Are  leaders  more  

collaborative  now  

than  it  used  to  be  

before?  Leadership  Theories,  Semester  Autumn  2014  Group  Project  №3A:  

By  Song  PANTALEON  –Salma  SULTANA  –Arthur  KLEBANOVICS    

 

Table of Contents Article  Summary:  .....................................................................................................................................  2  

Introduction  to  the  topic  .........................................................................................................................  3  

Research  problem  ...................................................................................................................................  4  

1.  Social  changes:    from  19th  century  to  now:  .........................................................................................  5  

2.  Modern  leadership  approach:  .............................................................................................................  6  

3.  Modern  organizations  versus  traditional  organizations:  ....................................................................  8  

Conclusion:  ............................................................................................................................................  15  

Theoretical  Discussion:  .........................................................................................................................  16  

References  ............................................................................................................................................  17  

Article  Summary:  

 The article Grant A.M (2011) displays the importance of end-users and managers in business

performance. Like leaders, end-users are an inspirational source. Indeed, end-users

experiences are considered as a great report of achievements and expectations for employees

(ibid). This can leads to the empowerment of employees. Employee’s empowerment is a

significant factor (ibid). Actually when workforce is empowered, workforce has the feeling to

do a meaningful work. More, employees tend to work harder (ibid).

Nowadays, leaders’ messages are less and less understood (ibid). Most of the time, they are

understood as talks to make employees exert themselves harder (ibid). This is why leaders

need end-users (ibid). In order to encourage employees to meet objectives, leaders need

powerful testimonials from end-users (ibid). Moreover, employees as a proof for convincing

prospects can also use those testimonials (ibid).

An experiment in a call center unveils that short feedbacks from a single end-users are really

helpful (ibid). In this case, it has help to convince more people to make donation (ibid). And

so, it raised organization ‘profitability (ibid). Even more, assuming Grant even a reminder of

end-users can do the “trick” (2011).

Making employees and end-users interact can also bring an empathy feeling among

employees (ibid). This feeling will make employees considering more customers’ needs

(ibid). Thanks to this, products and service improvements will be easier and sharper (ibid).

Lastly,  those interactions can also help leaders to have a clearer knowledge of their end users

that they sometimes don’t (ibid).

Nevertheless, Grant (2011) appoints that customers-employees interactions are infrequent.

Even if leaders and end-users are complementary, leaders care of not being seen as visionary

leaders anymore (Ibid). Though, end-users can help leaders to get their visions come true and

to get shared among employees (ibid).

In brief, we can say that the resulting performance from end-users is threshold (ibid): Increase

of organization ‘profitability, improvement on employees ‘satisfaction at work leading to

more commitment and so more motivation and productivity at work, company’s services

or/and products improvement over significant aspects. Despite this being proven, leaders do

not often integrate them into the “frame” (ibid).

Introduction  to  the  topic    

From the first pages of his book, Gill features the importance of leaders (2012). A leader is

the person who leads a group of people to achieve something (Law, 2009). Leader´s

characteristics may vary but the most common are: self-confidence, creativeness,

trustworthiness, smartness, respect and visionarism (Gill, 2012). Those characteristics are

important since it allow organization’ growth (ibid). Nevertheless, today’s environment is

more and more complex than it used to be before (ibid). Indeed, today era faces a high

competitiveness of market (ibid). Unlike before, into a same market segment, there is a high

concentration of companies (ibid). And so, leaders cannot rely on themselves to make

decisions (ibid). Moreover, today employees are more soul-searching (Maslow, 1954). This

means that they are less and less likely to apply something without understanding the reasons

of why such commands (ibid). Then, it comes another characteristic required to leaders:

collaboration (Gill, 2012). This notion is about working in groups (Law, 2009). Despite this,

in an article dealing the importance of end-users in business performance, the author

emphasizes a certain lack of collaboration of leaders (Grant, 2011). Regarding Grant, leaders

miss out integrating end-users into their business strategy (ibid). This statement reminds us

Keynes criticism over past generations society (1936): leaders acknowledged that lead

influence demand, which is completely wrong today and into the new era we are going to.

In this paper, we will try to find out if leaders are more collaborative now than they used to be

before. We will discuss over the modern leadership approach, modern leaders’ features and

over realities in modern organizations. This paper will also include comparisons with earlier

time. The final point of the studies being to give an answer to the research question as set as

possible.

