Strategic Management - Competing Values Leadership - Essay Example

Strategic management Introduction Theoretical constructs of strategic leadership behavior have been developed from time to time in an eager response to meeting challenges of time and requirements of evolving managerial structures. Choices that are being made thus tend to be both time-centric and purpose-driven. Spatial and temporal dimensions of such constructs invariably cover a whole range of leadership issues irrespective of their seminal origin. This is none too well borne out than in the consequential parametric growth process of individualistic leadership styles that seek to delineate the causative correlations among a host of dynamic variables. Belasen and Frank (2007) in their paper “Competing values leadership: quadrant roles and personality traits”, sought to establish a system of number and order of leadership roles and tag the associated personality traits which determine leadership roles to them. Thus it’s an effort at establishing a system of metrics to define an otherwise indeterminate and disparate amount of values. Their use of LISREL to determine the extent of fit between competing values framework (CVF) and quadrants is essentially one loaded with a priori tenets of recalcitrant logic. Next Haakonsson, Burton, Obel and Lauridsen (2008) in their paper “How failure to align organizational climate and leadership style affects performance”, hypothesize that “misalignments between climate and leadership style are problematic for organizational performance”. The study is based on regression analysis of data collected through a questionnaire. Though the authors acknowledge an element of prejudice and bias on the part of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), there is still a considerable divergence among variables because the study is primarily a posteriori in its outcomes. Despite the existence of various influences on organizational culture and leadership style, a common tendency to produce a confluence of ideological stances on the part of the two cannot be altogether absent either. Finally Lakshman in his paper “Attributional theory of leadership: a model of functional attributions and behaviors”, applies cognitive complexity theory and attributional complexity theory to the study of positive and functional contingency model of leadership style with primary focus on the strategic behaviors of the manager/leader. According to the author in so far as subordinates are self-efficacious and motivated by a particular leadership style there is no divergence from the trend-setting behavioral construct. This assumption needs to be qualified against the backdrop of existing literature on the subject to be accepted as of any significance. Analysis It’s feasible at the outset to delineate the differences in theoretical behavioral constructs of the three leadership styles to bring out the a priori and a posteriori arguments presented in favor and against the primacy and immediacy of each paradigm as found in the causal correlations and regressions. Secondly the degree of convergence and divergence between the three could be examined with reference to inherent variables of them along with the construction of a systematic contingency model of leadership behavioral constructs. The latter need not necessarily bear testimony to the original constructs for divergence in detail is as tolerable as the totem pole of leadership hierarchy fits into a predetermined pattern. Finally divergence criteria and their origin would be traced to support the existing diversity of leadership literature and choices thereof. Belasen and Frank place much emphasis on the relationship between leadership role and personality traits. Here a more meaningful exposition of theoretical underpinnings of personality traits in strategic management can be traced back to Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) who identified six such personality traits –drive, leadership motivation, honesty and/or integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability and knowledge about the business (Kirkpatrick and Locke, May 1991, Vol. 5(2), pp.48-60). Trait theory is focused on drawing a positive link between efficiency in leadership style and personality traits that augment certain types of behavior. Out of the six personality traits of a leader, the first “drive” might be considered as a portmanteau term because it envisages such things as ambition, motivation and tenacity. Secondly leadership motivation is a concept based on ambition to lead without seeking to achieve power. Honesty and integrity according to the authors are one and the same intertwined concept. On the other hand self-confidence is essential to maintain emotional balance to overcome psychological pressures. Cognitive ability refers to cognitive perception but is not sufficiently elaborate to warrant a cognitive theoretical approach. Finally knowledge of the business is inevitably a very important element in the leadership role because it empowers the manager to lead. It’s the motive force that drives the engine of the business. Blasen and Frank next hypothesize on the probable contradictions arising from the CVF in the operational environment of the organization