Leadership and Culture - Essay Example

Internship Paper Laurah Boswell Montclair The purpose of this paper is to gain a deeper understanding of how teamwork and collaboration exist in organizations and how they interact through United Light Incorporation In conjunction with these, organizational culture, communication and leadership, are also examined. More specifically, this paper analyzes the role that each of these components plays in successful collaboration and teamwork. This study provides insight to better manage corporations as they develop and mold their brands to incorporate a certain degree of employee camaraderie. By engaging in an internship at United Light Incorporated, I was given the opportunity to have hands-on experience in how to properly organize and manage a group with the set goal of accomplishing a beach clean-up in Queens, New York. Comments: It’s a much better version than the first draft. Great job! Here are server points for revision. 1). Please keep in mind that your literature review should help you reflect or interpret your internship experience. I didn’t see much connection between your literature review and application. Try to integrate the concepts discussed in the literature review into your application section. For example: what types of culture have you observed in your company? On each dimension, what have you observed? The same goes with leadership. What type of leadership style have you observed about the company’s president? Why? Discuss this in light of your literature review. 2). Streamline, shorten, or simplify the discussion on the dimensions of org. culture. In the application section, discuss your experience in reference to the literature that you have discussed in the earlier section. 3) Have a short concluding at the end. 4). When you email me the revision, please colored the parts where you have changed. Introduction In examining organizational culture, certain characteristics play an integral role in defining the organization. The purpose of this paper is to gain a deeper understanding of how teamwork and collaboration function in organizations and how they affect the company’s culture. This study contributes to effective management in multinational organizations as they develop and mold their brands to incorporate a certain degree of employee camaraderie. This paper will first examine the definition of culture, especially as it relates to interactions within corporations. Leadership will then be discussed as an important component of managing the dynamics within companies to ensure that collaboration and teamwork are encouraged and rewarded. The impact of different leadership styles on the manner in which employees and companies are managed is also investigated with respect to its impact on the company culture. The terms, teamwork and collaboration, will subsequently be discussed and their intricate similarities, albeit distinctive styles, and application will be dissected. An internship experience at United Light Incorporated will then be used to demonstrate the practical nature of applying these principles. Their unique program and goals provide an ideal platform to illustrate the intricacies of organizational culture discussed in this paper. It is the goal of the author that this paper will start a discussion that compares and contrasts the outcomes of teamwork and collaboration in businesses. This is by no means an exhaustive and complete analysis of these terms and their application. However, this paper establishes the background and foundation for a thorough discussion of their implementation. After all, it seems that these terms are very similar; however, they implement their principles in slightly different manners and on slightly different scales. What Is Culture? While not always easy to define, organizational culture is essentially the personality of the organization. Multiple views or methodologies co-define the study of culture. The field of organizational culture contains an extensive array of ideas and approaches, which ranges from anthropology, social psychology, to organizational sociology (Brown & Starkey, 1994). At its most basic, “culture is a learned, shared, compelling, interrelated set of symbols whose meanings provide a set of orientations for members of a society” (Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004, pg. 76). This shared set of meanings offers a way for people to unite and address common problems and challenges. Cultural groups can be family, organizations, or society, and each of these groups creates stories and practices that support its beliefs and values. However, there are many other ways in which organizations exhibit culture, most of which are not visible. Nevertheless, language and non-verbal behavior are common observable characteristics, including conduct and manners, how they look and act, and what seems important to them (Cheney, et al., 2004). Cheyenne, Christensen, Zorn, and Ganesh (2004) explain that any culture exists at three levels. At the first level are the core beliefs and assumptions that members of the culture see as truth. For the most part these are not overtly visible or tangible things. They are embedded assumptions. The second level of culture consists of ethics, morals and behavioral norms. At this level there is a greater level of self-awareness. As a result, marginal members tend to challenge existing