Research  problem    

As Gill points out in his book (2012), management is one of the most studied topics. For the

notion of leadership, we cannot find less than ten thousand definitions (ibid). The reason of

why this topic is highly told about is that from the creation of the earliest organizations,

human beings have had always in mind to improve organization performance (ibid). Indeed,

organization performance is not only about to sell more or to produce more. It is also about

human management (ibid). Without an optimization of human beings performance, producing

more or selling more can be a hard ”task” to do (ibid). Though, each human being generation

is different (McGregor, 1960). And so, managing generations should not be the same from it

used to be before (ibid).

In today era, we assume that transformational leadership is applied (Gill, 2012) (see chapter

2). One of the core values of this leadership style is collaboration (ibid). Despite Gill studies,

an article (Grant, 2011) lets fall that collaboration is not the only stream for organization. In

fact, it appears that traditional leadership seems to perceive in today organizations (ibid).

Nevertheless, as this article deals primarily with end-users, we would like to find out if such

affirmation can stand for any hierarchy level. More, we would like to know if leadership

today mainstream is at collaboration.

èResearch question: Are leader more collaborative now than it used to be before?

The  objective  of  this  research  is  to  determine  if  leaders  are  more  or  less  collaborative  now  than  they  

used  to  be  in  the  past.  Underneath  this  purpose,  it  includes  that  we  will  also  determine  if  leaders  were  

collaborative  in  the  past.  

1.  Social  changes:    from  19th  century  to  now:  

Education shapes individuals (Bateson, 2001). Our behavior comes from experiences,

education and social belief (ibid). In this point, we will discuss on development of education,

customs and social belief into generations in order to emphasize eventual differences. In

emphasizing eventual differences, we hope partially answer our research question at knowing

if leader were educated at collaborative behavior in organizations or not and why.

Many empirical studies from researchers like Murray (1983); Rowe et al. (2005) ; Gill (2012)

and Smith, Carson, and Alexander (1984) unveiled that leaders are likely to have a same

social and educational background. Leaders have a high degree of education and most have

already been leaders in their social activities (ibid). Though, education today does not have

the same meaning than it was before (NCES1). In the 19th century, leadership and work skills

were still learned in large and on-the-job (NCES). Less than one-third of employees had a

baccalaureate-level and a very few portion had ever attended university. Leaders were not

much educated but seen as leaders because of their creativity, smartness and charismatic

personality (The Guardian, 2011). People do higher studies since late-20th century and

leadership studies became popular in the late 21st century (NCES). Plus, investment in

leadership development programs existed since 21st century (Gurdjian; Halbeisen; and Lane,

2014). More, we assume that all leadership theories that we have access today were not

available before mid-late 20th century. For example, at the time of the rationalization of work,

generations were more disciplined (McGregor, 1960). More, employees and leaders were

blessing Taylorism (1911) for its ingenious idea (Nelson, 1992). In fact, drawbacks of

Taylorism (2011) have been acknowledged a few years later (ibid). As we know, we can only

understand that something is bad when we have already experienced it. Taylorism (1911) is

the separation of executive function to the conception function. It is evident that Taylorism

(1911) is cons collaborative management (Taylor, 1911)(Nelson, 1992). But, collaborative

management paradigm is born in the late decade of 20th century (Gill, 2012)(Bolden, 2011).

                                                                                                                         1  National  Center  for  Education  Statistics  

Before that time, this paradigm was not taught because it was not seen as a significant factor

of organization performance (ibid)(Nelson, 1992).

2.  Modern  leadership  approach:        

Leaders’ activity is what we call leadership (Law, 2009). Though, Leadership is a power that

can affect people in various ways depending on the type of leadership applied (Gill, 2012). In

this part of our work, we will discuss on two approaches of leadership: the modern approach

with the transformational leadership and the traditional approach with the transactional

leadership. The aim is to oppose those two kinds of approach to understand if one of those

approaches is more prone to collaboration than the other one. Plus, to know if modern

approach made the traditional one disappeared.

