The Leadership Challenge of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Crisis - Essay Example

The Leadership Challenge of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Crisis of the The Programme Module No. of Words: 4,519 (excluding the reference page, table of contents, and cover page) Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………. ……………..2 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..3 The Nature of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill...................................................................3 Crisis Leadership............................................................................................................4 Situational Leadership........................................................................................6 The Crisis Leadership of Robert Dudley........................................................................8 Leadership Traits.................................................................................................9 Leadership Styles................................................................................................10 Contingency Theory............................................................................................11 Symbolic Leadership...........................................................................................13 Conclusions......................................................................................................................15 Abstract This essay argues that crisis leadership is important to all forms of organization. Inopportunely, among crisis leaders, the perspectives concerning crisis leadership remain anchored in the strategic components of crisis management, instead on integral leadership theories, styles, models, and approaches. Crisis leaders should never take for granted the value of crisis planning and leadership. These are the integral components of any organization and should be constantly evaluated. This essay simply presents analyses and recommendations that may help Robert Dudley, the Managing Director of BP PLC, in regaining the confidence of the major stakeholders of his company after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill incident. This essay also argues the necessity for leaders to assess their own meaning of crisis leadership and their appropriate role in mitigating or solving crisis situations. Introduction Human-made catastrophes severely challenge leadership capacity. On April 20, 2010, one of the worst human-made disasters was recorded in history, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. A massive oil slick spreading at the previous rig spot was observed in April 22. The oil slick may turn out to be the nation’s most disastrous environmental catastrophe in decades. The discharge from the ocean floor was discovered to be remarkably larger than originally reported, adding to the rising belief among numerous Louisianans that the government was once again unsuccessful, just like its failure during Hurricane Katrina. The rapidly spreading oil slick is threatening the rich flora and fauna along the Gulf Coast. A vast number of species of birds, fish, and other marine life are in danger of extinction. Because of this unprecedented environmental disaster BP Plc Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward is greatly criticised. The cleanup mission was then assigned to Robert Dudley as the Managing Director of BP PLC. However, Dudley is not only confronting the tremendous difficulty of cleaning up the oil slick but also the challenge of regaining the trust and confidence of major stakeholders in the United States. This tragic incident diverted worldwide interest to the leadership challenges confronted by the people involved in the massive oil spill. This recent threat has generated a need for leaders, such as Robert Dudley, to broaden their understanding and knowledge, and cultivate new abilities. Dudley would certainly discover that the conventional diploma and certificate trainings usually do not respond to these complex leadership challenges. The Nature of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill The news media report human-made disasters every year. When these tragedies are serious and endanger core values, such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, they are identified as crises (Mitroff 2004). Inopportunely, they appear to be occurring more often and becoming more disastrous. No form of organisation is invulnerable from them. Leaders in all forms of organisations are gradually, all very gradually, identifying the probability that at some point in time they will confront a crisis (Barton 2007). In principle, they should be looking for means of dealing with them, for disasters suggest undesirable risk and insecurity. Leaders aim for as much strength and certainty in the environment as possible in order for them to embark on sound decision making. Nevertheless, the business environment has become more volatile and intricate. When these challenges engulf the capability of leaders of deal with them, a crisis takes place (DuBrin 2009). However, the erosion of an organisation’s integrity is the utmost threat in a crisis. Transocean Ltd. and BP PLC confront this danger. Integrity, although it is viewed as an asset, is a very unstable one (Miner 2002).The oil spill incident jeopardised the integrity of the company in the eyes of the general public and stakeholders. The reputation of the whole company and its members undergoes a procedure of sharp re-evaluation by the public. The threat is equal to the size of the company and its worldwide reach. Because a disaster