Blanchard (1969 and revised in 1977) typical of the contingency models is based on the nature of the prevailing circumstances. The this hypothesis assert that the technique a leader assumes, the type of approach and virtues he display, are influenced by considerably by the circumstances he has to handle. Some of the aspects that influence the conduct of the manager are capacity of his adherents, the sort of rapport he shares with them, the capital accessible to the manager, the sort of support prevailing within the group, etc. The Transformational-Transactional Leadership Theory The transformational-transactional leadership theory has been described as the avant-garde premise among leadership hypothesis. The dual theorem proposes that transformational leaders are those who are captivating and inspire workforce by exciting them, regards them personally, and rekindle their cerebral desires. On the other hand, transactional leaders are those that spell out duties to subordinates and keep an eye on performance to accomplish the assignments by offering a recompense scheme. Nevertheless, there is a third type in this proposition of transformational-transactional theory, which is the approach of leadership that shuns participation and thus named liassez-faire technique of management (Bodla and Nawaz, 2010). The theories of transformational/transactional leaders were initially developed by Max Weber (1947) and later further espoused by Bernard Bass (1981). In the transactional leader (Bass, 2003) asserts that a leader is endowed with the authority to carry out definite duties and recompense or discipline for the group’s success. It offers the chance to the leader to guide the team who consent to adhere to this leadership to achieve a prearranged objective in return for reciprocal reward. Authority is offered to the leader to appraise, right and instruct lower ranks when output is diminishing and reimburse efficiency when normal result is achieved (Barnett, 2010). Likewise, Bass argues in the transformational leadership premise, that leaders can effectively complete allotted tasks using others once they are proficient in inspiring and encouraging them. This supposition believes that an excellent rapport connecting the leader and his supporters, when admired by them, assists in having the task completed. A motivational leader must be principled and struggle headed for the advantage of every one of his supporters, thus endearing their devotion and collaboration for the project (Hay, 2007). The transformational leadership theory thus distinguishes between the ostensibly congruency in the transactional and the transformational leader [table2]. Transactional leadership centres on function, duty needs, and use incentives dependent on deeds (Hay, 2007). Conversely, transformational leadership centres on embryonic shared belief, nurturing the leadership aptitude of others, and allotting objectives that go further than the temporary desires of the profession grouping (Barnett, 2010). In Bass's transformational leadership theory, four categories of leadership or characteristics for successful management that encompasses magnetism, motivation, analytical stimulus, and thoughtfulness are identified (Barnett, 2010). Table 2: Difference between Transactional and Transformational Leaders Transactional leadership Transformational Leadership Leadership is receptive Practical leadership Operates within the organizational traditions Operates to transform the organizational traditions by setting up fresh schemes Transactional leaders compel workers attain firm’s goals through gift and penalties Transformational leaders inspire and sanction workers to attain firm’s goals by engaging to elevated standards and ethical ideals Inspires group by appealing to their personal egotism Inspires group by promising them to rise above their personal welfare for those of the team or unit Source: Adapted from Bass et al. (2003) Other minor leadership theories have been developed that stem from contemporary strategic quality management studies. This stress the changing role of leaders from that of an isolated aloof authoritarian figure, to a more involving style that is more inclusive rather than exclusive. The pioneers in identifying leadership styles were a collection of psychologists in 1939 led by Kurt Lewin who went on to identify three distinctive major approaches that are used by leaders. These are described as authoritarian (autocratic); participative (democratic); and delegative (laissez-faire) leadership styles (Cherry, 2010). These include the following: Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory Previously named the vertical dyad linkage theory, it has nevertheless undergone several changes and refinements across the years since its formulation in the 1970s. This premise alludes to having a dyadic or one-on-one interaction amongst leaders and workers of lower rank, rather than those personal traits or behavioural dependent on the prevailing state of affairs features. Thus the theorem emphasise the importance of the interaction as the decisive factor that generate constructive results like enhanced productivity, lesser job dropouts, occupation fulfilment, and managerial devotion (Steers et al. 1996). Servant Leadership Theory This model reveals an attitude that managers must be servants foremost thus put