- prepare a submission-ready manuscript based upon DBA/PhD research to date. This manuscript should follow author guidelines and should be standard of being ready to submit and publish.
- Note: should be published in Academy of Management Perspectives – www.aom.org
- The format, style, length of MS needs to fix the author guidelines to avoid desk reject for noncompliance to journal standards subsequently.
- on the paper clearly note the journal and give a link to the author guideline webpage for that journal.
- this paper should meet the standard of PHD holders where should be able to conceptualize, design, with significant new knowledge and ability to judge complex issues and have the innovation in tackling and solving problems.
The following criteria are used to assess your Exam:
- STRUCTURE (20%)
Polished and coherent organization and structure. Clear expression of thoughts and ideas. Fluent, and academic writing style.
- ADDRESS THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION (20%)
Focus and attention while addressing the purpose of the question comprehensively and imaginatively.
- KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING (30%)
Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the relevant theory and research to address the question.
- CRITICAL ANALYSIS (30%)
Demonstration of critical analysis and of synthesis, through the integration of arguments with the relevant literature. Use of appropriate examples.
Books and Articles for reference:
- Reinvent the organizations ( I attached the book)
- 2019 Shepherd et al AMP A Framework for Exploring the Degree of Hybrydity in Entrepreneuship-1 ( I attached the paper to follow the same format)
- Read before start this attached article: Huff (2009) Designing Research for Publication and site it in my paper.
- 30% of my article sources should be relied on research methods and 70% on technical aspects related to the subject itself.
- The 3 powerpoint should be a guidence
Table of Contents
This paper examined critical leadership capabilities for the thriving management ecosystem. Each leader adopts a unique type of leadership, befitting their work needs and environment. Various institutions may have similarities in terms of leadership needs and overall vision. However, the output of the administration sets the institutions apart. This paper looked into answering the extent of the role of transformational leadership affects the performance of an organization? To what extent does the part of the transactional leadership style on the performance of an organization? To what extent does the role of laissez-faire leadership style on the performance of an organization? To what extent does the part of the autocratic leadership style on the performance of an organization? The paper is guided by transformational leadership theory with empirical reviews undertaken from previous studies. This paper adopted epistemological foundations as the primary method. Interpretations revealed the findings of the research questions and conclusions. The study found out evidence of transformational leadership directly contributing to effective and successful management. Institutions rely much on the leadership style adopted by the top executives and overall implementation in the Organizationett. Therefore, there is minimal evidence on how transactional, autocratic, and laissez-faire improve or lead to successful management in organizations. The conclusion of this paper that correctly implemented the transformational leadership style in an organization is a stimulant for improved successes and outcomes with a concern of competitively increasing institutional imagery.
With the advent of globalization and the knowledge-based economies, leadership studies have at the heart of many polarized parties. Leadership dynamics, capabilities and dimensions have become a salient topic for many scholars, experts, and critics. The autonomy and extensive impact in all aspects of life anchored on social, economic, and political logic have been the driving force for further investigations. Recent studies have shifted focus from leadership as humanity but also a science. Therefore in this paper, we look at the leadership capabilities as a continuum based on the different leadership styles and acknowledge that organizational success is relative to leadership style (Huff, 2008 3). Organizations strive for performers as their leaders. Institutions worldwide are modeled based on transformative needs (Ford, K. et al., 2016, 550). In the last 20 years, competition between organizations has rapidly increased as a way of affirming their existence, and prowess in corporate leadership facilitates growth and development (Hasib, 2015, 1).
Over the last decade, the term “ecosystem” has been extensively used in academia to build on matters of leadership procedure and strategy. Its complexity has spurred the interests of both managers and researchers with a solid understanding of organizations and their activities(Shao, Feng, and Hu, 2017, 904). Ecosystem management is a procedure or plans to manage ecosystems for all organisms and species. Ecosystem management is also known as the process of integrating scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex socio-political framework and values towards the overall goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity in the long term.
- The magnitude and nature of transformational leadership output on the overall success of an organization?
- To what extent the role of transactional leadership impacts the overall success of an Organization?
- How the laissez-faire leadership style affects the running and operation of an Organization?
- How the autocratic leadership style affects the organizational growth and excellence?
This section discusses the transformational leadership style as the primary theory for this paper. Empirical case studies conducted were examined to identify the research gaps and applicability to this paper.
Burns (1978,243) developed transformational leadership theory, which asserts that leaders are required to be trustworthy, emotionally attached, positive with optimism on tasks assigned to deliver. He opines further that transformational administration involves change and growth from one situation to a better one. This theory assumes that all transformational leaders are capable of handling teams and are intellectually talented with the ability to set given or high expectations. Bass and Riggio (2006, 1) opine that transformational leaders are known to change organizations’ culture for better corporate output. Individuals working with transformational leaders are inspired and motivated to deliver in their tasks and activities (Bass and Riggio, 2006, 1).
Bass and Riggio (2006) present that the transformational method is comprised of four segments, mainly: intellectual stimulation, inspiration, charisma, and individual consideration. This theory thrives on motivation and the ability to deliver credible effects on tasks. Transformational leaders are capable of establishing solid relationships and set flexible operational frameworks in their areas of responsibility. Parties working with transformational leaders feel a sense of belongingness in conducting their engagements. This theory is related to this study because most leaders in the service industry are required to be sensitive to performance and institutional output. Employees and other stakeholders in the service industry take corporate culture and performance as critical, given the institutions are involved in stiff competition. Institutions require transformational leaders to enable them to gain competitive power over other institutions in the industry.
Changes in global administration styles are bound to be affected by employee performance from one industry to another. The use of technology, innovative approaches, and changes in behaviors highly influence the administration style to be utilized by Organization (Iqbal, Anwar, and Haider, 2015, 5) Cultural variances and changes in global perspective contribute to the specific administration style chosen by leaders in charge of institutions. Poor leadership style is the primary cause of work-related issues, lack of motivation, low production units, and mismanagement. Experts argue that policy formulation and structure designs within organizations tend to affect the performance of employees in varied ways, depending on corporate location and the teams involved. Ineffective implementation of proper policy and other employee-centered initiatives reduces employees’ quality of work and productivity levels.
Globally, administration styles are dependent on the business, realizing their effectiveness and performance of the industry (Virapongse et al., 2016, 85). Some organizations require a realistic style of administration, such as transactional, autocratic, while others are compatible with laissez-faire administration style. Transformational administration is the style in which the leader can transform the Organization by aligning the change with the desired goals (José Sousa et al., 2017, 8). Transformational administration plays an integral role in improving performance, which simultaneously boosts the unit per production. Ceptureanu (2016,1) further posits that the leader practicing transformational administration has the unique ability to notice the change, set practical goals, and provide guidance towards the management of the transition. Transformational leaders are go-getters. In most cases, transformational leaders will maximize the composition team or individual beyond the expectation (Padilla-Meléndez and Garrido-Moreno, 2014, 387).