threatens the company’s reputation and integrity, public relations experts are now constantly engaged in crisis management. Robert Dudley, in particular, should be aware of the significance of communicating with the company’s stakeholders: investors, regulators and politicians. Crisis Leadership Traditional knowledge concerning crisis leadership compels leaders to assume that a crisis preparation can provide the productive planning required in preventing inaccurate initial steps in responding to a disaster (Mitroff 2004). It can be maintained that planning may not be the solution to crisis management; rather, the company may need to concentrate instead on cultivating leadership abilities, and senior public relations officers should determine the most efficient people to lead during this predicament and involve them in the company’s preparation and current crisis management attempts (Seeger, Sellnow & Ulmer 2003). Therefore, the question that should be raised is: Does the success of Robert Dudley’s mission depend on planning or leadership? Only some people would contradict planning as a major component to managing crisis, but when it comes to communicating crisis, one of the key variables is the most ignored- crisis leadership (Seeger et al. 2003). Although preparation is crucial, crisis leadership, specifically in the immediate after effects, may overtake any planning. There is direct support that the traditional crisis leadership strategy is evolving, and that leaders are starting to place more importance on crisis preparation and integrity management (Gill 2006). However, Dudley’s crisis leadership indicates that it concerns a broad range of personal and leadership qualities and styles, formed on groundwork of communications strengthened by influence and legitimacy. Crisis leadership is not just a test of character and value of leadership but also a test of ability (Mitroff 2004). Leadership can in fact be experienced in all organisational levels. Leaders, despite of their status within the organisation, have quite a few major abilities, including resolve, influence, communication, rational and strategic thinking, and integrity (Gill 2006). Yet, legitimacy is a leadership necessity (Fairholm 1998). If Dudley will fight for what he believes in and fulfil his missions with much integrity, the payoff is loyalty. Leaders with vigour in emotional intelligence skills, such as effective emotion management, self-awareness, understanding, motivation, discerning the feelings of other people truthfully, and in social competencies such as persuasion, teamwork, and relationship management, are far more successful leaders (Northouse 2009). However, in order to become more successful, Dudley has to toggle between different leadership styles and approaches. As a communicator, Dudley should find out how to collaborate with people in the organisation prior to the disaster, how to cultivate abilities to cope with problems, and the function of the public relations professional in this mechanism. The different leadership theories, models, and approaches should help Dudley better understand how to select people in this time of catastrophe and instability. Situational Leadership By analysing the different attributes of leaders during crisis, it is evident that the situation usually forms the leader. According to Fiedler’s contingency model, not all crises require one or a similar response (Gill 2006). Dudley, as a crisis leader in a human-made catastrophe, will have to exhibit different capabilities. The oil spill disaster, as this analysis will show, will require Dudley to employ his adaptive skills in order to change organisational goals, communication styles, and the strategy in managing new knowledge. Hence, when dealing with the oil spill disaster, Dudley should take the time to understand the people he is leading, the goals they have to fulfil and the degree of impact of every action they will take on the present situation and produce new situations. Dudley should have to assess his own set of ability. The values that numerous professionals conveyed have to be truthful and genuine and upheld by the crisis leader (Murphy & Riggio 2003). The success of Dudley, as stated in the Hershey-Blanchard model of leadership (Northouse 2009), will be measured in terms of his capability to persuading or inspiring major stakeholders toward a particular assumption or behaviour. Consequently, a triumphant crisis leader should not be determined by media accounts or ‘headlines’ (Mitroff 2004). Confidence, between external and internal stakeholders, is the primary measurement aimed by Dudley as a crisis leader. In order for Dudley to regain the confidence of the major stakeholders, he has to learn to employ their belief or value system and foster a level of integrity or dependability. Truthful actions are Dudley’s imperative in his mission in order to persuade stakeholders what the company upholds, what he believes and conveys on the information or messages communicated. Whatever the magnitude of the damage done by the oil spill incident, a genuinely legitimate leader is capable of communicating the risks and realities in a perspective of absolute, resolute honesty. Applying leadership theory and using these abilities to training will also improve the communication between Dudley and the management. This wisdom should also be conveyed into any materials for crisis preparation. Putting emphasis on leadership theories, styles and qualities can add a new breadth to Dudley’s crisis scheme by motivating the team to work in terms of trust, authenticity, values and leadership, instead of merely filling in materials in their crisis plan. Dudley’s