standards. The physical and social environment of an organization is the observable manifestation of the culture. Attributes can include “physical space, the technological output of a group, artistic productions, the way people dress, the hours and patterns of work schedules, the fringe benefits, the end-of quarter beer busts, or the overt behavior of its members” (Christensen, 2006). For example, one may observe that in one organization, people tend to challenge each other openly, while in another organization, people may be more polite, choosing not disagree openly. In some organizations employees may wear casual or even sloppy clothes. Conversely, in others they may dress more formally. Christensen expanded on this saying that groups that may seem informal in dress or language may actually run the business with a firm arm. These manifestations of the culture, referred to as artifacts, are contained in the third level - the most visible and tangible level. Artifacts include buildings, dress, décor, logos, rituals, traditions, stories and jargon. Marquardt (1999) references this idea by explaining that corporate cultures develop unique ways of thinking and putting into action company standards. Often these principles are noticeable by the “vision, symbols, heroes, rituals, activities, and mindsets of its members” (1999, p. 62). Understanding that culture develops between any set of people who communicate with each other, consider, for example, a nation. Most national cultures share a common language, a common form of government, a common economic system, and a common mindset. These are necessary attributes in order to remain a member of the nation. Similarly, organizations develop their own language, hierarchy of positions and power, and mindsets. When someone moves from Europe to Asia, there are major cultural differences that the person must adjust to. In the same way, for individuals entering into these organizations, it is necessary to adapt to the new customs. Cheney, et al. (2004) explained that these characteristics suggest that culture is learned, shared, and interrelated, with each concept reinforcing the other. Organizational cultures have a pattern of basic assumptions that are invented, discovered, or developed by a given group. As the group learns to cope with external and internal problems, assumptions are developed, which have proven to work over time and are, then, taught to or shared with new members of the group as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Christensen, 2006). Organizational culture is generated through communication. Leaders use language, stories, and rituals to create distinctive group cultures and attain a shared vision that many can comprehend. An organization’s culture exposes the shared realities and practices in the organization. Such realities, in turn, create and shape organizational events, ultimately defining the organization. Zalabak (2009) noted that, “human communication is the process of attempting to construct shared realities, to create shared meaning” (p. 13). However, this process of constructing realities is culturally influenced. As with other forms of communication, organizational communication is related to the capabilities of individuals, their experiences, the communication context, and the results of interactions. However, organizational communication is more than the daily interactions of individuals, it is the process through which organizations create and shape events (Zalabak, 2009). These very events that are created by communication make up the culture of the organization. Organizational cultures are dependent on extensive communication. Additionally, organizational cultures influence and standardize the way members of the organization think, feel and act within that organization. Because culture forms the basis of group identity and shared thought, belief, and feeling, one of the most decisive and important functions of the leaders is to create and manage the culture (Christensen, 2006). Next, I will explore the topic of teamwork and collaboration. Culture can affect how teams interact and collaborate. However, it must first be understood how these concepts relate and how they differ. The next section aims to answer these questions. Teamwork vs. Collaboration A team is two or more individuals with specified roles interacting adaptively, interdependently, and dynamically toward a common and valued goal (Salas, Sims & Burke, 2005). Conversely, one definition of collaboration offered by Hord (1986) explains that the involved parties share responsibility and authority for basic decision-making. Although these definitions may seem similar, they do indeed differ. Within a team the members have designated roles and assignments. However, in a collaborative environment, more fluidity exists between positions. Pisano and Verganti (2008) explained that collaboration can occur at four different levels. These styles differ along two dimensions: openness (anyone can participate vs. or select members) and hierarchy (one person makes decisions vs. all involved in decision). In the open, hierarchical mode, a company defines the problem and chooses the solution, but anyone can offer ideas. In the open, flat mode, anyone can offer ideas, however, no single participant has the authority to make decisions. In the closed, hierarchical mode, the company selects certain