the wishes of line employees, clients, and the society at the forefront of their personal comfort so that to be successful. Qualities of servant leaders encompass compassion, supervision, and loyalty to the individual, skilled, and emotional development of their line staff. Nevertheless, servant-leadership has yet to be put through exhaustive experiential investigation though has created significant attention amongst both management researchers and consultants. The second part of this discussion will focus on the practical application of the leadership theories and styles, as practised by traditional and modern iconic business leaders. Adaptability & Innovation by Outstanding Leaders The efficiency of leadership, in its wider opinion, is adaptability. That adaptability is assisting the leaders and other workers so they can do an array of jobs, responsibilities and deal with varied situations (Bodla and Nawaz, 2010). According to Robbins and Coultar (2005) In Bodla and Nawaz (2010), leadership is ‘process of influencing a group towards the achievements of goals’ and a leader as ‘someone who can influence others and who has managerial authority’ (pg. 208). One of the emerging traits that distinguish leaders is the ability to explore new business frontiers by charting new paths and consequently persuading their supporters to tag along the new direction. This has been adopted by historical iconic industrialists like J. P. Morgan, J. D. Rockefeller and the modern day innovative leaders from Bill Gates to Donald Trump and Steve Jobs who have chartered new commercial paths successfully using a team of supporters as envisioned in the transactional/transformation theories. According to Apple Inc. founder and CEO Steve Jobs, ‘innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower’ (Andrews, 2009). Thus, it can be discerned that outstanding business leaders are maverick innovators who manage to harness the resource within organisation or groups coupled with their keen acumen to create impressive achievements. Leaders are therefore the individuals who create a distinction in their place of work and stand out at what they carry out, rousing other workers as they operate. Extraordinary leaders do not essentially tag along the dogmatic set of laws or best-methods procedures, they are entrepreneurs whose brand new and original ideas, skill and flexibility convey an innovative element to their functions. Transformational Leadership and Organisational Culture Nevertheless, from the behavioural, situational and contingency theories, it can be discerned that successful business leaders have variously utilised some of the identified features either singularly or concurrently. According to Keim and Kinicki (2009), effective leadership involves the business leaders evolving an effective organisational culture that practically compels the line employees constantly do their best. This is exemplified at Toyota where through the Kaizen model of continuous improvement have evolved the ‘Toyota Way’ of doing things or at Southwest Airlines using the ‘Southwest Effect’, and similarly at General Electric or Intel. Kinicki and Keim argue that the nature of the modern world rapidly evolving emerging technologies and communications means organisations are unable to sustain their competitive edge for long. This partly due to easier communication channels, faster exchange of ideas, and marketing hence leaving the firms with only one feasible enduring asset, dynamic inspirational leadership. Through the development of the inbred organisational culture, the leaders are able to add to the growth of powerful long-standing policy and, eventually, can affect a business's capacity to thrive for lifetime subsequent to their exit. Lack of clarity by the corporation’s management habitually conceals falsified transactions, ineptitude, favouritism, and other inept leadership deeds. Leaders ought not to have a full power over any member of staff; hence, a blend of command formation and workplace democracy must be set up. Individual’s character in a workplace is more apt to act in response to traumatic and tricky situation as in any other public location (Yukl, 2003). At Southwest Airlines, they have a bright, stable leadership, cultivating a tradition that places the needs and wishes of the workforce foremost. In response, those workers are faithful to the corporation, content with their employment and amazingly agreeable to clientele, even in demanding circumstances. Southwest is a firm where individuals would like to get employment and hence the business has the comfort of being selective about the persons it engages. Leading Through Example Modern executives are versatile and flexible as exemplified at Google Inc. come, which has discarded the traditional leadership structures. At Google, the employees are allowed flexible work schedules that nevertheless have minimal negative impact on the firm’s returns but conversely generate lots of goodwill and devotion from the employees. The online firm’s leadership led by the founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin lack the typical trait characteristics of ‘born leaders’ but have nevertheless evolved into dynamic transformational leaders. These young leaders have evolved a dyadic or one-on-one relationship with their employees in a practical servant leadership role