central leadership values should concentrate on deviating from the ideals of command and control to ideals anchored in empowerment, facilitation and influence. Decisively, the function of Dudley in the company is basically to build a system of connections among internal groups, and form networks with external influencers. Thereby, Dudley espouses his critical function as a crisis leader by facilitating the establishment of the company’s plan and making sure that the company’s internal networks of people and systems of processes remain stable and do not crumple under pressure. The objective of a crisis leader is to create, build, and rebuild an organisation’s reputation and confidence among investors, employees, customers, governments, partners, and communities that depend on the leader and his organisation through collaborative communication (Barton 2007). Trust enables a company to operate in its normal position before the occurrence of a crisis and will be crucial in maintaining its reputation (Mitroff 2004). However confidence is regained and cannot emerge without legitimacy and persuasion from a crisis leader (Miner 2002). With the lack of these two attributes, legitimacy and persuasion, Dudley will lack both external and/or internal support. These qualities are the foundations of a successful leadership during crisis. Dudley may possess every other leadership trait and skill in Stogdill’s model, but with a single or none of these foundations he will most probably fail. Stogdill’s model of leadership traits and skills shows what is included from an individual to be viewed as a successful crisis leader and realise the intended outcomes (Conger, Riggio & Bass 2006). The analysis carried out to create this model is not intended to ‘tone down’ or generalise the crisis leadership process. In contrast, this is a quite difficult process that requires not merely leading rationally but also leading emotionally (Conger et al. 2006). Although management may be capable of disregarding crisis preparation as immaterial, this analysis should show that companies, particularly multinational organisations, cannot afford to brush aside crisis leadership. Behavioural scholars have tried to uncover what behaviours, skills, and traits, sources of influence or features of the situation measure how effective a crisis leader (Barton 2007) is capable of motivating followers and of realising group goals. The Crisis Leadership of Robert Dudley If threat hangs about, it is sensible to recognise its presence and name it. Taking threats for granted is the most widespread and critical mistake in crisis leadership (DuBrin 2009). Since rejection is costly and detrimental, crisis leadership starts in the pre-crisis stage with emergency preparation (Seeger et al. 2003). But Dudley’s situation begins in the aftermath of the crisis, making it extremely difficult for the crisis leader to fulfil his taxing missions. Leadership, due to its perceptibility and the unpredictability of the situation, has an especially crucial role in constructing the primary implication of a crisis generating incident (Seeger et al. 2003). Being informed by a leader helps to lessen a certain extent of the crisis-generated unpredictability, disorder, and believed danger. Furthermore, leaders serve an important function in setting the mode and primary course of the response of the organisation (Conger et al. 2006). This section will present a number of particular recommendations for Robert Dudley’s crisis leadership. These recommendations involve what Dudley should convey and how he should communicate in the disaster’s aftermath. First, expressing concern for the damaged environment and individuals and visiting the site of the incident is usually recognised as a fundamental leader reaction to a disaster (Seeger et al. 2003). When W.D. Stevens, Exxon chief executive officer, was not able to visit the site of the oil spill, majority of the crisis stakeholders were aggravated (Gill 2006). On the other hand, when Aaron Feuerstein promised to rebuild his ablaze textile factory, he embodied his dedication and resolve in the face of the catastrophe (Mitroff 2004). Visiting the site of the disaster is commonly a crucial step for successful leadership in the aftermath of a crisis. By visiting the site of the crisis, leaders give symbolic awareness and usually orient media interest to the crisis (Mitroff 2004). Therefore, Dudley’s committed attention may give guarantee, comfort and hope to those greatly affected, assist in rebuilding a sense of confidence, and help control resources for improvement. Visiting the site is commonly a productive type of crisis leadership, so long as other contingencies are considered. Besides visiting the site, assigning an official leader as a crisis representative is crucial. Normally, the CEO functions as representative, but at times this obligation is allocated to a crisis team leader or top manager (Barton 2007), such as Robert Dudley. Leadership Traits The trait model is founded in the concept that leadership is connected to individual attributes or qualities, or specific traits. These traits may involve a resolve to assume responsibility, eagerness to bear disappointment, innovativeness in problem solving, and the capability of influencing others (Gill 2006). Initial studies of leader traits put emphasis on the common capabilities of leaders and individual characteristics. Common skills underline things such as technical proficiency, greater wisdom, and high intellectual competence (Gill 2006). Individual attributes involve qualities such as originality, insightfulness, self-confidence, sociability, integrity, initiative, emotional