Leadership Theory Development - Literature review Example

Leadership theory development Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Background of the Study 3 Significance and Rationale for the study 4 Research questions 6 Literature Analysis 6 The Nature of leadership 6 Leadership and Culture 8 Culture-specific vs. Culture-universal approaches 8 Universality in the age of globalization 8 African leadership perspectives 10 Asian leadership perspectives 12 Western Leadership Perspectives 12 Leadership Theories 13 Contingency theory 13 Discussion and Findings 14 Cross-cultural issues in building theory 14 Proposed Theoretical perspective 15 Conclusion 19 Reference List 20 Leadership theory development paper Introduction Leadership refers to the activities that depict how an individual influences others to attain certain goals or objectives (Makhdom and Ghazali 2003). Leadership can however be viewed from a range of perspectives, depending on particular cultural context. Despite the many proposed leadership frameworks, the changes heralded by globalisation have called for a need for a more inclusive leadership theoretical approach. As stated by Makhdom and Ghazali (2003), in spite of the great complexity of the 21st century environment, charisma, intellect and intuition are no longer relevant for leaders to confront the global challenges. Based on this perspective, this paper proposes a theoretical approach. The underlying argument is that globalisation or modernisation is more pluralistic and inclusive, since the workplace has become increasingly diversified. Hence, the leadership approaches that are correspondingly pluralistic or integrate all forms of cultures need to be explored. Background of the Study Several studies have established the presence of Western leadership approaches in international societies. However, these approaches have no absolute applicability in all nations (Scandura & Dorfman 2004; Den Hartog et al. 1999). Hence, the type of leadership profile is consistent with the exclusivity of national cultures. This is despite the common axiom that multinational corporations, which operate globally, practice leadership principles, concepts and approaches that are standardised, and which essentially characterise the Western theories (Scandura & Dorfman 2004). This is, however, not in line with the values and principles of globalisation or universality (Mostovicz 2009). Hence, it is argued that there is a room for theoretical contribution in building a new theory. This is because there is unaddressed subject matter in leadership, due to the process of globalisation. Two considerations suggest a need to shift from the Western leadership theories that are universally accepted, to a more advanced perspective that is more inclusive (Corley 2011; Eisenhardt & Graebner 2007). The issues of globalisation have led to the questioning of the relevance of Western leadership theories and called for the standardization of leadership theories. This paper proposes that leadership approaches that take into account universal leadership processes should be used because of globalisation. Hence, culture-universal rather than culture-specific approaches should be used. Significance and Rationale for the study Leadership development is a made up of a diverse assortment of practices debated and executed using relatively standardized models of leadership (Timperley 2005). Essentially, models used by Western countries for leadership development have continued to be applied globally. As a consequence, a relatively small sub-group of leadership theories and principles are broadly applied within varied organizational, sectoral and national contexts (Mostovicz 2009). The contextual significance of such universal theories and principle, in addition to the limitations that characterize their unrelenting generic application is extensively explored in empirical studies on leadership. However, they have been recurrently criticized (Dorfman et al. 2009). In any case, context-sensitive transnational theoretical approaches and discourses on leadership are yet to be formulated. Therefore, new theories, that are more sensitive to the national or sectoral differences and which are more contextual and consistent with the modernisation of globalisations, are needed (Dorfman et al. 2009). Bourn (2008) described globalisation as the intensified worldwide social relations, which connect distant places in a manner that local events are subject to influences from events that occur in other distant places. Several studies have explored globalisation and identity (Dorfman et al. 2009; Maruyama 2008; Bourn 2008). In any case, this paper takes the perspective that globalisation should be viewed to be concerned with interdependence of societies on a global scale, about the current links and those that can be developed worldwide between nations, communities, individuals and organisations (Maruyama 2008; Bourn 2008). In respect to the current trends in globalisation, it is a common maxim among international scholars that effective leadership should reflect the culture in which they originate. In African and Asian countries, unique cultural features, including beliefs, philosophies, language, religion, values and social organisation are assumed to facilitate distinct leadership approaches (Makhdom & Ghazali 2003). Western countries take a different perspective as they are more individualistic in nature. Although Western leadership theories have predominant application globally, some