A. Transformational leadership:

According Gill (2012) we are on a new leadership era called Transformational leadership

dimension. The transformational leadership model is the combination of several leadership

styles (ibid, 2012). It includes the transformational style since value-driven and with sense of

higher purpose. Combined to the Transactional style since exchange-driven. Combined to the

“laissez-faire” leadership style while ignoring problems, not taking a stand, not following up

and not intervening. So, the transformational leadership involves (ibid, 2012): The individual

consideration, the intellectual stimulation, the inspirational motivation and idealized

influence. In common terms, the transformational leadership is the collaborative leadership

(ibid).

As it names can make it guess, the collaborative leadership put an emphasis on collaboration.

This leadership is supposed to blur lines between leaders and employees (ibid). One of the

most relevant core themes to illustrate this point is “empowerment” (ibid). Empowerment is

enhancing productivity and job satisfaction (Law, 2009). The most common way to empower

is to maximize employees ‘contribution while delegating and asking for their opinions (Gill,

2012). This means that people create and participate at decisions and purpose (ibid).

Today, this leadership is becoming more and more popular since its overwhelming

advantages are proven (Grant, 2011)(Gill, 2012): more positive atmosphere in workplace,

motivated employees, facilitations at doing efficient brainstorming and increase of creativity

and performance. Though, we notice the penetration of this leadership is irregular depending

on companies and departments (Bolden, 2011). Collaborative leadership tends to be more

popular in education and turned-to-customers companies (ibid). Even more, penetration of

collaborative leadership in turned-to-customers companies seems to be greater in departments

in charge of marketing, sales and innovation (ibid).

B. Transactional leadership

Opposing the transformational leadership model, there is the transactional leadership model

(Gill, 2012). This model does not allow empowerment and so collaboration (ibid). This is the

managerial approach of leadership (ibid). It is based on contingent reward or punishment

regarding performance (ibid). In organizations using this model, there are lot of controls to

prevent eventual deviations and an enforcement of rules and procedures (ibid). Moreover,

leaders are the only one to make decisions and employees are just employed for purpose

(ibid). In other words, there is no collaboration. The transactional leadership is said to be the

old traditional leadership approach of leadership (ibid, 2012).

Thus, we note that depending on organization types such style can be applied (ibid, 2012) e.g.

army and industries. Even more, in our modern organizations, a lot of departments keep

working on the transactional matter of leadership (ibid)(Laegaard, 2006)(McAuley, Duberley,

Johnson, 2007): Finance, accounting, administrative. Though, this use of leadership in those

structures is logical (ibid). In those departments, employees are not supposed to be creative

(ibid). Instead, there are hired to apply rational skills (ibid). Another reason of this use of

leadership in such department and organization is bureaucracy (ibid). Administrative,

accounting and manufacturing functions are hierarchized regarding employee’s competencies

(ibid).

Today one popular concept is franchising. Firms sell licenses to entrepreneurs for allowing

them to use firms’ brand e.g. MacDonald’s, Domino’s Pizza. Franchising is one of the most

relevant credits of persistence of transactional leadership. Indeed, when entrepreneur sign the

agreement with firms, they acknowledge they will stick to all firm’s policies e.g. franchising

agreement. In other words, they will not innovate in any ways. This means, they will buy the

exact same ingredients from the firm and make given original recipes only.

 

 

3.  Modern  organizations  versus  traditional  organizations:    

Organizational structures are the arrangement of functions and authority in organization

(Law, 2009). So, organizational structure determines roles, power and responsibilities (ibid).

More, it determines how information flows in the different organization levels (ibid). This

appears evident that organizational structures directly influence collaboration behaviors in

the organization (Ranson; Hinings and Greenwood, 1980). In this part of the project, we will

compare traditional organizational style to modern organizational style. Thanks to this

comparison, we will determine how much those organizational structures allow

collaboration.

A.Traditional organization style:

When first formal corporations appeared in the mid-19th century, organizational structures

were simplistic (McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007)(Laegaard, 2006). A leader was at the

top of organization and was in charge of making every decision and taking every

responsibility over employees: simple organizational structure (ibid). More organization

grows, more it requires a specialization of employees (ibid). To fix this issue, it appeared the

functional organizational model (ibid). It is important to notice that between those two

models, leaders were still at top and employees still at the bottom (ibid). Indeed, employees

function was to execute and leaders to give orders: Taylorism (1911).

FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE

This type of structures did not allow synergy and so collaboration (McAuley, Duberley,

Johnson, 2007). As Taylor’s approach (1911) was overwhelming presents in western

countries, Weber in 1922 features the ideal bureaucracy model (ibid)(Laegaard, 2006). This

model incorporated more social values but still emphasized leaders as jack-of-all-works and

decision (Weber, 1922).