Transactional Leadership Theory
In transactional administration, there is a need for coordination of the existing or defined goals. Bilan et al. (2020, 93) note that transactional leaders are notably attentive and lead with motivation to guide their followers and provide direction to the already established goals. Laissez-faire administration style is associated with no lack of administration or with which everyone is part and free to deliver by their means(Ur Rehman, Bhatti, and Chaudhry, 2019, 1). The administration is the kind “does nothing” style of leadership. Imran et al., (2016,232) define autocratic leadership style as compelling with a particular goal in place to be achieved. An authoritarian administration style has a central decision-making point with other parts or individuals in the team, depending on the instructions of a central location. Guerry et al. (2015,7349) argue that this type of administration is prevalent in militarized or non-democratic states; most of the parties rely on a central point for decision making. However, it is a critical style significant in missions or projected matters, such as emergency or unique secretive activities that require discretion in order not to jeopardize the system or the programming (Al Khajeh, 2018, 5).
Establishing a changing ecosystem requires corporate culture and corporate structure design changes to foster change across multiple organizational functions. Companies need a corporate procedure, culture, and structural design that promotes change and can affect business procedure realization throughout both operations management and project management. An enterprise needs to go beyond talking about change and looking at changing its corporate culture and related structures. It must address the ever-increasing velocity of marketplace change and the pressing demand to achieve both expected and required effects (De Los Rios and Charnley, 2017. 109)
Laissez-faire Leadership Theory
Fahlevi and Ekhsan (2019, 2438), states that Laissez-faire leaders avoid leading by shirking supervisory duties and not setting clear goals for aides. Laissez-faire leadership is commonly known as the lack of or thereof weak leadership. Those who sit in the leadership positions may exhibit some control by merely holding the positions but do not interact actively with others (Bilan et al., 2020, 97). These leaders do not communicate with their employees and do not form emotional bonds that are essential to corporate success (Macaleer & Shannon, 2002, 9). This limited interaction style of leadership can also add up as avoidance leadership. In laissez-faire leadership, employees struggle with a lack of direction or moral guidance to perform tasks(Hasib, 2015,1). Laissez-faire leadership style in studies conducted indicates a significant inclusive influence in the Organization; however, it is in variation with the type of business.
Aides working for laissez-faire leaders do prefer autonomy as the majority feel unsecured about their performance in their areas of responsibility (Bilan et al., 2020,95). Fahlevi and Ekhsan, 2019,14) states, “it was reasoned that laissez-faire leaders use low levels of both relations and task behaviors.” Laissez-faire leaders use passive and avoidant leadership styles in order not to engage in aide concerns.
Managers tend to ignore aides and do not measure success or offer guidance. Unlike avoidant leaders, passive leaders are willing to help, but only when the aides’ approach or a situation arises that requires help by some other external source (Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005, 10). “Laissez-faire leaders attempt to remain distant from supervisory actions and do not initiate aide interaction unless in a situation whereby leaders participation is needed.” Laissez-faire style leadership is a typical” management-style-by-exception” (Bass & Avolio, 1990, 89). Leaders monitor negative aides’ behavior and exert corrective steps only when aides fail to meet objectives. Leaders who manage by exception interfere when the duties are not up to standards.
According to Brown (2003, 12), a leadership style portraying negligence and slow decision making and delayed response to urgent matters negatively affects the employees, though not very strongly related to how employees feel about being forced to remain. On the other hand, Cheng (2003,110) implies that leaders should refrain from using existing laissez-faire leadership styles to boost their aides’ level of engagement. Laissez-faire leadership styles do not equate to positive leadership outcomes (Spinelli, 2006, 12). He found followers of laissez-faire leaders performed poorly and stated willingness to exert extra effort, the leader’s perceived effectiveness, and followers’ reported low engagement.
Chen, Beck, and Amos (2005, 374) reported that these leadership styles created adverse results, and leaders are advised not to use these techniques. Eisenstat and Beer (2000, 1) found laissez-faire style tends to lead to employee confusion. The results suggest that leaders who use this leadership will produce weak employee commitment or adverse effects (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Chen et al., 2005, 1,375). Buciuniene and Skudiene (2008, 57) also found that laissez-faire had direct and adverse impacts on employee engagement.
Autocratic Leadership Theory
An authoritarian leader has a dominating personality. According to Adam et al., (2020,1), an autocratic leader controls team members to reach a singular objective using unilateralism. This approach to leadership builds up resistance in employees and requires continual pressure and order from the CEO to achieve set goals. Autocratic or directive leaders tend to lack insight about themselves and manipulate others to achieve their purpose without considering their feelings, and respect for them as people (Ford, K. et al., 2016, 556). Thus, it was reasoned that highly authoritarian leaders are likely to rely on on-task behaviors and rarely use relations behaviors.
Liao et al., (2017,590), states that authoritarian leadership works well in a highly stable environment where experts are the senior managers and system engineers. In contrast, transactional leadership works well in a widely prosperous economy when financial considerations significantly drive mobile workers. Under such conditions, authoritarian leaders’ attention on commands, power positions, use fear to ensure compliance to symbolize the source of wisdom and direction. Cheng, Chou, and Jen (2004, 117) claimed authoritarian leadership means that a leader stresses their unquestionable and absolute authority and take stringent control to demand complete compliance over aides. Overall, authoritarian leadership emphasizes control and respect.
Cheng, Chou, and Jen (2004, 117) posit that control and authority are the primary characteristics portrayed by autocratic leaders. Pei (2007, 8) indicated that employees in mainland China expect high levels of authoritarian leadership. In this context, top executive leaders are unfamiliar with a people-oriented leadership system. Autocratic leaders retain the decision-making rights for themselves and believe that their style is highly efficient. However, this leadership method results in minimal or no change.
Autocratic leadership restrains cooperation, achievement, and engagement that has far-reaching effects that cause irreparable damage to the Organization. The followers perform duties incoherently without teamwork or coordination from their fellow employees. Team members perform poorly and have no sense of direction since there is no shared purpose or vision. Typically, engagement, creativity, and change are eliminated by this leadership. According to the followers’ autocratic leader, this kind of leadership style is an enigma that awaits to destroy an organization as they initiate the demotion of power of the leader in question(Pei 2007,8).