and the intricacies of choices available to managers who are faced with corporate decisions of a decisive nature. They follow a tradition of exposition enunciated earlier by some other writers (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983, Vol. 29(3), pp.363-377). A cohort of contingency perspectives comes into view following the building up of a spatial model of efficacy criteria towards a CVF approach. Thus the business organization is a structural facility for effective cultivation of an a priori basis for leadership choices. Their a priori constructs include both domains of transformational and transactional roles of leadership and are included in an eight-segment wheel with each segment depicting one role. The upper half of the wheel shows the transformational leadership roles – facilitator, mentor, innovator and broker. The lower half shows the transactional roles – monitor, coordinator, director and producer. While the top half of the wheel represents flexibility the bottom half represents control. The top half also represents human relations and open systems while the lower half shows internal processes and rational goals. According to the authors successful mangers are able to understand the pressures associated with the job. While empirical evidence has not been conclusive to prove the hypothesis there is enough agreement on the contradictions between the organizational environment and the choices available to managers. In other words choices have a limiting influence on the decision making process. For instance Gupta and Govindarajan (1984) and Sharp and Ramanajah (1999) have focused attention on the inescapable conclusions about personality traits and their impact on organizational goals, values and leadership behavior as a norm-based construct (Sharp and Ramanajah, 1999, Vol. 85 (1), pp.327-330). Blasen and Frank seem to identify the same correlations in causally determined a priori situational contingencies (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1984, Vol.27(1), pp.25-41). Leadership theories that are fundamentally based on a priori situational contingencies presume a logical fallacy between non-cognitive experiential parameters of behavior and personality traits. Normative behavioral constructs also produce paradoxes at times. Since personality traits are transient through the space-time continuum it’s possible that norms about leadership behavior are subject to change. Belasen and Frank in their analysis do not concentrate on this aspect albeit their argument that emotional stability of the leader is an essential prerequisite for the maintenance of consistency in arguments is quite understandable. The Five Factor Model as a personality theory brings out all essential qualities of a manager (Costa et al, 1989). The authors have however failed to treat the subject of leadership behavioral constructs in the light of evolving contradictions between a priori theoretical assumptions and the empirical evidence. A stronger element of empiricism is necessary to support the theoretical foundations and therefore Blasen and Frank have left behind a certain vacuum in theoretical postulates. What’s needed is a stronger set of empiricism related arguments to prove that the existing belief system in this respect is time-worn. Next Haakonsson, Burton, Obel and Lauridsen (2008) question the existing belief that successful organizational performance requires an alignment between the organizational climate and leadership style. They make a bold attempt at assessing misalignments between the two variables in keeping with recent empirical evidence. The authors also focus on the degree of influence that leadership role has over the management of climate to bring about desirable outcomes. For instance the idea behind achieving corporate goals is associated with the role that leadership plays in bringing about these outcomes. They seem to provide a normative causation for the effective analysis of misalignments between the two, i.e. leadership and organizational climate. This is a break from the traditional approach in which efforts were concentrated on finding alignments. Towards this end various measures for organizational outcomes are necessary. Despite the glaring inadequacies such as those related to finance, there is enough literature on the subject to give a fairly balanced view of the nature of the misalignments. The authors are particularly appreciative of efforts to study such organizational outcomes as productivity and creativity because they highlight a hitherto uninvestigated area of concern for the understanding of an otherwise complex subject (Ekvall and Ryhammar, 1998, Vol. 7, pp.126-130)). Innovation, productivity, efficiency and performance are interconnected outcomes that depending on their conceptualization determine leadership qualities in measurable metrics. This approach is basically dependent on a priori arguments that seek to establish the undeniable link between the organizational environment and leadership. The most obvious qualitative paradigm associated with this approach is that a particular behavioral aspect of the employee bears upon the climate in a manner to produce organizational outcomes that leadership behavior condones as relevant