participants and decides which ideas get developed. In the closed, flat mode, a selected group is invited to offer ideas. But participants share information and intellectual property and make critical decisions together. When casually explored these definitions appear to have similar meaning, however when closely analyzed they come to have different denotations. McLeod (2010) explained that as a company or business evolves, there seems to be a shift from teamwork to collaboration. Although teamwork and collaboration are closely related, they are not the same. Referencing Silverstein, McLeod (2010) states that "teamwork and collaboration are cousins, but theyre not twins" (p.1). There are several key differences between teamwork and collaboration. Firstly, when discussing teamwork, members often focus on the individual assignments that have been allocated through delegation. Even when decisions need to be made, team members only do so when that assessment is in line with their given assignment, very few people will spontaneously offer their expertise on tasks not assigned to them. Conversely collaboration requires more flexibility and cooperation for tasks to be completed. When roles or responsibilities are less clearly defined, there is flexibility in who may perform the tasks and, therefore, collaboration can occur. Furthermore, individuals may feel more inclined to take on tasks, as they will feel free to do so without encroaching on the terrain of their teammates. McLeod (2010) explained that those involved in collaboration have less defined roles, frequently changing positions, and responsibilities to best suit the assignment. Collaboration focuses on utilizing special skills in an adaptive manner, which may best support the task at hand. Similarly, because teams operate in a hierarchal structure, members often do what they are instructed to do. Those involved in collaboration, however, are often self-directed and figure out what needs to be done on their own. McLeod (2010) stated that true collaboration requires support, but not direction. In conjunction with the previous explanation, McLeod (2010) explained that teamwork has a directive power. When everyone functions under the same set of rules, teamwork can be effective. However the rules are always changing and organizations need to have the ability to adapt. Collaboration evolves over time and, hence, allows such a process to occur. Hinton (2005) explained that there are three collaborative principles that guide collaborative partnerships. First, the building and maintaining relationships is an active process requiring attention and effort. Second, it is necessary to understand the perspective of others (and ones own) to be an effective partner. Lastly, Hinton suggested that shared decision making is the ultimate hallmark of partnership, enhancing motivation and consolidating mutual commitment. Hinton noted that the above principles are consistent with Weaver and Farrells (1997) use of the acronym TARGET to describe the characteristics of collaboration. These characteristics include: Truth, Accountability, Respect, Growth, Empowerment, and Trust. Although the difference between collaboration and teamwork has been outlined, it should be considered how the two interact with each other. Teamwork brings about collaboration, or vice versa. If a team is working on a particular project, they must eventually come together to create a finished product. At this conjunction, each member has essentially become an expert in whatever aspect of the project they researched. All this information then needs to be compiled. This is done through collaboration. Conversely, as the two or more groups mentioned above begin their collaboration, eventually teams will need to be created to cover all the details of the project. Through this, the relationship between teamwork and collaboration can be more clearly understood. The two may not exist independently. An effective leader is needed to supervise and ensure that the groups stay on task, meeting deadlines and organizing the data for publication. These are integral to the success of the project. Next, I will explore the topic of leadership. It is an important component of managing the dynamics within companies to ensure that collaboration and teamwork are encouraged and rewarded. The impact of different leadership styles on the manner in which employees and companies are managed will also be investigated with respect to their impact on the company culture. Leadership Leadership can refer to the method utilized to organize people and generate vision (Kotter, 1990). A second definition offered by Kotter refers to leadership as a position, wherein the duties of building and directing an organization are expected. The second definition provided by Kotter suggests that everyone in leadership positions actually provides leadership. Some individuals may hold a leadership position, without fulfilling the duties associated with the role. True leadership produces movement. Kotter expands on this idea, explaining that leadership seems “to boil down to establishing where a group of people should go, getting them lined up in that direction and committed to movement, and then energizing them to overcome the inevitable obstacles they will encounter along the way” (p. 5). Throughout the ages, individuals who have been seen as leaders have created