researchers have established that their applicability is limited in different cultures. Hence, it is argued that due to globalisation, leadership approaches that take into account universal leadership processes should be used. Research questions Hence, fours research questions are proposed for the study, namely: a) Are their leader attributes, behaviours or organisational practices universally accepted and effective across cultures? b) Are their leader attributes, behaviours or organisational practices universally accepted and effective strictly in some cultures? c) How do organisational and societal behaviours affect the effectiveness of leadership styles and practices? d) Can the culture-specific and the universal aspects of effective leadership be explained in regards to the underlying theory that take consideration of the systematic differences across different cultures? Literature Analysis The Nature of leadership Alves et al. (2004) consider leadership to be purpose-driven and hence lead to changes based on visions, values and emotional exchanges. According to the Western perspectives, leadership is considered as a global field of study that borrows from Western and Eastern teachings, such as Buddhism, Confucian, as well as Hobbes and Machiavelli. Alves et al. (2004) posits that leadership is based on three authority sources, namely personal characteristics, charismatic authority and traditional authority. Leadership has however systematically developed, allowing for a range of conceptual definitions and theoretical perspectives. To this end, leadership can be described as the nature of the process of influencing and its resulting outcomes that happens between the leader and the followers and the nature in which the process of influencing is reflected by the dispositional characteristics of a leader, his behaviours, the perceptions of the followers and the leader’s attribution, as well as the context within which the process of influencing happens (Alves et al. 2004). Hence, nature is the process of influencing. However, the process of influencing differs depending on the cultural context. Alves et al. (2004) explained that the nature of the context depends on how it is conceptualised. Indeed, it is within this perspective that it is argued that the Western world nature of influencing has been predominant, hence the trend in which the Western theories of leadership have found application globally. The nature of influencing in the West differs with that of Asia. Traditional schools comprise behavioural, trait, relational, contingency, cognitive, sceptical and transformational. Despite the approach adopted, the nature of influencing is typically a social phenomenon that is concurrently a goal-directed activity, as well as a dialogical relationship (Carter et al. 2012). To this end, it is critical to argue that leadership is an activity, since it consists of intellectual and practical practises of organising. Additionally, it is dialogical, since it consists of communication (Makhdom & Ghazali 2003). Lastly, it is purposive, since it is an act of influencing, which involves identifying individuals with purposes. Hence, it is important to examine the relationship between leadership and culture. Leadership and Culture In respect to the relationship between leadership and culture, it should be observed that in the modern-day society, where organisations are greatly diversified, it should not be assumed that theories and models formulated in one place have the potential to apply in other places, since the effectiveness of leadership is greatly influenced by organisational and societal cultures (Den Hartog & Koopman 2011). Hence, it is argued that modern-day leadership theory should be more unequivocal about its models of reference. To this end, culture-universal rather than culture-specific approaches should be used. Culture-specific vs. Culture-universal approaches It is argued that culture-universal approaches are valid, as culture-specific leadership approaches. However, culture-specific leadership approaches have limited applicability due to the current globalisation trends. In this view, culture-specific approaches reflect the perspective that particular leadership behaviours and constructs are potentially unique to certain cultures (Mostovicz 2009). As stated by Smith et al. (1989), culture-specific leadership approaches offer rich perspective on how leadership constructs are formed in certain cultures. Smith et al. (1989) established that certain specific leadership functions and expressions differ, based on cultural constraints. It would therefore be inapt to subscribe completely to the Western leadership approaches and ignore the Asian, African and Eastern European leadership approaches. Universality in the age of globalization Issues of globalisation have led to the questioning of the relevance of Western leadership theories and called for the standardization of leadership theories. It has been argued that human society had gone through reflective changes, from the second half of the Twentieth Century and into the Twenty-first Century (Dorfman et al. 2009). In terms of chronology, such changes suggest a change toward new platform of modernity, or a shift towards the ‘post-modern era.’ The underlying argument is that modernisation is more pluralistic and inclusive. Hence, the leadership approaches should be correspondingly pluralistic. This perspective is based on the idea of rationalism. Maruyama (2008) argues that the idea of rationalism has helped discover the traditional aspects and to counteract the pre-modern Western systems in favour of pursuing more freedom and equality of individuals globally. In Maruyama’s (2008) view, modernisation that is based on the concept of rationalism is closely related to the mastery over human liberation and nature. In which case, modernisation is seen to facilitate the progress of human society. Maruyama (2008) stated that the reason why the 21st century is regarded as a new era is because of the phenomenon of transition in human society that is characterised by ‘globalisation’ and ‘post-modernism’. The new era has presented significant challenges in hypothesising leadership. This is since a suitable theory cannot yet be established to explain the alliances of global society (Pinnington 2011; Dorfman et al. 2009). Additionally, it is critical to recognise the limitations presented by modern rationalisms, which originated from the West. Predominate values that are based on modern rationalism have prevailed in the human society, as well as become the central part of organisational leadership in the modern societies (Mostovicz 2009). However, in the ‘pre-modern society or globalised society,’ there is a need to establish alternatives since rationalism or Western approaches have found limitations. Within this context, possibilities of integrating the Western and the African and Asian leadership approaches and philosophies arise (Makhdom & Ghazali 2003; Dorfman et al. 2009). Western leadership theories that prevail globally are inconsistent with the principles and values of globalisation (Pinnington 2011). In regards to globalisation, its origins were perceived through the theories of classic sociology in the first half of the 20th century. At the close of the 1980s, it transformed into a key concept of social theory based on the modernisation theory of the 1960s and through the emergence of the World Systems Theory. Maruyama (2008) cited Giddens (1990) to argue that globalisation is an increasingly expanding process that is plural and divergent. On the other hand, the Western leadership approaches are individualistic and self-serving. There is therefore a need for pluralistic leadership theories that are consistent with the global culture. According to Maruyama (2008), introduction of a global culture from outside into a cultural system signifies that the global culture must be modified to fit into the new system. The process refers to localisation of the global culture, and compares to globalisation. African leadership perspectives A body of literature that has explored leadership in Africa has increased calls for leadership studies, as well as leadership approaches that are uniquely African (Littrell 2011). A number of studies have suggested that leadership can catalyse social transformation and change, only when inherently anchored in African concepts of community and identity. A study by Ntibagirirwa (2003) established a need to address the complexities if identity that confronts African societies stemming from the idea that Africans have changed from their value systems to those of the Western leadership theories. According to Kirk & Bolden (2006), such revelations raise challenging questions to the researchers, in the modernised society, where globalisation has taken root. Littrell (2011) explored these perspectives and concluded that, in regards to the ontological question of describing leadership within the context of Africa, the useful definitions are only operational ones. Next, in regards to the epistemological perspective of how leadership can be measured within the African context, Littrell’s (2011) response is that only operational definition can be measured. Last, is the question of whether African leadership is useful, given the diverse cultures in Africa. April and Ephraim (2006) position is that African leadership paradigm is based on African philosophies, such as ‘Ubuntu’. April and Ephraim (2006) noted that while Western constructs value scientific thinking and rationality when it comes to leadership, African perspectives are based on philosophies. Additionally, while Western theories on leadership are self-serving and individualistic, African theories are more collectivist in nature and enveloped in the philosophy of ubuntu, an African philosophy which states that “I’m because we are” (April and Ephraim 2006) Basing on Hofstede’s theory, collectivist depicts a form of leadership where preference is given to a closely-knit social framework, in which individuals expect their clans or relatives in African constructs. Ubuntu goes further to stress deep-seated loyalty and a sense of purpose that originates through the society. Mbigi (2002 as cited by April & Ephraim 2006) outlined the main values of African leadership to include: respecting others, having group solidarity, teamwork, harmony and interdependence. April and Ephraim (2006) notes that unlike Western societies where individualistic societies are greatly emphasised, the African cultural paradigm give more regard to the group first before individual needs. Hence, effective leadership is the one that unifies the tribe and complies with the values of the society. Asian leadership perspectives Leadership in Asia corresponds with the Asian local values. On the other hand, effective leadership is determined by the extent to which a leader can sustain and execute the local cultures. For instance, recruiting cultural leaders is based on seniority (Pinnington 2011). For