Cheng, Chou, and Jen (2004, 117) opine that employees reported stress-related matters from autocratic leaders. Too much pressure affects their work performance resulting in poorly executed tasks. Most individuals are familiar with this kind of leadership because such leaders are prevalent even today. Overall autocratic leadership is not considered one of the best methods of administration.
Although a smaller company may have its own unique culture, a significant percentage of the enterprise may have different cultures throughout the company as well as co-existing subcultures. These different cultures and subcultures may conflict with each other and the broader culture of the enterprise. The primary reason is that each subculture is linked to a different management team and is associated with a specific functional organization, which may be a stove-piped business unit within the enterprise.
Leadership styles adopted by business owners and the top executives of the organizations are crucial to the overall success of an organization (Leih and Teece, 2016,186). Institutions with proper administration styles experience cultural growth, increased corporate performance, and exclusive management knowledge, which simultaneously boost the overall success of the employees(Asif, 2019, 412). Organizations have distinct features that vary in terms of size, employee base, and target market. These features differ from one Organization to the other and have minimal impact on the Organization’s growth and success. (Hayter, 2016, 646).
Leaders in the business arena are competitively ensuring that they maintain the lead in the performance of their portfolio businesses, customer service, and retention, the trust, and confidence of the services they provide (Ford, K. et al., 2016,554). Others are case sensitive to the stock market and globalization as they influence the performance of the Organization. In organizations, the leaders are responsible for the driving part of the composition; thus, they require a visionary and action-oriented approach to attain the corporate goals and objectives. Organizations with diminishing performance have revelations of poor administration and lack of teamwork while performing their activities.
Underlying Relationship of Leadership Styles and Successful Management Ecosystem
In leadership and management, the ecology theory is at the heart of every business ecosystem. The ecology theory emphasizes the smooth flow and circulation of energy in the ecosystem. The argument is backed up by a cognitive function that eases the analysis and examination of operating in an already established niche. Therefore an ecosystem is an environment that can harbor all the leadership terms and styles and ensure all the parts are functioning correctly and transparently. An ecosystem is a self-regulatory environment that can regenerate, thrive, and evolve to boost organisms and species. According to Wallace and Sheldon (2015, 267), a business ecosystem is a simple network of auto regenerating strategies and services that support a diverse community of organizations, niches, and hosts in the real business world. Business ecosystems work hand in hand to fulfill the law of demand and supply of goods and services in the ecosystem, such as producing and availing products to their diverse network of clients that are inversely part of the ecosystem. There is a distinct difference between the stakeholder approach analysis and the business ecosystem. The unique attributes of both systems derive this difference. It is, therefore, palatable to analyze the unique difference broadly, starting with the term ecosystem.
The Keystone business ecosystem is the centerpiece of the ecosystem. The keystone’s fate “is shared with that of the other members of their business network. Rather than attention primarily anchored on their internal capabilities (as many of their competitors did), they emphasize the collective properties of the business networks in which they participate treat these more like organic ecosystems than traditional supply chain partners” (Adner, 2016, 34). The business ecosystem has an official starting point that favors the presence of a particular niche. In this case, the specific body resembles the manager of the Organization, who is the ultimate decision-maker and determines the trajectory of the entire ecosystem. Ideally, the initiative should influence sensitization and awareness of the minimal development in the environment and the interests in regaining competitive advantage over other Organizations. (Boes, Buhalis & Inversini, 2016, 12).
A hands-on leader has a positive influence on all team members that generates an immeasurable success in the Organization without damaging any other areas in the Organization. The aim is for universal participation of the populace and self-actualization of the individual utilizing a commonly agreed-upon goal or vision (Mahdi and Almsafir, 2014, 4). An inclusive leader believes in equality and listens to the aides’ opinions regardless of the position in the Organization. Leaders who practice inclusion often think it is morally wrong to marginalize certain groups within a constituency. They also find it grossly ineffective means of leadership that will minimize or even destroy the potential energy and creativity of any organization (Shao, Feng, and Hu, 2017, 17).
In contrast to a hands-on approach, increased alienation and repression in leadership create animosity and hatred that is harmful to the growth and development of an organization. Negative opinions such as prejudice, contempt are the primary source of fiction stories to cover up for work not done. The rise of issue-seeking groups and other factionists groups of unimaginable characters will exploit and paralyze organizational factors that will derail the implementation of the inclusive leadership style. Therefore, it is pertinent to be conscious of the internal and external manifestation of an inclusive leadership style.
From the research findings in House and Mitchel (1974, 10), a hands-on leader exhibits impeccable social behaviors that are imperative for boosting employee engagement, such as gathering information and ideas from subordinates and other forms of social interactions. An inclusive leader deliberates duties in a series of preparation, implementation, and decision-making phases to ensure a collaborative approach to the laid-out tasks and enhance employee productivity. (Negron, 2008, 1). In a business setting, ample motivation from the top executive management increases engagement as well as productivity. Employees gain a sense of ownership and become self-motivated; hence they can perform their duties consistently and diligently.
An all-inclusive leadership style is most instrumental when the leaders are objective and considerate of the employees’ appeal (Negron, 2008, 1). In most cases, this type of leadership is most practical when employees are professionals with high-level training in different fields. This leadership style thrives on continuous collaboration and cooperation between the manager and the employees. As evident when leaders listen to the follower’s opinions and ideas before making significant decisions in the Organization. This intimate relationship is of paramount importance as it boosts employee productivity due to the high-level commitment and morale to the assigned duties as they feel valued and appreciated and part of the Organization.
This leadership style is highly dependent on the consultative power of the leader on the followers before making critical corporate decisions. In the initial stages of the decision-making process, it is imperative to consider issues associated with the decision made on the organizational structure, culture, and survival in the ecosystem. Participation of the followers in the decision-making process not only enhances employee engagement, empowerment, and productivity but also builds on the leader-follower relationship.
Through this, the leaders’ role in the Organization will be an emblem of respect. Employees will be held liable for their actions as their opinion and ideas are part of the significant decisions made in the Organization. This type of leadership encompasses immense benefits, such as building trust between employees and leaders. Leaders who make decisions without the input of their subordinates sabotage their followers’ trust and confidence as they feel excluded and not of substantial impact in the Organization. Although some leaders may be reluctant to explore employee’s opinions during the decisions making process, it is advisable to always share in the problems ailing the Organization with the employees to avoid adverse consequences that may cause irreparable damage to the Organizations image and reputation. Employee participation mirrors transparency and integrity.