change. Leadership affects nearly all aspects of the organization. Leaders help guide individuals, groups, and entire organizations in establishing goals and sustaining action to support these goals (Hackman & Johnson, 1991; Zalabak, 2009). Christensen (2006) argued that many of the problems faced by leaders are related to the inability to analyze and evaluate organizational cultures. Many leaders try to implement new strategic plans in their activities. However, without evaluating an organization’s culture the new strategies often fail to take hold. Leadership styles Leadership approaches have been described in several ways. The styles theory explains that there are different types of leaders: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. Autocratic, or authoritarian, leadership is a classical leadership style wherein the leader believes that subordinates would not function effectively without direct supervision (Maak & Pless, 2006). Despite having many critics, the autocratic leadership style can be effective in certain situations. This style works best with short-term projects with highly technical, complex or risky elements or with projects that have very specific protocols or time constrictions. This type of leadership style increases productivity and produces more accurate solutions; however, workers are often intimidated and stifled creatively (Maak & Pless, 2006). Furthermore, when the leader is absent, productivity slows down. This leadership style hinders self-direction and collaboration. Laissez-faire leadership communication style is the direct opposite of autocratic communication leadership (Maak & Pless, 2006). The leader that utilizes this style does not directly participate in decision-making unless he or she is requested to do so by followers. Laissez-faire leaders trust that their employees can complete all tasks without direct supervision; however these groups are not as productive. A key objective of leadership is to motivate. However, if there is no leadership, those whom they are leading will subsequently be unmotivated. Similar to the autocratic style, this method decreases innovation and production. Additionally, even if creative ideas could be generated without action, the team or organization would not have enough energy to implement the program, thus hampering collaboration. This style decreases innovation, follower motivation, as well as quality and quantity of output (Maak & Pless, 2006). Democratic leadership style has its own unique attributes when engaging in supportive communication between leaders and followers (Maak & Pless, 2006). Democratic leaders are usually very egalitarian in their approach to governance. The leader adopting the democratic style encourages employee involvement and participation in the determination of goals and procedures. Democratic leaders believe followers are capable of making informed decisions and delegate tasks to employees. This style lowers absenteeism and increases innovation and worker satisfaction, bringing about a positive work environment, successful initiatives, and creative thinking. The high efficiency of democratic leadership brings with it the exact characteristics needed for effective teamwork and collaboration (Maak & Pless, 2006). A leader’s communication style has a great impact on their ability to maneuver through various leadership positions. This style may reflect a philosophical belief about human nature or may simply be a strategy designed to maximize outcomes in a given situation (Maak & Pless, 2006). Regardless, a leader’s communication style contributes to the success or failure of teamwork and collaboration. Democratic leaders are able to maximize their success by employing strategies that take advantage of their teams’ strengths and take everyone’s opinion into account. Democratic leaders are often described as being fueled by a desire for justice, they seek to have fairness in all their relations and want every member of the team to feel valuable. Under situational theory, which was developed by professor Paul Hersey and leadership mentor Ken Blanchard, leaders range from task motivated to relationship motivated. Task leaders take charge and perform well in low and high control situations. Relationship leaders or social leaders use diplomacy and perform well in a multitude of situations. They are similar to democratic leaders who manage both of these strategies, allowing their efficacy to be at a maximum while also keeping members of their team engaged and content (Fiedler, 1987). A task-oriented style is primarily concerned with successful task completion, which means that production is of main concern. A task oriented leader correlates with an authoritative leadership communication style. They give orders and keep the group focused on the mission. Relationship leaders emphasize teamwork, cooperation and supportive communication that allows for a more enjoyable workplace for an employee. The interpersonal oriented style correlates with democratic style leadership (Fiedler, 1987). Transformational leadership first emerged in 1978, having been conceived by James MacGregor Burns, and since has had several similar conceptualizations, including Charisma theory and Visionary leadership. However, transformational leadership occurs when leaders and followers encourage and motivate each other to advance. Transformational leaders are often