instance, the Japanese cultures dote on the perspective that harmony is an integral requisite to achieving effective leadership. This core value is reflected in many Asian cultural leadership approaches such as Nishkama Karma in India, Confucian in China and Imam Khomeini’s Approach in Iran. Figure 1: Western and Asian leadership patterns (Santoso 2010) Western Leadership Perspectives Santoso (2010) points out that several empirical studies on Western leadership perspectives have been undertaken in Western Europe, United States, Australian and Canadian environments. According to Hofstede (1992), the existing leadership theories are manifestations of American cultures. Indeed, cross-cultural perspectives influence the understanding of what should be regarded as effective leadership. In this regards, while Western leadership approaches are a product of individualistic society, the Asian and African leadership is a product of collective society. Transactional leadership in individualistic society is seen to be more effective in influencing the behaviour of those who are being led to achieve the desired goals. The relationship between the two is anchored in the transactional contract. Leadership Theories Contingency theory Contingency theory hypothesizes that the leadership effectiveness is greatly influenced by the situational factors that cover the relationship of leaders and their followers, the power of the leaders and the structures of the tasks (Dorfman et al 2009). This approach considers two types of leadership, namely relation-ship motivated leadership and task-motivated leadership. Dorfman et al (2009) stated that until recently, focus on leadership researches in America have been on the contingency theories, which have sought to stipulate the organisational scenarios, through which certain patterns of leader behaviour are most effective. Studies have indicated that situational factors play an integral role in determining when certain leader behaviours are effective. Hence, Contingency theory of leadership present a suitable theoretical framework for this paper, as it attempts to test the impact of leadership in a range of situational contexts. Mainly, the key contextual variable in this paper is national culture (Dorfman et al 2009; Makhdom & Ghazali 2003; April and Ephraim 2006). Culture is an integral moderator of leadership impact. Depicting culture as a causal variable, affects the level of leaders’ behaviour, which relates to the cross-cultural management models and their functions as moderators. Dorfman et al (2009) pointed out to the need to understand the cultures in developing theories of leadership in order to ensure that the constructs and models are relevance in the new contexts. Indeed, results that denote similarities and difference between certain cultures only tend to be significant when they are incorporated in the theoretical models, as well as when they make sense within the context of certain cultures (Earley & Singh 1995). Other leadership theories include trait theories, behaviourist theories, transformational theories, situational leadership and great man theories. These theories are indicated in the Figure 2. Figure 2: Leadership Theories (Makhdom & Ghazali 2003) Discussion and Findings Cross-cultural issues in building theory In order to compare the leadership behaviours within the African, Asian and Western cultures, Dorfman et al (2009) illustrated that leadership in the regions is different. In any case, while it is acknowledged that behaviour patterns are different, that of the United States is different in two key areas. First, it is the only culture where the contingent behaviour of leaders has a positive impact on subordinate performance. Second, it is the only culture where the contingent behaviour of leaders has an invariably positive impact on the subordinates. Earlier studies that attempted to analyse the United States leadership reached a consensus that it is highly individualism, egalitarian and is characterised by professionalism, empowering employees and teamwork processes (Hofstede 1991). In this paper however, it is reasoned that because of globalisation and the need for universal representation, modern-day cross-cultural research is essentially based on equivalence and pluralism. Hence, the leader behaviour should indicate functional equivalence by integrating the follower perceptions and attitudes that cut across Western countries, Asia and Africa (Dorfman et al 2009). It is argued that the similarities and differences among different national cultures can be integrated meaningfully in the “pre-modern” or “globalised” theoretical perspectives. Proposed Theoretical perspective Cross-cultural studies have emphasised a strong correlation between leadership and culture, which point to the divergent views in regards to the universality of leadership patterns. The theoretical perspective proposed, integrates the implicit leadership theories and cross-cultural studies, and have indicated a strong correlation between leadership and culture, which point to the divergent views in regards to the universality of leadership patterns, the value theory of culture and structural contingency theory. The core theoretical proposition of this paper is that: ‘attributes and entities that differentiate a certain culture from other cultures predict the attributes of the leader, the practices of an organisation, as well as the behaviours that are regularly acted upon, effective and acceptable in a culture (Earley & Singh 1995). It is further discussed that the proposed theory consists of several propositions, as indicated below. 