and essential for the achievement of corporate goals. The authors have invariably emphasized the outcomes associated with this qualitative paradigm and made a partially successful effort to build up a corresponding theoretical construct on misalignments and their virtual impact on organizational outcomes. They cite Jung, Wu and Chow in support of the need more additional knowledge to bring about a positive correlation in these organizational outcomes (Jung, Wu and Chow, 2008, Vol.19 (5), pp.582-594). The argument seems to more plausible unless there is a corresponding amount of empirical evidence to suggest not only a link between the two variables but also to pinpoint the centrally important drivers behind change-determinant behavior. In other words what the manager brings to bear on transforming the organizational climate would be decisive in affecting the emotional response of the average employee to organizational demands. If a misalignment were to occur here negative consequences in the form of low productivity and profits would be the ultimate result. Therefore emotions play a significant role in organizational outcomes (Fong, 2006, Vol.49 (5), pp.1016-1030). The authors have adopted a cross-sectional view of the organizational climate and its impact on performance in order to arrive at their conclusions. The emotion-based grid which shows relations between high/low tension and high/low resistance to change is again a quadrant-climate construct that reveals much less than what it hides from the quantifiable angle. On the top half there are the internal process climate and the rational goal climate while on the bottom half there are the group climate and the developmental climate. If the model is to be accepted as it is, a number of qualifying assumptions need to be made about its apparent limitations. The authors have based their model on Burton and Obel (2004) and Huy (2002). While the outcomes are guessable, an accurate prediction needs a system of metrics which might not be possible in measuring employees’ emotions. However organizational outcomes such as productivity and profits have their own measures. Next the authors have focused on the uncertainty avoidance behavior of employees and reduced the leadership typology into six terms – preference for delegation, short term versus long term focus, pro-activeness versus re-activeness preference for detail, motivation versus control and preference for strategic decisions. However Burton et al suggest “preference for delegation and uncertainty avoidance” as a more inclusive term for the rest as was originally put forward by Cyert and March (1963). The preference for short run and the avoidance of the long term by members of an organization can be described as “a preference for uncertainty avoidance” because in the nature of things the longer the time period under consideration the greater the uncertainty (Burton, DeSanctis and Obel, 2006, Ch.8). The authors’ own admission that the relationship between preference for delegation and uncertainty avoidance could be based on the four quadrants with “manager, producer, maestro and leader” and the subsequent leadership style-climate grid show that there is only one fit for each horizontal row of the grid. The psychology behind this analysis is based on the fact that as the climate factor diminishes more than a manger is needed to bring about a fit in the relationship. This has to be substantiated through other investigations on probable links between the decision making process and delegation of authority on the one and the decision making process and communication bottlenecks on the other. The dilemma of the researcher is quite understandable when these links are exposed (Austin, 2002, p.35). The authors’ attempt to identify that most basic theoretical postulate on fits for the leadership style-climate trade-off is again open to doubt because the “fits” symbolize pairs that have little agreement when they are taken out of their elemental context. For example internal process and manager produce a fit while producer, leader and maestro are misfits against the internal process. In between these four leadership categories definitely there is a variety of other possibilities. For instance in modern times, the marketer plays a very significant role as a master strategist. Where does he belong to? There is no answer. Towards the end of the paper the authors have made a fairly good attempt at explaining the reasons for its limitations such the inability to obtain a best fit between organizational climate and leadership style despite the fact that theoretical constructs have been carefully built up. Finally Lakshman (2008) has developed his attributional theory of leadership based on a relationship between functional attributions and behaviors. The author’s use of cognitive complexity theory and attributional complexity theory is based on the leadership constructs such as information processing and its accuracy, attributions, behaviors, mediating variables and outcomes (Lakshman, 2008, p.173). There is a still greater attempt at building up a series of contingency models for leadership attributions though their usefulness in varying degrees is subject to qualification. Lakshman makes use of