energetic and self-confident. These leaders inspire others to work toward a common goal. Bass (1990) explained that these leaders encourage others to look beyond themselves, not focusing on a reward system, but rather charismatically meeting the emotional and intellectual needs of employees. Charismatic leaders excite others with the idea that great things may be accomplished with extra efforts. They inspire people to share their visions, become mentors to employees and provide new ways of looking at old problems (Bono & Judge, 2004). The result of such leaders brings about a more engaged, trusting and effective workplace. With a clear understanding of leadership, teamwork, and collaboration, I will now discuss how these concepts apply in a practical approach. Using my internship experience, I will analyze how these concepts apply in the field. Application and Analysis This semester I interned at United Light Incorporated (ULI), which is a 501(c3) youth and volunteer led environmental nonprofit organization in New Jersey. The mission of ULI is to provide and promote the highest standards of care for communities in need and help to lessen government and civic burden by instilling value toward selfless and united service. They aim to do this by promoting environmentally friendly practices, including cleaning campaigns and educational seminars. Additionally, the organization’s social welfare program focuses on communities overall as well as at-risk youth and seniors. One ongoing program is the maintenance of the company warehouse in Upper Saddle River, which houses an array of new and used donated goods, ranging from electronic and hardware products to clothing and building equipment. The sale of these items will not only sustain the organization, but also will help serve our global neighbors in distress. Interestingly, this program offers a company and home “cleanout” service to remove unused and unwanted items. Items that are beyond repair or that cannot be used for parts and other services are disposed of in the proper manner. This program utilizes many people with different skill sets in order to function effectively. For example, there is a team that is designated to pick up the materials. Once the items are gathered, different specialists inspect each item. Even within this aspect, many skills are required. There are people on staff who focus solely on the furniture that is brought in. They often work on reupholstering items or refinishing items to bring back the shine and function they once had. Other items such as computers and televisions require different specialists. These items are often inspected and repaired by computer technicians. Through the running of this program, I was able to observe some of the organizational culture. One aspect of culture, as explained above is that of common language. As with many organizations, those involved in this program have developed a language unique to them. For example, to differentiate a house clean-out from an office clean-out they use the terms “rugs” and “cubes” respectively. What is interesting to note is that the language connected with the cleanout program is only used by those heavily involved in the project. A co-worker overseeing another project asked how everything was going. As I explained she got a quizzical look on her face, it was at this point I realized she had no idea what I was talking about because of the terms I was using. What was also very interesting to me was the ease with which I used the new terminology. Through this, the idea which Cheyney, et al (2004) expressed about culture being learned and shared manifested. To understand this concept more, I began to wonder if I could introduce a new word into the language system the workers had created. This was not done scientifically, but just for my own inquiry and understanding I began to refer to the truck as the “bin”. As would be expected no one knew what I was talking about at first. But when a fellow co-worker and I laughed about the term one day, she began to use it too. From this I was able to better understand what Cheyney, et al meant when they said culture is shared. By myself, just throwing a word into the organization was completely ineffective; however, once there was a shared situation and meaning, the term was able to be used. Soon after this incident, I was moved to another project, so whether the word remains part of the language used by the clean-out crew I am not sure, but it was interesting to understand this aspect of culture first-hand. I was then moved to the main office to understand how programs are created and implemented from the ground up. As an intern it was very interesting to witness the culture of the organization and its commitment towards its values and system of ethics. Although the culture in the office felt fairly relaxed, manifestations of culture contradicted this feeling. Business attire was required most of the time. But, from time to time, workers would come in dressed business casual. This is an expression of the third level of culture, artifacts, which was explained by Christensen and Cheyney et al. I began to wonder what this meant about levels one and two of the culture within this organization, because all levels are interrelated. As I began to understand the reasoning behind the way they dress, I was able to understand more about their mindset. Business attire is