In conclusion, the discussions depict the merits and demerits of different leadership styles in aiding a productive business ecosystem. Business leaders known to build healthy ecosystems have centered on dynamism in making decisions and teaching a business culture that yields slowly. Organizations in the modern era primarily focus on growth and diversification in their operations, and therefore, there would exist a situation where top cadre leaders embrace multi-leadership styles. As evident in the service, manufacturing, and processing industries that employ different resources and personnel from different cultures and, therefore, need to harbor all the above leadership styles to interplay in different levels-foundation, integration, scalable, and systemic-or in generality. Consequently, it is profound to affirm multi-leadership style adoption, and their application yields differently and quite crucial for a thriving business ecosystem.
Attributes of a Leader for a Business Ecosystem
A good leader exhibits distinct characteristics in the business ecosystem. Business is complex ecosystems that require the input of more than one person to function correctly. Managers need to accept this and allow different teams, whose members have different outlooks and specialties, to take part in the decision-making and procedure designing processes (Koryak et al., 2015, 102). Through this, the managers will empower and equip the team members with relevant skills to help them take up leadership positions in the future. Flexibility: ecosystems are an open system that provides optimal space for growth and development, as it is the case in businesses. To survive in the business world, a good manager must create substantial room for evolution by adopting a dynamic approach to strategies. Battistella et al., (2017, 9) inform perceptiveness in that for an organization to evolve with its environment, it must first notice that changes are coming.
Similarly, effective leaders should create well-integrated channels and of communication to enhance input and output in the ecosystem and beyond it. The other aspect is listening: no level of perceptiveness is possible if people do not listen to what others in the ecosystem have to say (Schoemaker, Heaton, and Teece, 2018, 15). Managers must consider the ideas of their subordinates regardless of their position in the Organization. Introspectiveness: good leadership entails a futuristic vision with the ability to observe trends on the inside and outside and turns them to real-world success. Consciousness: an effective leader is observant and in cohorts with his/her immediate surroundings and can rationalize issues wholly to solve the problems that may arise in the ecosystem.
Communication and resilience in an ecosystem jointly depict a transformational leader. To build a robust ecosystem, leaders need to have a transformative and growth-led kind of connection with their teams, for instance, coordination and day-to-day activity performance. There exist constant focus resilience alongside integrity, self-motivation, team playing, accountability, influence, and a strong sense of empathy and humility count as reliable attributes of a leader. Although authoritarian leaders are known for their outrageous way of conducting themselves, there exist some of their positive attributes that are critical for improving a business ecosystem.
Corporate Culture and Effective Business Ecosystem
Enterprises have long declared their intention to get closer to their customers, and today’s era of digital transformation is forcing them to do that, while also providing the means. A customer-centric market-intentioned corporate culture has become a crucial aspect of running the business, and that requires continuous enterprise-wide change (Goran, LaBerge, and Srinivasan, 2017, 67). An organization’s culture affects the way the company’s personnel and the functional organizations within the enterprise interact and cooperate with stakeholders and internal and external clients.
Corporate culture encompasses collective beliefs, values, and social norms that influence and affects power, structure, and decision making (Adner, R. 2016b, 42). The existing shared purpose, mission, and vision play an integral role in forming the psychological and social environment(Asif, M. 2019b, 32). In effect, culture dictates the way we do business and the corporate survival tactics that facilitate assimilation and personal success. Following the cultural disposition, if most organizations, employees perform their duties in the right way due to the rewards allocated after work done. (Kim Boes, Buhalis, D., and Inversini, A. 2016, 17). However, if there is no moral guidance, integrity, and transparency, the followers’ base in the Organization loses its identity. It morphs into polarized interest groups, commonly known as cliques or castes. (Blaskovics, B. 2016, 19).
Hybridity in entrepreneurship is at the heart of an organization regardless of the social and economic logic. It is a compelling concept that builds on the intrinsic possibilities of exploitation entrepreneurship opportunities to increase social and economic value. Despite the variance in organizational entrepreneurship capabilities, innovation, and creative outlook of Organization, hybridity plays an integral role in the organizational outcomes in terms of success and failure as well as shaping effective leaders in the future(Yeung and Ulrich, 2019,12). Hybridity conceptualizes not only employees’ productivity but also the leadership dimensions. Leadership styles are subject to change to accommodate the exploitation opportunities that aides more practical administrations.
Corporate outcomes depend on how the persons in charge of delivery organize the activities and execute the delivery. Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Welch, C. 2014, 562) observed through his study on transformational leadership present in Russian companies that organizations performed well with transformational leaders. The study targeted 253 executives in the leading Russian firms using a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. A positive correlation was evident between transformational leadership and corporate performance.
Market-centric organizations rely on data distribution that requires continuous innovation. Leaders must be willing and able to put themselves out there to create a voice that will change narratives, influence people’s behavior, and break unorthodox leadership styles to remain at the top. Leaders should assemble highly competent team members that are passionate and have great insight to create a capable team that can navigate through a business host ecosystem and remains relevant and successful. It is the leader’s dual responsibility to analyze risks and come up with general ideas to bridge the gap. By doing the leaders increases the probability of an improvement in the overall organizational success. While on the other end, sets clear objectives coupled with extensive preparation, implementation, and decision making to create a committed and accountable team of followers(Shepherd, Williams and Zhao, 2019, 492).
Corporate culture represents distinct characteristics that make an organization(Ceptureanu, 2016, 31). With the advent of globalization and knowledge-based experts use a dynamic approach, directed at creativity, changes, and entrepreneurship to define organizations (Boutillier, S. Carré, D. and Levratto, N. 2016, 16). Corporate culture includes; a complex set of procedures, habits, concepts, ideas, and unwritten customs that are necessary for the growth and development of an organization in a macro culture. Corporate culture is a collection of experiences, philosophies, values, and beliefs that oversee an organization (Megheirkouni, M. 2017, 599). Public space cultures emphasize relationships because of their ability to build relationships and develop new ones to accomplish their jobs.
This section seeks to explore a review of empirical case studies around the world and link they have on building a thriving management ecosystem. The paper has also discussed in-depth the relationship the case studies have on different styles of leadership and core characteristic of managing an institution. It has provided an overall summary of the reviews conducted.
Hurduzeu (2015, 289) researched the effect of leadership on organizational success. The study aimed at identifying the underlying concepts and leadership behaviors and reviewed the impact of leadership styles on the overall organizational success, as witnessed in D&R Cambric Communication. This study employed a qualitative and quantitative approach to compartmentalize the research. There were 29 respondents out of a total of 54 employees in the company. The results-driven from the study portrayed a linear relationship between the organizational leader and organizational success. The association is characterized by direct and significant impacts that harm the Organization’s performance (Hurduzeu, 2015, 289). The leadership behaviors revealed in this study are growth factors of the companies in the service sectors.