that has made the company mushroom into the most promising online firm in the world. Leading by example, the leaders adorn casual attire and jointly work on projects without any strict formal hierarchies. Another leader who has led by example is Virgin’s maverick CEO Sir Richard Branson who nevertheless fits the mode of the typical ‘trait-Great Man’ theory. He is bright, charismatic, audacious and a trailblazer. From travel airlines, telecommunications, entertainment and a myriad of other adventurous undertakings, the Virgin leader has led his team of entrepreneurs into many risky ventures with much success. Nevertheless he is clearly a transformational leader, still can be termed as following the transactional leadership mode in some of his innovative ventures that are manifest all over the world. However, it can still be argued that the Virgin leader is a contingency leader though clearly endowed with a fertile imagination largely relies on loyal supporters who contribute generously in his sometimes-risky investments both physically and monetarily. Former GE’s CEO Jack Welch was also remarkable in his zeal and inspirational spirit recognized as being contagious and remarkable. He vastly motivated staff through his transformational leadership skills making it the most powerful in the 1990s through his 4 E's of leadership framework of ‘energy, energize, edge, and execution’ getting the employees follow his lead. He however remarked, ‘I wasn't smarter that anyone else, but I helped 270,000 people make me look smarter than most' (Kotelnikov, 2009). According to Shead (2010), the five key leadership attributes encompass integrity; progressive; proficient; motivational; and shrewdness are linked to individual desire to follow the leader [Figure2]. Nevertheless, those leaders demonstrating the traits consistently are more likely to inspire self-assurance on their capabilities. Figure 2 The transformational leader inspires supporters by performing exemplarily, appealing through encouragement, rousing mentally, and enriching personalised reflection on corporation’s desires and objectives (Kezar, 2004). Transformational leaders are conspicuous and will always back up their employees rather than just acting behind the scenes. They engender confidence and reinforce associations. They uphold against the divergence views and offer their supporters the audacity to carry on the undertaking. They demonstrate by their mind-set and deeds how each employee ought to act. They in addition create sustained hard work to inspire and rouse their supporters, always undertaking the rounds, pay attention, comforting and whip up support (Ripoll et al. 2010). At Hewlett-Packard (HP), the founders Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett fashioned a dynamic leadership style dubbed ‘management by walking around’ (MBWA) whereby the top HP managers constantly circulated around the firm. By meeting staff, clients and contractors, they gained valuable information and basis for future strategies. According to Paul Spiegelman the CEO of The Beryl Companies, keeping the employees happy especially in times of crisis is the hallmark of great leadership. This encompasses having ‘fun’ in the workplace through people-centric businesses approaches. At Beryl, the management of the firm decided to give increment to 70 percent of their employees despite the economic slowdown hence ensuring their assured loyalty though it meant cutbacks to their returns (Spiegelman, 2009). At Southwest Airlines, ‘LUV’ and ‘FUN’ the underpinning of the corporation’s human resources strategy, symbolize care and value for the personage, in addition to the compromise conception of the milieu that support all workforce to have fun within their posts (Spiegelman, 2009). Workplace Democracy Workplace democracy though seemingly an idyllic concept has been aptly practised at the Brazilian firm, Semco in a practical way. Its dynamic maverick CEO Ricardo Semler abolished the previously upheld rigid hierarchical organisational structures to introduce an open level horizontal system at the firm. At Semco, leaders were grilled and selected by employees, all resolutions were put into independent review, discussion and ballot, and all employees were required to rationalize their jobs personally to colleagues. Against all adverse forecast, Semler was able to create a democratic structure and being hugely successful in business through a radical shift in transformational leadership styles incorporating participative; and delegative leadership techniques (Bock, 2003). Amongst the leading global corporations, it noticeable that the firms identify potential leaders who not only help them overcome crisis, but also evolve strategies to position the firms better when the predicament passes (McCarthy, 2009). In a survey by consultant firm Hay Group and Chief Executive magazine of the top twenty 2008 global companies, 83 percent of the firms identified execution as the most critical aspect for CEO’s. Likewise, the survey revealed that command and egalitarian approaches of leadership are more crucial in contrast to the other four methods of forceful, partnership, trendsetters and training. Among the top 20, 65 percent demand results from the management as opposed to only 36 percent from others; 63 percent have better communication channels, while 45 percent