of importance for this organization because often they meet with company leaders’ and other constituents unexpectedly. In an attempt to present the organization in the best way possible, appearance was of great importance. By dressing in formal business attire, employees were not only able to leave a good first impression of the company, but simultaneously delivered the message that the company is highly attentive to details. Female workers often wore flats, and when necessary, would change into heels. In the same way, male workers often threw on their business jackets right before entering into a meeting. This showed an aspect of level two culture, self-awareness. By dressing appropriately, it showed that workers had a shared understanding of how they each personally impacted the dynamic of the organization. One of the pillars of the organization is its belief in the continued education of its members irrespective of their socio-economic status, which is accomplished through the use of reading, listening or the viewing of self-empowerment materials. For example, a major topic often discussed is that environment and ways to help instead of hurt our planet. In the library are many books on this topic, of which Oceana by Ted Danson became one of my favorites. Part of my experience was researching into different areas, finding materials that would be beneficial for others in the company. I chose to look into the plight of our oceans because I was working on a river clean-up project at the time. Since the two are directly related, I thought it would be helpful not only for my knowledge but also for others that I was working with. I used this opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of what was happening with our water supply, what actions we can take, and how they can impact the situation. This book was available to whoever wished to utilize it. This is only one example of the resources that were available to all workers and volunteers. By having such resources available, the members of the organization are able to not only further their self-development process but also to assist in projects and create their own projects with greater awareness of what is occurring in the world. Additionally, members are able to coach and mentor others who are just coming into the organization or volunteers who may not be as knowledgeable about a given area, but wish to know more. By expanding our knowledge, one’s connection to the issue expanded as well. The net result of this was an eagerness for the organizational members to encourage each other to maintain a positive mental attitude when dealing with internal and external publics of the organization. The open lines of communication really played a vital role in being able to effectively plan, organize, and carry out any project within the organization. Since the president of the organization was very involved and knew all the members of the organization by their first name, the culture provided a way to build close relationships with members and volunteers, which further improved the lines of communication. Observing her, I would say she is a transformational leader. Everyone was always encouraged to share ideas, and implement almost any program considered beneficial to the community. Everyone always encouraged and supported each other; however, this was easily accomplished because ULI was not a particularly big institution. Sometimes as companies grow, it becomes difficult to maintain personal connections with everyone. Nevertheless, members were motivated by her encouraging words and warm smile on a daily basis. She spoke with such enthusiasm and excitement, one could not help but to be excited as well. In my time with the company, I was able to plan a beach cleanup in Queens, NY, using ULI to support this process. With a great deal of guidance, I organized all the people that would be involved, provided clear role definitions and expectations. Because I had never planned an event at this scale, I was interested to see how everything would unfold. The execution of the project was a great success, since it allowed both the use of teamwork and collaboration on our part. Each employee and volunteer had a defined role that they sought to cover on their own, but we all took on roles that were not explicitly defined to complete the project, which is where collaboration came into play. Our individual responsibilities, which were executed together, involved teamwork, yet when we all set to put our individual responsibilities together to successfully complete the project, we did so through collaboration. Through this project I learned a lot about myself in regards to teamwork, collaboration, and leadership. To keep the project on track and the clean up process moving smoothly, I was placed in charge of the project. As the leader of the project, it was paramount that I divided up the project into sections that each member was able to take control of. As the environment of the organization was generally very relaxed, I found that I applied a more democratic and laissez-faire styles of leadership. I executed democratic leadership by allowing the members of my group to becoming entirely emerged in the project, which involved them making decisions that would help the progress of the project. At the same time, I implemented laissez-faire leadership by letting the group take charge of the