Zhu, Y., Chew, N. and Spanger, H. (2005, 35) in his research reviewed 170 companies in Singapore on transformational leadership style and productivity, whereby the findings indicated a direct and significant effect. The study findings indicated that human resource departments employed development techniques that would foster delivery and performance at work. One of the recommendations suggested that long-term, transformational leadership exacerbates high profitability and overall corporate output (Zhu, Y., Chew, N. and Spanger, H. 2005, 31).
Moore (2007, 1) states that male and female transformational leaders have a distinct impact in terms of employee engagement, productivity, and the Organization’s overall success organization. In other progression studies on leadership styles, Kieu (2010, 1) on leadership styles and organizational performance in Turkey conducted a comparative analysis on 151 companies in the I.T. sector to get a detailed review of how transformational leadership affects corporate effectiveness. The study comprised of a Multifactor closed-ended questionnaire that delved deep into the reliability and operability to drive satisfaction, engagement, and production to boost the overall success of the Organization as well as increase aggregate demand of integrity, trust, and empowerment for the leader
Wong (2014, 2) researched the positive and negative impacts of leadership styles on employee return rates in the retail industry. The study utilized questionnaires to portray the research respondents’ experiences by addressing their feelings, opinions, and other unquantifiable aspects that arose during the interaction with the researcher. The survey included 384 sampling sizes of the total population. The 400 questionnaires were issued to collect the responses from the employees in the retail industry (Wong 2014, 23). Retail employees from three states of Malaysia, including Perak, Johor, and Penang, responded to the questionnaires. From the findings, it is evident that there is an intimate linkage between employee return rates and leadership styles. This means that the retail industry’s productivity was severely affected due to the varying leadership styles (Wong 2014, 49).
Kerario (2013, 10) studied the impact of transactional leadership on the overall success of employees in Kenya: the case of Mumias Sugar Company. The purpose was to evaluate the magnitude and nature of transactional leadership’s impact on employee behavior, engagement, and performance (Kerario, 2013, 15). The findings were presented in a cross-sectional element to showcase the result of all employees in the Organization. The sample population included employees from all senior and junior ranks in the Organization. The findings from questionnaires recorded indicated that there was an intimate linkage between transactional leadership and aide job satisfaction, which intern yields return (Kerario, P. 2013, 55).
People’s assignments may vary and be less systematic. Low context cultures drive meaning from verbal communication so that the criteria for recruitment, selection, and an appraisal are explicit, and assessments regularly to add to its explicitness (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018, 1391). Controlled cultures value training to enhance their control over their surroundings. Submissive cultures do not see training as improving their ability to control their environment. Passive cultures also value long term employment because people selected became part of the network of acquiring acquaintances and colleagues, which provide security for the Organization and its members. Weill and Woerner (2015, 27) contend that organizational culture can boost employee productivity production if the dynamics are well understood and applied. Thus the culture of an organization acquaints employees with the firm’s history as well as current methods of operation that guide employees on expected and acceptable future corporate behaviors and norms. Several empirical studies have indicated that there exists a relationship between organizational culture and its institutional management.
Bushra (2011, 1) examined various leadership styles of employees’ performance in Pakistan with attention to the positive and negative effects of the leadership style. This study followed a quantitative approach to evaluate the impact of leadership on the employees’ overall success. Close-ended questionnaires offered answers for problems under research. Bushra (2011, 1) revealed a significant relationship between employees’ performance with a democratic style. It concluded that if the leader took into consideration the input of the employees before making a decision, such as having friendly relationships with them, it would decrease their stress. He gathered ample data that showcased the high levels of productivity an organization would experience (Bushra, 20011, 1).
Mukui (2011) researched the impact of transformational leadership on the overall employee success: a survey of five selected faith-based non-governmental organizations in Nairobi County. The sampling technique employed was stratified random sampling (Mukui, K. 2011, 34). Both a questionnaire and an interview guide enabled data collection with closed-ended questions designed for the employees, while leaders responded to an open-ended interview guide. A descriptive survey design adopted by the study, whereby leaders practicing transformational leadership as well as their aides subjected to this type of leadership, formed the target population (Mukui, K. 2011, 44). The information gathered showed that transformational leadership in faith-based non-governmental organizations led to increased employee performance to some degree over time.
An authoritarian leader has a dominating personality style. Adam, J. et al., (2020, 59), states that autocratic leaders control team members to reach a singular objective using unilateralism. This approach to leadership causes resistance from team-members and requires continual pressure and commandeering to keep things in motion(Adam, J. et al., 2020, 78). Autocratic or directive leaders tend to lack insight about themselves and others, manipulate others to achieve their goals without considering other people’s feelings or respect for them as people (Ford, K. et al., 2016). Thus, it was reasoned that highly autocratic leaders are likely to rely on on-task behaviors compared to relations behaviors.
Fahleviand Khan(2019, 2441), argues that laissez-faire leaders avoid leading by shirking supervisory duties and not setting clear goals for aides. Laissez-faire leadership is considered a hands-off form of leadership. Those who sit in these leadership positions may exhibit some control by merely holding the positions but do not interact actively with others (Bilan, Y. et al., 2020, 99). These leaders do not communicate with their employees and do not form emotional bonds that are essential to corporate success (Macaleer, C. & Shannon, P. 2002, 46). This limited interaction style of leadership is akin to avoidance leadership. In laissez-faire leadership, followers lack a sense of direction and moral guidance from their leaders (Hasib, 2015, 67). Laissez-faire leadership style in studies conducted indicates a significant inclusive influence in the success of the study. However, it varies with the type of business (Macaleer, C. & Shannon, P. 2002, 56).
Aides working for laissez-faire leaders do prefer autonomy as the majority feel unsecured about their performance in their areas of responsibility. Fahleviand Ekhsan (2019, 14) states, “it was reasoned that laissez-faire leaders use low levels of both relations and task behaviors.” Laissez-faire leaders use passive and avoidant leadership styles in order not to engage in aide organizational concerns. Managers tend to ignore aides and do not measure success or offer guidance. Unlike avoidant leaders, passive leaders are willing to help, but only when the aides approach or require help by some other external source (Almirall, E. Lee, M., and Majchrzak, A. 2014, 8). “Laissez-faire leaders attempt to remain distant from supervisory action and do not initiate aide interaction unless a situation arises that requires the interventions. Laissez-faire style leadership is also known to as management-by-exception” (Shuen, Feilerand Teece, 2014, 13). Leaders only monitor negative aides’ behavior and exert corrective steps only when aides failed to meet objectives. Leaders who manage by exception only interfere when the duties are not up to standards
According to Asif (2019b, 410), leadership with an element of negligence in the decision-making process and delayed response to urgent matters or ignoring problems negatively affect employees, though not very strongly aligned to leadership behaviors obliging them employees to remain. On the other hand, Jena et al. (2016,224) imply that leaders should refrain from existing laissez-faire leadership styles to enhance their aides’ level of engagement. Laissez-faire leadership styles do not equate to positive leadership outcomes Battistella et al. (2017, 6). He found that followers of laissez-faire leaders scored poorly in the results that are willing to exert extra effort, the leader’s perceived effectiveness, and followers’ reported engagement.