From that 1950, theories regarding motivation, structures became more and more popular.

(Laegaard, 2006) Many researchers were trying to find the best organizational structure and

leadership approach combination (ibid). In the mid-20th century, Maslow (1954) and

McGregor (1960), emphasize for the first time employees needs and motivation factors

(Laegaard, 2006). Resulting those numerous studies, a lot of organizational structures popped

out (ibid): divisional organization, multidivisional structure 2 and matrix organization3.

                                                                                                                         2  Existed  from  1920  but  became  popular  in  1960  (Chandler)  3  Appeared  in  the  last  decade  of  20th  century  (Laegaard, 2006)  

MULTIDIVISIONAL STRUCTURE e.g. Virgin Group

A multidivisional organizational structure aligns a company according to individual divisions,

which are based on geographic locations, products or services on comparison to the divisional

model which involve an alignment of the structure according to product /service or

geographical areas (Laegaard, 2006). Those organizations help at focusing in results (ibid).

More, it slightly allows more collaboration. In this case, collaboration is into each division

(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007).

·

MATRIX STRUCTURE

Matrix structures brings a lot of advantages at organization: increase cooperation and

communication, unlock resources and talent that are currently inaccessible to the rest of the

organization, improve motivation, better match with the demand’s needs, improve flexibly at

changes in markets and allow a sharper set of priorities (ibid)(Laegaard, 2006). Thus, this

organizational structure requires consideration of a major challenge (Bartlett; Ghoshal, 1990):

to have a shared image of task, progress and communication. Here comes why this

organizational structure is hard to implement (ibid). At long-range, all companies that set this

model had to switch back to more traditional model (ibid). Indeed, major issues encountered

with this organizational structure are (ibid): conflict of interest resulting from multiple

supervisors, a lack of clarity with priorities and so, difficulty at achieving main objectives

results.

We acknowledge that the traditional approach of organizational structure is about the simple,

functional and divisional model (Laegaard, 2006). The multidivisional and matrix model are

part of the modern approach of organizational structures (ibid).

B. Today organizations style: de-formalization of structures

Comparing to elder organizations, modern organizations are at a long-path away from them

(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007).

Nowadays today organizations are processed-driven (De Melo Santos; Bronzon; De Oliveira;

de Resende, 2014). Indeed, this is now the process, which determines organization structure

(ibid). We reckon three types of business process4 in companies e.g. BPO, JIT and TQM

(Law, 2009). We acknowledge that those processes aim primarily at improving positioning of

companies in specified markets, while allowing companies to match the most with end-users’

needs (ibid). Thus, it leads to a great impact on collaborative behaviors in organization

(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007) (Laegaard, 2006). Now, all required functions to make a

product or a service are grouped into one business unit -synergy of knowledge in

multidisciplinary team- (ibid). More to improve performance, organizational structure are

flatten –downsizing5- (ibid). This allows blurring barriers6, optimizing tasks and the number

of employees, and improving decision-making (ibid). Plus, numerous reward systems take

place focusing more on team performances (ibid). Then, a premium place is set for leaders

and employees training -leadership management and technical skills- promoting collaborative

atmosphere (ibid). All stated above involves collaboration inter-organizational.

                                                                                                                         4  modern  set  of  policies  in  business  performance  measured  in  costs,  turn  over  time,  quality  and  service  by  implementing  various  techniques.  5  Consists  in    reducing  the  number  of  employees  (termination,  earlier  retirements)  or  the  number  of  organizational  units  or  hierarchical  levels    6  Employees  and  managers  working  in  tandem.Even  more,  teams  are  closely  connected  to  suppliers  and  customers  

Today a continuous learning process characterizes organizations (Laegaard, 2006) (McAuley,

Duberley, Johnson, 2007). Indeed, organizations aim at capturing knowledge from every

situations and every companies -benchmarking7- in order to improve its own structure and its

own development (ibid). To meet this objective, we notice several use-trends in organization

(ibid): increase numbers of structure–team works, promoting of lateral relationships, increase

use of network organization, promoting shallow of organizational structure, promoting

employees’ participation, improvement attempts of information system, increase human

resource training combined with reward system, performance appraisal and promoting,

adoption and promoting of collaborative leadership and a strengthening of the organizations’

culture that promote openness, creativity and experimenting e.g. Hewlett Packard.