decision-making without my involvement unless it was requested. Everyone was very diligent about attending to his or her assignments, so there was no need for me to be a drill sergeant about completion of the project. Although this group loves technology, I found that I preferred to coordinate face-to-face meetings, using emails and other internal corporation software only when needed. However, the use of technology aided in keeping the project efficient and timely since each member involved in the project communicated via email and other Microsoft office tools. The execution of the project was carried out better than anticipated and each member of the project walked away with a valuable experience. Additionally, regular beach-goers were excited to see a youth group excited to clean the area. I was excited at the success of this program and with the time I spent at ULI. I was very fortunate to interact with a great group of motivated individuals who truly had a passion for what they do. Additionally, I was able to witness the concepts from the literature review above manifest themselves in an organization. Conclusion Teamwork and collaboration are not only vital components to the success of an organization, but also to the creation of the culture of the organization. Culture refers to the personality of an organization, and allows a group of people to address concerns and challenges that arise within the organization. This organizational culture forms as a result of members coming together with the common goal of successfully running their business and is primarily generated through communication. Language, stories, and rituals are used to form distinguishing group cultures and accomplish a shared vision that all employees can grasp. Teamwork and collaboration have their differences that set them apart from one another. A team consists of two or more individuals with particular roles that are implemented to meet a valued goal. Collaboration is when the parties involved share the responsibilities of combining the duties of the teams. However, the primary characteristic that they share is that teams must gradually come together to create a finished product, which is done under collaboration. As an organization grows and culture is formed, teamwork shifts seamlessly to collaboration. The two cannot exist independently, but rely on each other if the organization desires to be successful. Through my internship at United Light Incorporated, I was able to gain first-hand experience and knowledge of organizational culture, teamwork and collaboration. Moreover, I was given the opportunity to see how the three aforementioned aspects, when combined, create a successful organization and promising endeavors. By focusing on the methods implemented by the president of the organization, I was able to execute my own methods to enable my group to successfully clean up the beach in Queens, New York. The overall experience was encouraging and valuable to my understanding of a flourishing organization. References Bono, J. and Judge, T. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910. Brown, A. D., & Starkey, K. (1994). The effect of organizational culture on communication and information. Journal of Management Studies, 31(6), 807-828. Christensen, C. (2006). What is an organizational’s culture? Retrieved from http://www.nca- integration.amedd.army.mil/jtfleaders/ArticlesofInterest/orgculturechristiansen.pdf Cheney, G., Christensen, L., Zorn, T., & Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational communication in an age of globalization. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Fiedler, F. (1987). When to lead, when to stay back. Psychology Today, 26-27. Hackman, M, & Johnson, C. (1991). Leadership: a communication perspective. Leadership and Communication, 1(1), 4-40. Hinton-Walker, P., & Elberson, K. L. (2005). Collaboration: Leadership in a global technological environment. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 10(1), 103-112. Hord, S. (1986). A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational Leadership, 22-26. Kotter, J. P. (1990). Management and leadership. In J. P. Kotter, A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: The Free Press. Pp. 3-18. Kroeger, O. & Thueson, J. M. (1992). Type talk at work: How the 16 personality types determine your success on the job. New York: Dell. Lewin, K., Lippit, R. & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, pp.271-299. Maak, T, & Pless, N. (2006). Responsible leadership: a relational approach. Responsible Leadership, 1(1), 11-28. Marquardt, M. J. (1999). The global advantage: How world-class organizations improve performance through globalization. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company. (Ch. 4). Martin, A. M. (2008). Characterizing Leadership @ AASL. Knowledge Quest, 37(2), 6-9. McLeod, L. (2010). Teamwork vs. Collaboration. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/ news-articles/buffalo-news/mi_8030/is_20101120/teamwork-collaboration/ai_n56326314/ OBrien, J. L., Martin, D. R., Heyworth, J., & Meyer, N. R. (2008). Negotiating transformational leadership: A key to effective collaboration. Nursing & Health Sciences, 10(2), 137-143.  Schein, E.  (1984). Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3-17. Zalabak, P. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. New York: Pearson. Read More