Teece (2017, 17) reported that these leadership styles created adverse results, and leaders are advised not to use such techniques. Dedehayir, Mäkinenand Roland Ortt (2018, 13) found laissez-faire style tends to lead to employee confusion. The results suggest that leaders who use this leadership will produce weak employee engagement or adverse effects. The study also revealed that laissez-faire negatively relates to active commitment. Through the review of previous research, the dimension of factors to best fit into the purpose of this stud(Best, 2015. 43).
Liao et al., (2017, 590) offered that authoritarian leadership works well in a highly stable environment when expertise is concentrated in the senior managers and system engineers. On the other hand, transactional leadership works well in a widely prosperous economy, such as China. When financial considerations significantly drive mobile workers, under such conditions, authoritarian leaders command attention, power position, and use of fear to ensure compliance to symbolize the source of wisdom and direction. (Kolbjørnsrud, V. Amico, R. and Thomas, R. 2016, 5) claimed authoritarian leadership means a leader stresses their unquestionable and absolute authority and take stringent control to demand complete compliance from their aides. Overall, it emphasizes control and respect.
Ford, K. et al., (2016:552) posits that control and authority are the characteristics visible with autocratic leaders. Borland, H. et al. (2016,293) indicated that employees in mainland China expect high levels of authoritarian leadership. In the context, novice leaders use force and pressure to get things done(Borland, H. et al., 2016b, 299). Autocratic leaders retain the decision-making rights for themselves and believe that their style is highly efficient. However, this leadership style results in minimal or no change.
Autocratic leadership restrains cooperation, achievement, and engagement of rare restraints (Storey, 2016, 10). Typically, commitment, creativity, and change are eliminated by this leadership. “Most followers of autocratic leaders share described as biding their time, waiting for the inevitable failure this leadership produces and the removal of the leader that follows” notes (Boutillier, S. Carré, D. and Levratto, N. 2016, 23).
Wondolleck and Yaffee (2017, 16-19) opine that employees reported stress-related matters from autocratic leaders. The followers’ opinions or ideas have minimal value in the decision-making process of the Organization. Workers tend to be under constant stress due to the harsh working conditions that affect worker morale and employee-employer engagement. Most individuals are familiar with this kind of leadership because such leaders are prevalent even today. Overall this leadership style is not considered one of the best methods of administration (Ceptureanu, E. 2016, 34).
Stacks, Dodd, and Men (2010, 559) used the perceived corporate reputation as the baseline to measure the positive and negative effects of different leadership styles on employee participation and empowerment. A quantitative survey method applied in the study forecasted a cost-effective and efficient way of collecting data from significant populations (Stacks, Dodd, and Men, 2010, 559). A series of the online questionnaire was issued to facilitate easy and flexible collection. An online survey was conducted with 700 randomly selected employees from various work units of a Fortune 500 company in the United States. A total of 166 employees completed the online survey with a response rate of 23.7%. The findings illustrated a non-linear relationship. The transformational leadership style has a direct and significant effect on employees’ perception of corporate reputation, with indirect benefits such as increased employee engagement (Stacks, Dodd, and Men, 2010, 559). On the other hand, Transactional leadership style operates on a reward-based system and has a negative direct but significant effect on employees’ perception of corporate reputation.
The paper finds a lack of in-depth attention on the leadership capabilities’ contribution to the thriving management ecosystems. Besides, the paper finds a lack of awareness of the critical determinants of thriving management ecosystems and how they are negatively predisposed to leadership capabilities in a given organization.
Leadership is about influencing people while providing guidance and direction as needed. Effective leaders exhibit a high level of professionalism as they portray proper management strategies, impose disciplinary habits, effective stress management styles, ensure smooth flow of information by bringing change through polishing the performance of their aides (Ford, K. et al., 2016, 555). Transformational leadership will form the foundation for an empathetic communication process for leaders to bear in their subordinates’ troubles to build strong employee relations that reinstates the aides’ identity and revives worker’s commitment to the Organization. (Asrar-ul-Haqand Kuchinke, 2016,57). This paper adopted epistemological foundations as the primary method (Jamshed, 2014,87). This foundation set the basis for examinations of conducted studies and assessing the research gaps to build an overall view of a thriving business ecosystem. The paper examines the business ecosystem through how different styles singularly or jointly have been adopted to yield high institutional ecosystem results. Answers to research questions in this study contain respective findings with interpretations and conclusions.
Corporate performance is affected by all centralized and decentralized activities in the institution, including the culture in place. Organizations that practice and leverage organizational knowledge through integration, change of ample data about the intervention, and sharing of lessons learned will continue to improve and strengthen the Organization’s operation. Change is the most critical factor in the growth of any current or proposed business venture. The difference is the mindset. It is a way to think about the enterprise’s business strategies, practices, and talent that can lead to future growth. This mindset highly relies on an individual’s or organization’s propensity toward innovativeness in business to add new value.
Everyone within an enterprise is responsible for being innovative. A concept that most Enterprises are unaware of is that they do not innovate. It is the feeling and consciously perceiving personnel within them that innovate. People, not technology, are the essential piece in today’s digital transformation maze. Leadership must establish formal means to make the necessary strategic changes in culture, structure, and processes. There is an urgent need to overcome identifiable business challenges to managing changes swiftly and flexibly. However, change requires attention and commitment to make enterprises more innovative, growth-oriented, competitive, and profitable. Enterprises need to change the mindsets of the people across Organizations and to take swift actions to accomplish that.
In summary, from the above discussions, reviews, there exist strong links of the way different leadership styles can yield excellent outcomes. Transformational leadership is t to match highly as a team pillar for a thriving ecosystem in the modern world. Despite showing lead, autocratic leadership in nations established on communal and socialist approaches like governance structure records a positive performance when adopted by business leaders in a similar setting. Transactional leadership style is arguably a neutralized style in adoption akin to laissez-faire. Co-currently, there could exist in all sectoral areas to yield positive outcomes and build a healthy and thriving ecosystem.