-Fractal organization (Warnecke, 1992) or team-structured organization

Project-structured organizations in which work groups or teams hold a central place in

companies’ routine (Warnecke, 1992). Such organizations emphasize autonomy, flexibility,

synergy, and participation of employees in making them work in small business units (ibid).

Those business units hold clear goals and are specifics (ibid). Teams can be product, project

or market-oriented (ibid). In team organization, hierarchy is replaced by lateral (horizontal)

                                                                                                                         7  consist  in  a  transfer  of  experiences  from  other  most  successful  companies  in  order  to  improve  it  own  performance.  It  can  be  relative  to  regular  company  e.g.  Multinational  companies  and  profit  centers  ;  or  competitors.  More,  it  can  focus  on  functions  and  process  of  the  organization  General  process  of  benchmarking:  identification  of  one’s  conditions,  study  of  others,  learning  from  collected  data  and  set  new    strategies      

relationships (ibid). Though, it does not substitute the formal organizational structure

(functional or divisional) (ibid). In fact, higher hierarchy sets their goals (ibid). E.g.

AMOEBA Model by Kyocera (Inamori, 2006) adopted by Kyocera itself, KDDI, Japan

Airlines, Disco Corporation, Comany Inc. and Capcom. Another variation of fractal

organization features a matrix-project functioning (Laegaard, 2006). It aims at the same

purpose and organization is the same (ibid). The only difference is that in this organization

experts comes from different functional areas and are assigned to work together for the

project (ibid). After completion of the project, members of the team move back in their

respective function and department until new assignation on a next project (ibid).

-Network org anization structure (virtual, modular)

It involves connecting separated organizations in order to ensure task interaction (ibid). This

means, subtracting core business functions like production, distribution and even marketing

and communication among subsidiaries or independent companies (ibid). Even if it involves

collaboration in another kind, this model still aims at drawing talent (ibid). More, at making

interact respective expertizes of organizations in order to bring full benefits to one

organization (ibid). Such organization is applied in product companies e.g. Apple Computers,

Benetton, H&M, Imperial Chemicall ; construction, entertainment and public sector.

Through those studies, it appears evident that today organizations are much more complex

than it was before. Though, even if traditional models like function organizational structure

and Taylor’s approach (1911) in organization can still be seen depending on the type of

organization (ibid). Indeed, Taylor’s model (1911) is still used as a guideline for technical

procedures in industrial and service sector (ibid). We understand that the changes experienced

today are not based on structures itself but on strategies (ibid)(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson ,

2007). More the collaborative climate of today organizations are direct consequences of those

strategies (ibid).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion:    

Through our studies, we have found out how different was business paradigm from the 19th

century to now. Indeed, since 1950 a lot of theories have come out (Laegaard, 2006). Among

the cloud of theories, we perceived theories, which pointed out social behavior and its

required changes to improve business performance e.g. theory X and Y (McGregor, 1960),

Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954), (Herzberg, 1966). This type of theories led to major

changes in our organizations (Nelson,). Indeed, today employee’s satisfaction at work and

collaborative behaviors resulted from the integration of social values in the management

process (McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007). So, it appears evident that before 1950, themes

like collaboration were not present in organizations (Nelson, 1992). A contrario, business

performance and management paradigm aimed at productivity only despite social values and

conditions (Nelson, 1992). Anyhow, it does not mean that productivity has left the frame.

Leadership and organization approaches still primarily aim at increase profit and productivity

(McAuley; Duberley; Johnson, 2007). Though, contemporary researchers set that for

achieving this goal, we need empathy towards employees (ibid). In fact, unmotivated and

unsatisfied employees are less productive that satisficed and motivated employees

(McClelland; Atkinson, 1953). Even more, unmotivated and unsatisfied employees do not feel

any concern in companies and so organizations’ growth is highly compromised (ibid) (Gill,

2012). In order to sort out employees’ commitment and motivation, we need to empower

employees (Gill, 2012). Those reflections are the premises of new modern leadership and

organizational structure theories (laegaard, 2006).