1. Cultural values of a society impact what leaders do Several empirical studies have supported this perspective. Hence, the first leaders of the organisation are engaged in own societal culture. In addition, they are most likely to adapt to the global leader behaviour patterns that are prevalent in that culture. To this end, the founding leaders influence the behaviours and the conducts of the subordinate leaders and their subsequent leaders through the use of selective management selection criteria. Further, it is reasoned that the behaviours and attributes of the leaders reflect the organisational practices that in turn reflect societal cultures. 2. Leadership affects organisational cultures and practices Founding and subsequent leaders of an entity formulate the underlying cultures of an organisation that in turn influences the behaviours of succeeding leaders and the subordinates. Together, they form the organisational culture (Schneider 1987). 3. The cultural value of the society affects organisational cultures Contextual national and societal culture directly influences the organisational culture, which leads to common implied leadership theories that explain the effectiveness of leadership. 4. Organisational culture affects effective leadership The founding leaders and the subsequent leaders of the organisation act in response to the organisational culture and conduct themselves, as well as adopt leadership styles. 5. Cultures influence implicit leadership theories. Culture of the society and the organisational cultures influence the processes, through which individuals share implicit leadership theories. The leadership styles used in the organisations reflect the societal and organisational values and beliefs. 6. Organisational contingencies impact the organisation culture Strategic organisational contingencies impact the organisation culture and the leader's leadership styles. Organisational contingencies, such as environment, size and technology enforce requirements which organisations have to meet so as to perform effectively, survive and compete. The leadership practices within an organisation are directed towards addressing requirements inflicted by the organisational contingencies to the organisation (Dartey-Baah & Amponsah-Tawiah 2011). 7. Organisational contingencies impact leader attributes and styles Leaders alter their behaviours to address the requirements of the organisational contingencies. This implies that the nature and behaviours of the organisations reflect the nature and the behaviour of the organisation’s top leadership. 8. Cultural forces moderate organisational culture and contingencies The cultural forces moderate the relationship between the organisational culture and organisational contingencies. For instance, in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, the forces towards formalisation will be weaker. 9. Leader acceptance is subject to cultural leadership theory Leader acceptance is an outcome of cultural leadership theory and leader behaviour and attributes. Hence, leader attributes and behaviours that are consistent with the cultural leadership theories will be more effective. 10. Leader effectiveness is subject to leader acceptance. Leaders who do not get accepted find it difficult to influence their subordinates compared to those who are accepted. Hence, the cultural acceptance of leaders influences leadership effectiveness. In sum, attaining social harmony needs the synergy of modern and traditional values represented within the Asian, African and Western values. The occurrence of the worldwide values is an outcome of cultural knowledge. In addition, it has a similar practical stage that prioritises the contextual suitability. Despite this, the Western, African and Asian theories have underlying differences within the organisations (Figure 1). This facilitates the development of a more universal leadership theory that is more contextual to the current world so that the roles of other leadership theories remain to exist solidifies and plays an integral role in developing a modern society without abandoning the noble values. Ultimately, understanding the effectiveness of leadership is as a result of multicultural dimensions-based learning processes, within the global economy. Conclusion The principal theoretical proposition of this paper is that: ‘attributes and entities that differentiate a certain culture from other cultures predict the attributes of the leader, the practices of an organisation, as well as the behaviours that are regularly acted upon, effective and acceptable in a culture. The underlying argument that rationalises the relevance of the proposed approach is that modernisation is more pluralistic and inclusive. Hence, the leadership approaches should also be pluralistic. Since globalisation and the need for universal representation, modern-day cross-cultural research is essentially based on equivalence and pluralism, the leader behaviour should indicate functional equivalence by integrating the follower perceptions and attitudes that cut across Western countries, entire Europe, Asia and Africa. It is concluded that the similarities and differences among different national cultures can be integrated meaningfully in the “pre-modern” or “globalised” theoretical perspectives. Due to globalisation, leadership approaches that consider universal leadership processes should be