Adam, J. K. et al. (2020) ‘The Leadership Styles Impact, In Learning Organizations, And Organizational Innovation Towards Organizational Performance Over Manufacturing Companies, Indonesia’, Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic 63 Joma, 04(02). Available at: http://www.kemalapublisher.com/index.php/JoMA/article/view/423 (Accessed: 21 April 2020).
Adner, R. (2016a) ‘Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy’, Journal of Management. SAGE Publications Inc., 43(1), pp. 39–58. DOI: 10.1177/0149206316678451.
Adner, R. (2016b) ‘Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy,’ Journal of Management, 43(1), pp. 39–58. DOI: 10.1177/0149206316678451.
Al Khajeh, E.H., 2018. Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance. Journal of Human Resources Management Research, 2018, pp.1-10.
Almirall, E., Lee, M. and Majchrzak, A. (2014) ‘Open innovation requires integrated competition-community ecosystems: Lessons learned from open civic innovation,’ Business Horizons, 57(3), pp. 391–400. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2013.12.009.
Asif, M. (2019a) ‘Exploring the role of exploration/exploitation and strategic leadership in organizational learning,’ International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 11(3), pp. 409–423. DOI: 10.1108/IJQSS-04-2018-0038.
Asif, M. (2019b) ‘Exploring the role of exploration/exploitation and strategic leadership in organizational learning,’ International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 11(3), pp. 409–423. DOI: 10.1108/IJQSS-04-2018-0038.
Asrar-ul-Haq, M. and Kuchinke, K. P. (2016) ‘Impact of leadership styles on employees’ attitude towards their leader and performance: Empirical evidence from Pakistani banks,’ Future Business Journal, 2(1), pp. 54–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.fbj.2016.05.002.
Bass, B.M., and Riggio, R.E., 2006. Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.
Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J., 1990. Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European industrial training.
Battistella, C. et al. (2017) ‘Cultivating business model agility through focused capabilities: A multiple case study,’ Journal of Business Research, 73, pp. 65–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.007.
Best, M. H. (2015) ‘Greater Boston’s industrial ecosystem: A manufactory of sectors’, Technovation, 39–40(1), pp. 4–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.04.004.
Bilan, Y. et al. (2020) ‘Sustainability and economic performance: role of organizational learning and innovation,’ Engineering Economics, 31(1), pp. 93–103. DOI: 10.5755/j01.ee.31.1.24045.
Bučiūnienė, I. and Škudienė, V., 2008. Impact of leadership styles on employees’ organizational commitment in Lithuanian manufacturing companies. Southeast European Journal of Economics and Business, 3(2), pp.57-66.
Blaskovics, B. (2016) ‘The impact of project manager on project success – The case of the ICT sector,’ Society and Economy, 38(2), pp. 261–281. DOI: 10.1556/204.2016.38.2.7.
Eisenstat, MBIRA, and Beer, M., 2000. The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning. Sloan Management Review.
Boes, Kim, Buhalis, D. and Inversini, A. (2016) ‘Smart tourism destinations: ecosystems for tourism destination competitiveness,’ International Journal of Tourism Cities. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 2(2), pp. 108–124. DOI: 10.1108/IJTC-12-2015-0032.
Boes, K., Buhalis, D. and Inversini, A. (2016) ‘Smart tourism destinations: ecosystems for tourism destination competitiveness From Smart Cities to Smart Tourism Destinations: Ecosystems for tourism destination competitiveness,’ International Journal of Tourism Cities, 2(2), pp. 108–124. DOI: 10.1108/IJTC.
Boutillier, S., Levratto, N., and Carré, D., 2015. Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a meeting between business and territory (Vol. 2). ISTE Group.
Borland, H. et al. (2016a) ‘Building Theory at the Intersection of Ecological Sustainability and Strategic Management,’ Journal of Business Ethics. Springer Netherlands, 135(2), pp. 293–307. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2471-6.
Borland, H. et al. (2016b) ‘Building Theory at the Intersection of Ecological Sustainability and Strategic Management,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), pp. 293–307. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2471-6.
Boutillier, S., Carré, D. and Levratto, N. (2016) Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. DOI: 10.1002/9781119285175.
Bushra, F., Ahmad, U., and Naveed, A., 2011. Effect of transformational leadership on employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the banking sector of Lahore (Pakistan). International Journal of Business and Social science, 2(18).
Burns, J.M., and Leadership, H., 1978. Row. New York, 280.
Brown, B.B., 2003. Employees’ organizational commitment and their perceptions of supervisors’ relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).
Ceptureanu, E.-G. (2016) ‘Review of International Comparative Management’, Review of International Comparative Management, 17(2). Available at: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=663332 (Accessed: 21 April 2020).
Chen, H.C., Beck, SL, and Amos, L.K., 2005. Leadership styles and nursing faculty job satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), pp.374-380.
Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F., Wu, T.Y., Huang, M.P., and Farh, J.L., 2004. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), pp.89-117.
Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Welch, C. (2014) ‘Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence,’ Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), pp. 562–582. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2013.67.
De Los Rios, I.C. and Charnley, F.J., 2017. Skills and capabilities for a sustainable and circular economy: The changing role of design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 160, pp.109-122.
Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J. and Roland Ortt, J. (2018) ‘Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review,’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, pp. 18–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028.
Fahlevi, M. and Ekhsan, M. (2019) ‘LEADERSHIP STYLES OF FOOD TRUCK BUSINESSES,’ Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management, 13(2), pp. 2437–2442. Available at: www.scitecresearch.com/journals/index.php/jrbem (Accessed: 21 April 2020).
Ford, K. et al. (2016) ‘Leadership and teamwork in trauma and resuscitation,’ Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, pp. 549–556. DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2016.7.29812.
Guerry, A. D. et al. (2015) ‘Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice,’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, pp. 7348–7355. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1503751112.
Goran, J., LaBerge, L., and Srinivasan, R., 2017. Culture for a digital age. McKinsey Quarterly, 3, pp.56-67.
Hasib (2015) Most effective Leadership & Management Styles & approaches, Leadership in Changing World. Available at: https://culcpatriciaellen.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/most-effective-leadership-management-styles-approaches/ (Accessed: 21 April 2020).
Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J.R., and Reiter-Palmon, R., 2005. Leadership behaviors and low resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2), pp.2-14.
Hayter, C. S. (2016) ‘A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem,’ Small Business Economics. Springer New York LLC, 47(3), pp. 633–656. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3.
Helfat, C. E. and Raubitschek, R. S. (2018) ‘Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems,’ Research Policy, 47(8), pp. 1391–1399. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019.
House, R.J., and Mitchell, T.R., 1974. Path goal theory of leadership in Fred Luthans (ed.) Contemporary Readings in Organizational Behavior.