control, and attentiveness. Hence, leaders and followers are differentiated from one another by the intrinsic qualities they possess and the individualities they embody (Miner 2002). According to this perspective, leader qualities are not context specific (Fairholm 1998). In other words, the attributes of leader effectiveness are common for all leadership conditions. As mentioned in the above discussion, crisis leaders should cope with the disorder and volatility of crisis conditions. Hence, Dudley requires the capability of both resolving and operating under situations of disorder and unpredictability. Traits such as coolness or composure and high patience are specifically crucial in Dudley’s leadership. Composure in these situations is at times illustrated as contagious. Furthermore, the capability of envisioning circumstances from multiple points of view, a sense of accountability to stakeholders, a sense of self control, and self-assurance are qualities of successful crisis leaders (Barton 2007). Dudley, being designated as the company’s public representative, should be alert in his response to the media. He should be capable of acting promptly under situations of extreme pressure and unpredictability. These traits underline the vitality of critical thinking and self-assurance in the ability to make decisions. One particular trait that Dudley should possess in order for him to become a successful crisis leader is rigorous experience with a disaster or predicament. Leaders who have experienced a predicament may be more at ease with the unpredictability and pressure of the situation (Seeger et al. 2003). Dudley should also possess a highly cultivated sense of personal honesty and ethics in order for him to respond more resolutely during crisis. Leadership Styles The leadership style approach highlights particular groups of associated behaviours leaders show. Styles commonly differ in accordance to concerns of task and structural issues, such as task definition, and work assignments, and concerns of social matters, such as confidence, trust, and cohesion (Gill 2006). Generally, three primary leadership styles have been identified: laissez-faire, democratic, and authoritarian (Gill 2006). Authoritarian leaders show significant degrees of personal control. These leaders frequently build decisive and strong reporting relationships and promptly make decisions, usually without the assistance of discussion or contribution from followers (Northouse 2009). Thereby, authoritarian leadership is at times viewed as more determined, decisive, and directive (Northouse 2009). Generally, democratic leaders allocate obligation and power to others through agreement and participatory decision procedures. These leaders commonly ask for opinions, suggestions, and contribution from followers (Fairholm 1998). The process of decision making under this form of leadership usually consumes more time, with more possibility for disagreement. Nonetheless, more points of view and knowledge are included in the process of decision making under democratic styles (Fairholm 1998). The disagreement may develop the evaluation of ideas and the value of decisions. Lastly, laissez-faire leaders assign a considerable level of power to others. These leaders are frequently portrayed as non-leaders who are inclined to give up their administrative and management obligations (DuBrin 2009). These leaders normally have high levels of confidence that followers will complete the mission correctly with little or no supervision. In severe instances, these leaders may become detached from the duties of their organisation (DuBrin 2009). Democratic leadership styles are commonly favoured during the daily activities of many organisations. These processes empower the members of the organisation and build greater ability to solve problems (Gill 2006). Moreover, they completely apply the ideas, knowledge, and innovativeness of subordinates (Gill 2006). On the contrary, a more authoritarian style may be suitable for Dudley’s crisis leadership. The situation requires prompt decisions under hostile conditions. Dudley has to act swiftly to lessen or control the damages brought about by the oil spill incident and to make sure that his followers have a clear idea of how the company is taking action. In addition, there may be several gains to building a sense of commitment and restating authority during the disorder and unpredictability of the crisis. Subordinates usually are eager to give leaders more control and power in dangerous situations. Yet, the value of decisions remains a task of the usefulness and amount of knowledge obtained (Mitroff 2004). Regardless of the style, Dudley should aggressively fight the desire to detach himself from crucial sources of knowledge. Even during the limited time frame of the disaster, Dudley should invest time in intently seeking advice from stakeholders and subordinates. Contingency Theory Contingency theory states that specific styles or pattern of leader behaviour will be productive in several settings but not others. For instance, Fiedler defined leader contexts in accordance with three task components: position power, task structure, and leader-member relations (Seeger et al. 2003). Leaders could gain low or high position power. Tasks could be unstructured or structured. Leader-member relations could be positive or negative. He indicated that these components produced a scale of conditions ranging from ‘highly favourable to leadership, to highly unfavourable to leadership’ (Seeger et al. 2003: 144). Authoritarian or directive leaders, or those with high task orientations, are more effective when the conditions are