variables to construct a process model. These variables are classified into mediating variables such as employees’ self-efficiency, satisfaction and the degree of motivation and outcome variables such as perceptions of managers and employees’ efficiency. The existing literature on cognitive complexity theorem supports the view that persecutory delusions among leaders could be a helpful stepping stone to understanding the implications of attributional theory (Freeman, Bentall and Garety, Editors, 2008, p.73). Lakshman’s analysis is exclusively atributional and cognitive. There is also a positive correlation between subordinate performance and positive leader feedback (Moss and Martinko, 1998, Vol.19 (3), pp.259-274). The author particularly focuses attention on attributional qualities of the leader as an integral part of the behavioral constructs. Thus the subordinates’ performance is invariably linked to this variable. Here the cognitive causal relations have a clearer picture of leadership perception and subordinate response to situational contingencies. According to the author the existing literature on subordinates’ performance tends to be partially biased on leadership attributions while there is a substantial lack of “literature on functional and accurate attributions of these leaders” (Green and Mitchell, 1979, Vol. 23(3), pp.429-458). When literature becomes prejudiced its purpose is less served thereby rendering its efficacy inapplicable in contexts. Therefore according to the author managerial biases constitute the most formidable barrier against any meaningful effort to build up unbiased theoretical constructs on the subject of leadership attributions and subordinates’ motivation and performance. Since biases and prejudices on the part of leaders happen to affect the morale of subordinates it’s possible that subordinates are de-motivated and less efficient. Ensari and Miller (2005) point out that there is a correlation between personalization and group performance and it produces a series of positive and negative effects on intergroup performance because of prejudice (Ensari and Miller, 2005, Vol.8 (4), pp.391-410). Lakshman sets out to solve the dilemma by building a model of functional leadership attributions. His focus on “expert attributional processes as against naïve attributional schemata” in this model building effort has two fundamental principles. In the first place his assertion that the existing literature on the subject is purely cognitive while functional correlations between variables are muted is a very strong argument because it reflects on the very basis of managerial structures and leadership choices that individual managers have to differentiate among. This paradigmatic shift represents a contingency model building effort as well though Lakshman has specifically emphasized the need for a functional model building effort thus effectively focusing on the dysfunctional nature of the existing attributional models (Campbell and swift, 2006, Vol.18 (3), pp.393-408). These comparisons are not only inherently constructive but also independent approximations to the existing models and what’s needed to remedy the stark situation. According to Lakshman attributional leaders are more reflective while non-attributional leaders tend to prevaricate with tendentious behavioral constructs as guiding principles. Thus complex attributional leadership traits depend on complex cognitive schemata that have been developed in response to the above mentioned structural and choice complexities. While this argument is predominantly determined by individual predilections or proclivities, the underlying connotations and denotations are quite obvious. There is a causality factor between these cognitive schemata and attributional leadership behaviors. Lakshman suggests and envisages the deployment of complex schemata in order to overcome an otherwise degenerative non-conforming behavioral paradigm on the part of leaders whose vision is clouded by bias (Wit, Wilke and Dijk, 2008, Vol.19 (4), pp.327-338). Though the schemata have not been adequately defined the attributions are well classified as normative principles. He has developed seven constructs for the measurement of individual differences in attributional complexity, i.e. level of motivation, preference for complex rather than simple explanations, presence of metacognitions, awareness of external causes of behavior, tendency to infer complex internal attributions, tendency to infer complex external attributions and tendency to infer external temporal causes (Ibid Lakshman, 2008). These complex constructs need to be posited against leadership biases that have been noted to be current among leaders. Thus the subordinates’ motivation and efficiency are correlated with these constructs to produce the ultimate model. These constructs form the cognitive as well as motivational bases at the level of organizational culture and corporate goals. Despite its stronger theoretical constructs, the empirical evidence does not exclusively support stronger complex and deterministic cognitive processes in overcoming leadership biases. Secondly though there are sufficient explanations to leader attributions and their cognitive foundations Lakshman has