Huff, A.S., 2008. Designing research for publication. Sage.
Hurduzeu, R.E., 2015. The impact of leadership on organizational performance. SEA–Practical Application of Science, 3(07), pp.289-293.
Imran, M. K. et al. (2016) ‘Organizational learning through transformational leadership,’ Learning Organization. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 23(4), pp. 232–248. DOI: 10.1108/TLO-09-2015-0053.
Iqbal, N., Anwar, S., and Haider, N., 2015. Effect of leadership style on employee performance. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), pp.1-6.
Jamshed, S. (2014) ‘Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation,’ Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), p. 87. DOI: 10.4103/0976-0105.141942.
Jena, J. et al. (2016) ‘A TISM modeling of critical success factors of a smartphone manufacturing ecosystem in India,’ Journal of Advances in Management Research, 13(2), pp. 203–224. DOI: 10.1108/JAMR-12-2015-0088.
José Sousa, M. et al. (2017) ‘Project Managers Perceptions about more Effective Leadership Styles,’ JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCH AND MARKETING, 2(3), pp. 7–13. DOI: 10.18775/jibrm.1849-8558.2015.23.3001.
Kerario, N.B., 2013. The Impact of Transactional Leadership on the Performance of Employees in Kenya: The Case of Mumias Sugar Company (Doctoral dissertation, Doctoral dissertation).
Kolbjørnsrud, V., Amico, R. and Thomas, R. J. (2016) ‘Leadership development: How artificial intelligence will redefine management,’ Harvard business review, pp. 1–6. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786314001331 (Accessed: 21 April 2020).
Koryak, O. et al. (2015) ‘Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities, and firm growth,’ International
Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 33(1), pp. 89–105. DOI: 10.1177/0266242614558315.
Kieu, H.Q., 2010. Leadership styles and organizational performance: A predictive analysis. The University of Phoenix.
Leih, S. and Teece, D. (2016) ‘Campus leadership and the entrepreneurial university: A dynamic capabilities perspective,’ Academy of Management Perspectives. Academy of Management, 30(2), pp. 182–210. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2015.0022.
Liao, S. H. et al. (2017) ‘Assessing the influence of leadership style, organizational learning, and organizational innovation,’ Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 38(5), pp. 590–609. DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-11-2015-0261.
Mahdi, O. R., and Almsafir, M. K. (2014) ‘The Role of Strategic Leadership in Building Sustainable Competitive Advantage in the Academic Environment,’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 129, pp. 289–296. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.679.
Macalester, W.D., and Shannon, J.B., 2002. Emotional intelligence: how does it affect leadership? Employment relations today, 29(3), p.9.
Megheirkouni, M. (2017) ‘Leadership styles and organizational learning in U.K. for-profit and non-profit sports organizations,’ International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 25(4), pp. 596–612. DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-07-2016-1042
Moore, E.M., 2007. The impact of leadership style on organizational effectiveness: Leadership in action within the United Way of America. Capella University.
Negron, D., 2008. A case study is examining the relationship of the path-goal theory leadership styles to profits in El Paso, Texas, Rent-A-Center stores (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
Padilla-Meléndez, A. and Garrido-Moreno, A. (2014) ‘Customer relationship management in hotels: examining critical success factors,’ Current Issues in Tourism. Informa Healthcare, pp. 387–396. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2013.805734.
Pei, M., 2007. “Made in China,” Label Won’t Survive Without Rule of Law. New Perspectives Quarterly, 24(4), pp.7-10.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., Heaton, S. and Teece, D. (2018) ‘Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and leadership,’ California Management Review. SAGE Publications Ltd, 61(1), pp. 15–42. DOI: 10.1177/0008125618790246.
Shao, Z., Feng, Y. and Hu, Q. (2017) ‘Impact of top management leadership styles on ERP assimilation and the role of organizational learning,’ Information and Management, 54(7), pp. 902–919. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2017.01.005.
Shepherd, D.A., Williams, T.A. and Zhao, E.Y., 2019. A framework for exploring the degree of hybridity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(4), pp.491-512.
Shuen, A., Feiler, P. F. and Teece, D. J. (2014) ‘Dynamic capabilities in the upstream oil and gas sector: Managing next-generation competition,’ Energy Strategy Reviews, 3(C), pp. 5–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2014.05.002.
Stacks, D.W., Dodd, M.D. and Men, L.R., 2013. Corporate reputation measurement and evaluation. The handbook of communication and corporate reputation, pp.559-573.
Storey, J. (2016) ‘Changing theories of leadership and leadership development,’ in Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues and Key Trends, pp. 17–42. DOI: 10.4324/9781315695792.
Spinelli, R.J., 2006. The applicability of Bass’s model of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership in the hospital administrative environment. Hospital topics, 84(2), pp.11-19.
Teece, D. J. (2017) ‘Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles,’ Advances in Strategic Management, 37, pp. 211–225. DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220170000037008.
Ur Rehman, S., Bhatti, A. and Chaudhry, N. I. (2019) ‘Mediating effect of an innovative culture and organizational learning between leadership styles at third-order and organizational performance in Malaysian SMEs,’ Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1). DOI: 10.1186/s40497-019-0159-1.
Virapongse, A. et al. (2016) ‘A social-ecological systems approach for environmental management,’ Journal of Environmental Management, pp. 83–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.028.
Wallace, M., and Sheldon, N. (2015) ‘Business Research Ethics: Participant Observer Perspectives,’ Journal of Business Ethics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 128(2), pp. 267–277. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2102-2.
Weill, P. and Woerner, S. L. (2015) ‘Thriving in an Increasingly Digital Ecosystem,’ MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), pp. 27–34. Available at: http://ilp.mit.edu/media/news_articles/smr/2015/56417.pdf (Accessed: 21 April 2020).
Wong, W.Y., Chan, S.L., Chong, L.X., Ng, K.S., and Wong, K.L., 2014. The impact of leadership styles on employee commitment in the retail industry (Doctoral dissertation, UTAR).
Wondolleck, J. M. and Yaffee, S. L. (2017) Marine Ecosystem-Based Management in Practice: Different Pathways, Common Lessons, Marine Ecosystem-Based Management in Practice: Different Pathways, Common Lessons. DOI: 10.5822/978-1-61091-800-8.\
Yeung, A., and Ulrich, D., 2019. Reinventing the Organization: How Companies Can Deliver Radically Greater Value in Fast-Changing Markets. Harvard Business Press.
Zhu W, Chew IK, Spangler WD. CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human–capital-enhancing human resource management. The leadership quarterly. 2005 Feb 1; 16(1):39-52.