either extremely favourable or extremely unfavourable to the leader. According to Fiedler, the middle scales of moderately favourable are appropriate to a relational leadership style, such as is usually characterised by democratic leadership approaches (Seeger et al. 2003). Contingency theory supports several of the abovementioned techniques of crisis leadership in the sense that authoritarian or directive leadership styles seem to be well-matched to crisis situations. Dudley’s situation is a very challenging case of crisis leadership. Relations with subordinates are usually tensed, and task situations are commonly unstructured. Furthermore, the authority of leader is usually obscured (Mitroff 2004). Crisis also produces a constricted time frame for creating compromise, consultation, and clarifying and validating actions and decisions. Nevertheless, leadership’s relationship domains are also crucial during crisis situations (Barton 2007). Leaders, for example, who fail to take into consideration vital relationships at the aftermath of the crisis, may fail to see crucial needs of stakeholders (Barton 2007). These may consequently obscure the capability of resolving a crisis. Some of the behaviours that Dudley should express are understanding, empathic responses, supportiveness, and displays of concern. Furthermore, in order for Dudley to become a successful crisis leader he should reiterate integral relationships and values. Therefore, the contingencies of Dudley’s leadership are, specifically intricate, demanding a firm task orientation at the same time as addressing crucial relational issues. Contingency perspectives also highlight the requirement to sustain leader adaptability in the context of what is an intrinsically aggressive and unstable situation (Mitroff 2004). Unexpected problems consistently surface during a crisis, requiring further contingent actions on the crisis leader’s part. Symbolic Leadership A leadership model has currently surfaced that stresses the symbolic and qualitative domains of the functions of the leader. The cultural and interpretive model proposes that organisations are created from symbolic mechanisms (DuBrin 2009). Therefore, leaders are strategic composers or creators of organisational value or meaning. Leaders serve a vital function in constructing and sustaining meaning in organisations through structuring activities and through the embodiment of integral values and meaning systems (Conger et al. 2006). Schein (1991), for example, talked about the crucial function of founders in the construction of culture and meaning in organisations. Founders frequently make decisions or take actions anchored on their own cultural origin and experiences. Hence, the underlying culture of an organisation is normally determined by the values, standpoint, and character the founder carries to the daily operations of managing (Schein 1991).These are inherited by later cohorts of leaders (Murphy & Riggio 2003). The management of culture by succeeding cohorts of organisational leaders is carried out through strategically recognising and embodying organisational myths, practices, values and symbol systems (Nahavandi 1993). Leadership’s symbolic domains include structuring meaning for stakeholders and identifying social action. As stated by Fairhurst and Starr (1996), structuring is the leader practice of establishing “the meaning of a subject... to make sense of it, to judge its character and significance” (p. 3). Structuring includes the expression of a specific analysis of an incident over other analyses. Leaders hence help analyse organisational tasks and present an idea for where the organisation is heading and what steps members should execute (Fairhurst & Starr 1996). Leaders have a dominant function in forming the organisational culture and its symbolic systems. Leaders can have a dramatic effect on how members of an organisation perceive what they are encountering or practicing in the organisation (Barton 2007). Furthermore, leaders are primed to express decisive value perspectives for the organisation. How leaders of organisations define and respond to incidents or situations, for instance, affects the meaning stakeholders of an organisation have for the situation (Yammarino & Dubinsky 1994). Due to the fact that meaning frequently is an antecedent for synchronised action, structuring is usually imperative to subordinates to begin executing strategic steps. This requirement for meaning is larger in disordered settings (Fairhurst & Starr 1996). Symbolic crisis leadership requires responding to an incident in a manner that structures meaning and enables harm-mitigating steps, while sustaining actions that are adequately wide-ranging to complement the innate unpredictability of the circumstance (Seeger et al. 2003). This embodies a considerable challenge for crisis leaders. As mentioned previously, involved people in a crisis rely on leaders to lessen insecurity, explain meaning, and tender support, comfort, hope, and information. The behaviour of a leader during a crisis will have a great effect on how members and stakeholders of the organisation perceive the incident. From this point of view, it is essential to explore how leaders perform a state of affair and its effect on the tone of the crisis as it progresses (Miner 2002). Furthermore, leaders such as Robert Dudley should also be conscious that their analyses should contend with other analyses of the crisis. Dudley’s analysis of the oil spill incident should be persuasive in the sense that it is sound, believable, and enables appropriate steps. Smircich and Stubbard (1985) called the champion of this contest as the person who can “reach critical mass in terms of acceptance of his or her beliefs; this critical mass depends on persuasion and interpretation much more than on the objective facts” (p. 733). Apart from performance, a leader is an emblem of power and order. Consequently, simply being there, clearly involved, and reachable during a crisis is comforting (Miner 2002). Furthermore, symbolic leadership may be imperative to control harm-mitigating resources. By merit of their power, leaders can frequently use resources that would not be accessible to average individuals (Mitroff 2004). A leader may give symbolic consideration to concerns of crisis preparation even during the pre-crisis phase and hence motivate subordinates to take preparation seriously (Seeger et al. 2003). Moreover, if Dudley is successful in dealing with the crisis, he will represent successful crisis response and as a result may regain the confidence of major stakeholders and enhance the company’s reputation, integrity, and visibility. These theoretical analyses of the intricate attributes of crisis leadership are valuable not just for the habitual, daily tasks of leaders but also for the unusual and new situations of crisis. As mentioned earlier, crises rapidly produce high levels of danger and shock and narrow time frame for response. New stakeholders may surface and become important in the development of the oil spill crisis. Likewise, stakeholder requirements for communication and information vary after a crisis. Basically, the expectations and limitations for Dudley’s leadership are normally quite dissimilar from those needed for regular activities. Furthermore, successful leadership is obviously an integral mechanism in a successful crisis management. Conclusions Leadership is an integral task in crisis management. Leaders serve an especially crucial function in understanding and analysing the incidents for external and internal stakeholders during a crisis. By remaining composed and performing from value positions, Robert Dudley may act in response more successfully. Leadership theory, such as contingency, style, and trait theory, proposes diverse attributes, qualities, behaviours, and mechanisms that have specific relevance to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill incident. Furthermore, the symbolic model of leadership during crisis is especially relevant given the considerable unpredictability of the disaster. Crisis leadership may also inform the leadership challenges confronted by Dudley in the sense that it shows how leaders should act or behave in these situations. This involves particular behaviours during the crisis, and after the crisis. The above discussion also suggests that Dudley may be capable to responding successfully by setting in motion key relationships and integral values. Doing so also generates a pool of resources and support that may assist the company in responding more successfully to the disaster. Apparently, there is a mixture of qualities and traits that Dudley should possess. Although these traits and qualities are possibly infinite to enumerate, this essay shows a number of major traits. A successful crisis leadership will apply these aspects to adapt to the requirements and responses from the stakeholders. Crisis leaders, like Robert Dudley, should continue to put emphasis on crisis planning, and leading during crisis. The company responsible for the recent massive oil spill incident confronts more threats at present for negative media reports and criticisms, societal demands, and legal action, which implies that Dudley also have to further cultivate wisdom and competencies. This essay argues that Robert Dudley should look for means to enhance his personal leadership capabilities and strategic thinking. References Barton, L. (2007) Crisis Leadership Now: A Real-World Guide to Preparing for Threats, Disaster, Sabotage, and Scandal, New York: McGraw-Hill. Conger, J.A., Riggio, R.E. & Bass, B.M. (2006) The Practice of Leadership: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. DuBrin, A. (2009) Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills, Mason, OH: South-Western College Publication . Fairholm, G. (1998) Perspectives on Leadership: From the Science of Management to its Spiritual Heart, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Fairhurst, G.T. & Starr, R.A. (1996) The art of framing, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gill, R. (2006) Theory and Practice of Leadership, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Miner, J. (2002) Organisational Behaviour: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses, Oxford : Oxford University Press. Mitroff, I. (2004) Crisis leadership: planning for the unthinkable, Indiana University. Murphy, S.E. & Riggio, R.E. (eds) (2003) The Future of Leadership Development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nahavandi, A. (1993) Integrating Leadership and Strategic Management in Organisational Theory, Administrative Sciences Association of Canada , 297+. Northouse, P. (2009) Leadership: Theory and Practice, New York: Sage. Schein, E. (1991) The role of the founder in the creation of organisational culture, In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (eds), Reframing organisational culture (pp. 14-25), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L. & Ulmer, R.R. (2003) Communication and Organisational Crisis, Westport, CT: Praeger. Smircich, L. & Stubbard, C. (1985) Strategic management in an enacted world, Academy of Management Review , 724-736. Yammarino, F.J. & Dubinsky, A.J. (1994) Transformational Leadership Theory: Using Levels of Analysis, Personnel Psychology, 787+. Read More