failed to convince the analytical reader of the prejudices that cannot be overcome in extreme organizational contexts (Wilhelm, Herd and Steiner, 1993, Vol.14 (6), pp.531-544). These three authors argue that an attributional conflict between managers and subordinates is inevitable despite the fact that theoretical constructs based on attrbutional leadership foundations and cognitive processes have been shown to possess the greater impact-resistance attributes such as subordinate motivation and leadership willingness to delegate authority and responsibility to subordinates. Finally Lakshman has to a greater extent proved the infallibility argument associated with cognitive processes of leadership behavior. The infallibility argument is associated with the fact that even very successful leaders such as those reliant on modern technology might fail in some instances. So the claim to infallibility is based on a wrong perception. In other words Achilles’ heel of the attributional leader is the self-confidence that he commands at the expense of understanding and empathizing with the majority of subordinates at a given time. Conclusion All three leadership theories are the creations of individual writers whose theoretical postulates have been presented with thought provoking arguments about correlations between leadership behaviours and attendant subordinates’ positive or negative responses , thus leading to incremental or decreasing growth in variables such as productivity, efficiency, motivation, performance, profits, sales and so on. Belasen and Frank have hypothesized on the correlation between leadership behavior and personality traits of individual leaders. Their hypothesis is focused on the personality traits that managers tend to develop in response to complex situations and demands thereof. Next they make a realistic effort at determining the metrics for competing values framework (CVF) and quadrants of behavioral constructs in an obvious attempt to provide an a priori argument for the leadership behavior and subordinate response. On the other hand Haakonsson, Burton., Obel and Lauridsen (2008), make out the case that despite misalignments between leadership style and organizational climate there is a stronger possibility of achieving organizational goals even if such differences are substantial in nature. It’s for the leader to bring about the desirable outcomes in performance and other organizational goals. This is a very strong argumentative posture on the part of the authors. Finally Lakshman (2008) has convincingly argued that attributional leaders are able to provide a systematic behavioral paradigmatic shift in theoretical constructs to develop a more formidable psychological basis for positive subordinate response. He emphasizes the use of stronger cognitive behavioral responses to the unfolding scenario of organizational complexity. According to him process leadership models have failed to account for the ever increasing complexity of behaviors among leaders and their subordinates. Despite its success as a well-heeled theoretical model, it too has some shortcomings. REFERENCES 1. Austin, W. J. 2002, Strategic Planning for Smart Leadership, New Forums Press, Oklahoma. 2. Belasen, A. and Frank, N. 2008, Competing values Leadership: Quadrant Roles and Personality Traits, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Emerald Group, Publishing Ltd, Vol. 29, Issue 2, pp.127-143. 3. Burton, R.M., DeSanctis, G., and Obel, B. 2006, Organizational Design: A Step-By-Setep Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 4. Campbell, C.R. and Swift, C.O. 2006, Attributional Comparisons Across Biases and Leader-Member Exchange Status, Journal of Managerial Issues, . Vol.18 No. 3, pp. 393-408. 5. Ekvall, G. and Ryhammar, L. 1998, Leadership Style, Social Climate and Organizational Outcomes: A study of a Swedish University College, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol.7, pp.126-130. 6. Ensari, N. and Miller, N. 2005, Prejudice and Intergroup Attributions: The Role of Personalization and Performance Feedback, Group Processes +&Intergroup Relations, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 391-410. 7. Fong, C.T. 2006, The Effects of Emotional Ambivalence on Creativity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 1016-30. 8, Freeman, D., Bentall, R., and Garety, P. (Editors), 2008, Persecutory Delusions: Assessment Theory and Treatment, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 9. Green, S.G. and Mitchell, T.R. 1979, Attributional Processes of Leaders in Leader- Memberinteractions, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 429-58. 10. Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. 1984, Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27(1), pp.25-41. 11. Haakonsson, D. D., Burton, R. M., Obel, B., and Lauridsen, J. 2008, How Failure to Align Organizational Climate and Leadership Style Affects Performance, Management Decision, Emerald Group, Publishing Ltd, Vol. 46, Issue 3, pp. 406-432. 12. Jung, D., Wu. A, and Chow, C.W. 2008, Towards Understanding the Direct and Indirect Effects of CEOs’ Transformational Leadership on Firm Innovation, The Leadership Quarterly, Oct. 2008, Vol. 19, Issue 5, pp.582-594. 