appreciate their leaders. Consequently, 70 percent of the top 20 firms have already set up official programs to identify potential leaders within the firm as talent management is used as business strategy by 65 percent of the grouping. In this regard, 55 percent have even set speeding up programs to foster the leaders’ growth (McCarthy, 2009). Conclusion Although leadership is not a task incorporated in occupation portrayal of a boss, nevertheless it is the condition towards the execution of skilful tasks. Preliminary studies on leadership centred on the individuality of the leaders or on their performance however, modern studies focus on a wide-ranging collection of management techniques for instance changes, operational and static or getting around bearing techniques. However, leadership theory nowadays integrates a vast assortment of disciplines, description and premises. Nonetheless, leadership efficacies are still described in terms the individual’s personal attribute/aspect approach. These approaches suggest leadership effectiveness is associated with specific personality characteristics leaders. The study has thus revealed that leadership theories have gradually evolved from the ‘great man/trait’ concepts to behavioural, situational and now transformational leadership reflecting the changing management systems employed by current organisations. Although many individuals lack the inherent traits of the ‘natural born-leaders’ in the traditional way, some of the most outstanding business leaders have evolved innovative strategies and managed to transform their organisations into virtual success using their intuitive skills to inspire and motivate their followers. References Adeak. (2010). What are the Major Theories of Behavioral and Situational Leadership? Retrieved December 2, 2010, from Adeak.com: Andrews, J. (2009). Leading by Example - Lessons in Effective Business Leadership. Retrieved December 2, 2010, from Articlesbase.com: http://www.articlesbase.com/leadership-articles/leading-by-example-lessons-in-effective-business-leadership-753021.html Barnett, T. (2010). Leadership Theories and Studies. Retrieved December 2, 2010, from Encyclopedia of Management/eNotes.com: < http://www.enotes.com/management-encyclopedia/leadership-theories-studies.htm> Bass, Bernard M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berso (2003). Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88: 207–218. Bernal, E. (2009). Designing Transformational Leadership Development Programmes. Business Leadership Review , VI:IV, 1-17. Bock, W. (2003). Lessons from Semco on Structure, Growth and Change. Retrieved December 2, 2010, from Monday Memo:< http://www.mondaymemo.net/mmcurroff.htm > Bodla, M.A. and Nawaz, M.M. (2010). Comparative Study of Full Range Leadership Model among Faculty Members in Public and Private Sector Higher Education Institutes and Universities. International Journal of Business and Management , Vol. 5, No. 4. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. (2003). A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter. Cherry, K. (2010). Lewin's Leadership Styles. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from About.com: a part of The New York Times Company.: Chirino-Klevans I (2008) Motivating Employees: Raising the Bar on Performance. Atlanta: HireDiversity.com. Hartman, S. Dickson, M.W., Hartog, D.N.D. and Mitchelson, J.K. (2004). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions . The Leadership Quarterly , Vol. 14: pp.729–768. Fredberg, Tobias, Michael Beer, Russell Eisenstat, Nathaniel Foote, and Flemming Norrgren (2008). Embracing Commitment and Performance: CEOs and Practices to Manage Paradox. Working Papers Series: 08-052. Hay, I. (2007). Transformational Leadership: Characteristics and Criticisms. Flinders University. Keim, Gerry and Kinicki, Angelo (2009). Effective leadership: Building a successful corporate culture. Retrieved December 2, 2010, from W. P. Carey School, Arizona State University: Kezar, A. (2004). Philosophy, Leadership, and Scholarship: Confucian Contributions to a Leadership Debate. Leadership Review , Vol. 4, Fall; pp. 110-131. Kotelnikov, V. (2009). Leading by Example: Matching Behavior to Word. Retrieved December 2, 2010, from 1000advices.com: McCarthy, D. (2009). The 2008 Best Companies for Leaders. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from Greatleadershipbydan.com/CEO magazine: Ripoll, M.M., Rodríguez, F.G., Barrasa, A. and Antino, M. (2010). Leadership in entrepreneurial organizations: Context and motives. Psicothema , Vol. 22, nº 4, pp. 880-886. Robbins, S. P. and Coultar, M. (2005). Management (8th Edition). Pearson Education, Inc. Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2006). Organizational Behaviour (12th Edition). Prentice Hall. Shead, M. (2010). Five Most Important Leadership Traits. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from leadership501.com: Spiegelman, P. (2009). Put People Before Profits. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from Entrepreneur.com: Steers, Richard M., Lyman W. Porter, and Gregory A. Bigley (1996). Motivation and Leadership at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Yukl, G. (2003). Leadership in Organizations. National College for School Leadership: Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist , 62, 6-16. Read More