used. Hence, culture-universal approaches rather than culture-specific approaches should be given priority in the modern-day society. Culture-universal approaches are valid as culture-specific leadership approaches. However, culture-specific leadership approaches have limited applicability due to the current globalisation trends. In this view, culture-specific leadership approaches reflect the perspective that particular leadership behaviours and constructs are potentially unique to certain cultures. It would therefore be inapt to subscribe completely to the Western leadership approaches and ignore the Asian, African and Eastern European leadership approaches. Hence, in the modern-day society where organisations are greatly diversified, it should not be assumed that theories and models formulated in one place have the potential to apply in other places, since the effectiveness of leadership is greatly influenced by organisational and societal cultures. Reference List Alves, J, Manzm C & Butterfieldm D 2004, "Developing Leadership Theory in Asia: The Role of Chinese Philosophy," International Journal of Leadership Studies, vol. 1 iss. 1, April, K & Ephraim, N 2006, Implementing African Leadership: An Empirical Basis to Move Beyond Theory, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, The article was first presented at the 1st International Conference on Values – Based Leadership, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, March 2006 Bourn, D 2008, "Young people, identity and living in a global society," Development Education and Research, iss. 7 Carter, M, Armenakis, A, Feild, H & Mossholder, K 2012, “Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav vol. 1 no. 1, pp.1-17 Corley, K 2011, "Building Theory About Theory Building: What Constitutes A Theoretical Contribution?" Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.12–32. Dartey-Baah, K & Amponsah-Tawiah, K 2011, “Influencing organisational behaviour through the application of learning theories,” European Journal of Business and Management vol. 3 no. 11, 10-19 Den Hartog, D, House, R, Hanges, P & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S 1999, “Culture Specific and Cross-Culturally Generalizable Implicit Leadership Theories: Are Attributes of Charismatic/Transformational Leadership Universally Endorsed? “ The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, pp. 219-256. Den Hartog, D & Koopman, P 2011, "Leadership in Organizations," Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology vol. 2, pp.166-187 Dorfman, P, Howell, J, Hibino, S, Lee, J, tate, U & Bautista, A 2009, "Leadership In Western And Asian Countries: Commonalities And Differences In Effective Leadership Processes Across Cultures," Leadership Quarterly Vol. 8 No. 3, pp/233-240 Earley, P, & Singh, H1995, “International and intercultural management research: What’s next?” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 38, pp.327-340. Eisenhardt, K & Graebner, M 2007, "Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, 25–32 Giddens, A, 1990, The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press Housea, R, Javidan, M, Hanges, P & Dorfman, P 2002, "Understanding cultures and implicitc leadership theories across the glode: an introduction to project GLOBE," Journal of World Business vol. 37, pp.3-10 Hofstede, G 1991, Culture and organizations: The software of the mind, McGraw-Hill, New York Kirk, P & Bolden, R 2006, African Leadership: Insights, Meanings, and Connotations. Proceedings Leadership & Management Studies in Sub-Sahara Africa 2006 Conference, Stone Town, Zanzibar, proceedings available from Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons Littrell, R 2011, "Contemporary Sub-Saharan African Managerial Leadership Research: Some Recent Empirical Studies," Asia Pacific Journal of Business and Management, vol. 2 no. 1, pp.65-91 Makhdom, H & Ghazali, M 2003, "Towards a Substantive Theory of Leadership, Negotiation and Decision Making of Leaders," International Journal of Innovation and Business Strategy, vol. 2, pp.1-8 Maruyama, T 2008, "Toward the Universal Ethics And Values In The Age Of Globalization: With Reference To Japanese Religions Compared To Modern Rationalism," Politics And Religion vol. 2 no. 2, pp. 165-182 Mbigi, L 2002, ‘Spirit of African Leadership: A Comparative African Perspective’, Journal for Convergence, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 18-23. Mostovicz, E 2009, "A Dynamic Theory of Leadership Development," Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 30, iss. 6, pp.563-576 Ntibagirirwa, S 2003, A Wrong Way: From Being to Having in the African Value System. In Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change - Series II, Africa, Vol. 7. Pinnington, A 2011, "Leadership development: Applying the same leadership theories and development practices to different contexts?" Leadership, vol 7 no. 3, pp.335-365 Santoso, B 2010, Exploration of Asian Leadership Theories: In Search of Asian ’s Role in the Development of Asian Society, viewed 21 May 2014, http://www.hs-pforzheim.de/De-de/Wirtschaft-und-Recht/50Jahre/Die_Turmthesen/Documents/TT_Bd2_14_Santoso.pdf Scandura, T & Dorfman, P 2004, “Leadership in an international and cross-cultural context,” The Leadership Quarterly, 15, pp. 277-307 Schneider, B 1987, "The People make the place," Personnel Psychology vol. 40, pp.437-454 Timperley, H 2005, "Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice," J. Curriculum Studies, vol. 00, Nn. 0, pp.1–26 Read More