13. Kirkpatrick, S. A. and Locke, E,A. 1991, Leadership: Do Traits Really Matter, Academy of Management Executive, Vol.5(2),pp. 48-60. 14. Lakshman, C. 2008, Attributional Theory of Leadership: A Model of Functional Attributions and Behaviors, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Emerald Group, Publishing, Vol. 29, Issue 4, pp.317-339. 15. Lakshman, C. 2008, Knowledge Leadership: Tools for Executive Leaders, Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd, London. 16. Moss, S.E. and Martinko, M.J. 1998, The Effects of Performance Attributions and Outcome Dependence on Leader Feedback Behavior Following Poor Subordinate Performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 259-74. 17. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. 1983, A Spatial Model of effectiveness Criteria Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis, Management Science, Vol. 29, No.3, pp. 363-77. 18. Sharp, J.P. and Ramanaiah, J.P. 1999, Materials In the Five-factor Theory of Personality, Psychology Reports, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 327-30. 19. Wilhelm, C.C., Herd, A.M., and Steiner, D.D. 1993, Attributional Conflict Between Managers and Subordinates: An Investigation of Leader-Member Exchange Effects, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No.6, pp.531-44. 20. Wit, A.P., Wilke, H.A.M., and Van Dijk, E. 2008, Attribution of Leadership in a Resource Management Situation, Eurpean Journal of Social Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 19, Issue 4, pp. 327-338. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Adeniy, M. A. 2007, Effective Leadership Management: An Integration of Styles, Skills & character for Today’s CEOS, Author House, Indiana. 2. Aziza, B. and Fitts, J. 2008, Drive Business Performance: Enabling a Culture of Intelligent Execution (Microsoft Executive Leadership Series), John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New Jersey. 3. Beitler, M. 2006, Strategic Organizational Change, Second Edition, Practitioner Press International, North Carolina. 4. Belasen, A.T. 2008, The Theory and Practice of Corporate Communication: A Competing Values Perspective, Sage Publications, Inc, California 5. Burton, R.M. and Obel, B. 2004, Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: The Dynamics of Fit (Information and Organization Design Series), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts. 6. Bush, T. and Coleman, M. 2001, Leadership and Strategic Management in Education (Center for Educational Leadership & Management), Paul Chapman Educational Publishing, London. 7. Ducoff, N. 2008, No-Compromise Leadership: A Higher Standard of Leadership, Thinking and Behavior, DC Press, Florida. 8. Handfield, R. 2006, Supply Market Intelligence: a Managerial Handbook for Building Sourcing Strategies (APICS Series on Resource Management), Auerbach Publications, Florida. 9. Lord, R. G. 1994, Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance (People and Organizations), Routledge, London. 10. Magee, J.L. 1998, Yield Management The Leadership Alternative for Performance and Net Profit Improvement, CRC Press, Florida. 11. Mancini, W. 2008, Church Unique: How Missional Leaders Cast Vision Capture Culture, and Create Movement (J-B Leadership Network Series), Jossey- Bass, California. 12. Morden, T. 2007, Principles of Strategic Management (Innovative Business Textbook, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Hampshire. 13. Northouse, P.G. 2007, Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Inc, California. 14. Quinn, R.E., Degraff, J., and Thakor, A.V. 2006, Competing Values Leadership: Creating Value in Organizations (New Horizons in Management Series), Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Glos. 15. Raelin, J.A. 2003, Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring Out Leadership in Everyone, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, California 16. Riveness, D.T. 2006, The Secret Lift of the Corporate Jester: A Fresh Perspective on Organizational Leadership, Culture and Behavior, Jardin Publishing, California. 17. Robson, W. 1997, Strategic Management, and Information Systems: An Integrated Approach, Person Education Ltd. Essex. 18. Saloner.G., Shepard, A. and Podolny, J. 2001, Strategic Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.. 19. Stout, L. 2006, Time for a Chang: Ideal Leadership Series, Destiny Image Publishers, Inc, Pennsylvania. 20. The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research. 2002, Leadership and Management in the Information Age (Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research), I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, London. 21. Vaghefi, R. and Huellmantel, A.B. 1998, Strategic Management for the XXI St Century, CRC, Florida. 22. Vecchio, R,P. 2007, Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Influence in Organizations, Second Edition, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana. 23. Wallin, J. 2006. Business Orchestration: Strategic Leadership in Era of Digital Convergence, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, West Sussex.. 24. Zichy, S. 2001, Women and the Leadership Q: Revealing the Four Paths to Influence and Power, McGraw-Hill, New York. . Read More