Modern structures and leadership highly promote collaboration behaviors e.g. matrix

organizational structure, fractal organization, flatten hierarchy, process-oriented organization

behavior, virtual organization, transformational (collaborative) leadership (Gill,

2012)(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007). Despite this, we could wonder if behaviors and

organizational structures have so much changed that the traditional approaches have

disappeared. Astonishingly, the answer is ”NO”. Today used organizational structures are just

traditional structures (functional or divisional) with modern strategic approaches implemented

(Newstrom; Davis, 1993)(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007). Modern leadership approach

consists in the traditional model with more social concerns implemented (Bolden, 2011).

Indeed, some of our work pointed out that traditional leadership approach was still used today

and not necessary questioned (Laegaard, 2006). On the contrary, this is seen as logical and

regular (ibid).

So yes, today leaders are more aware and concerned about collaboration than they used to be

before. Education of leaders has changes (NCES). And so, their approach of leadership has

changed as well. Though, traditional approaches cannot be totally eradicated but things

change and disappear as generations change and disappear (Bolden, 2011).

Theoretical  Discussion:    

The aim of our work was to answer the research question: ”Are leaders more collaborative

now than they used to be in the past?”. In order to give it an answer, we have worked on three

axes: Social; Leadership and organizational structure approaches. In this part, we will discuss

over our researches, findings, probable answers and upcoming questions, according our topic.

We found out that nowadays leaders are more educated than they used to be in the early 19th

Century (NCES). And so, today leaders fit in a “common mold”(Murray, 1983). Despite this,

our studies also unveiled that leadership approach is different from a company to another

(Bolden, 2011). Thanks to our studies, we can carry out the possible answer. Two companies

that belong to the same territories can be different because of the gap between generations

(McGregor, 1960). According McGregor (1960), today generations correspond to the Y

theory: soul-searching, autonomous, motivated by success and ambitious. On the contrary,

older generations correspond to the X theory: avoiding responsibility, preference at executing,

motivated by rewards only (ibid). Though, in today organization, both generations have to

cohabitate. On the top of that, more than two-third of senior managers and CEO are part of

the X generation

In parallel, we found out that today organizational structures and leadership approaches are

“melting pot” between traditional paradigm and modern paradigm (Gill, 2012)( (Newstrom;

Davis, 1993)(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007).. Indeed, most of today organizations have

a functional or divisional organizational structure and transformational leadership is a mix of

several leadership approaches, traditional one included (transactional leadership) (McAuley,

Duberley, Johnson, 2007). We could wonder if both are not linked and how.

Regarding McGregor (1960), there is a huge gap between the generation X and the generation

Y. Though, today leading class features a great part of people from the generation X. And so,

this sounds complicated to make completely applied collaborative leaders by generations,

which are totally apart from the new one. Nevertheless, according to Bartlett and Ghoshal ‘s

(1990) work, if we refer to the failure of the matrix model. The gap in generations might not

be the only reason of why collaborative leadership is not fully instituted. Indeed, the

complexity of environment and the divergences of each individual objective are the last one

(ibid).

 

References    v Grant A.M. (2011) End users energize your workforce far better than your managers

can. Harvard Business Review

v Gill R. (2012) Theory and Practice of Leadership.London: Sage Publication

v Law J. (2009) Dictionary of Business and Management. Oxford University Press

v Bartlett C.A.; Ghoshal S. (1990) Matrix Management: not a structure, a frame of

mind. Harvard business review

v De Melo Santos N.; Bronzon M.; De Oliveira M. P. V.; de Resende P. T. V. (2014)

Organizational culture, organizational structure and human resource management as

bases for business process orientation and their impacts on organizational

performance. Brazilian Business review

v Skelton D. (2011) Where have all the working-class leaders gone? The Guardian

v Gurdjian P.; Halbeisen T.; and Lane K. (2014) Why leadership-development programs

fail. McKinsey Quarterly

v McGregor D.M. (1957-1960) The Human Side of Entreprise. Management Review

v Smith A. (1937) The Wealth of Nations. Scotland: The Modern Library

v Taylor F.W (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper &

Brothers Publishers

v Newstrom J. & Davis, K. (1993) Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

v Bateson P. (2001) Where does our behaviors come from?. Journal of biosciences

v Nelson D. (1992) A Mental Revolution: Scientific Management since Taylor: Ohio

University Press

v Watson S. T.; Scribner J. P. (2007) Beyond Distributed Leadership: Collaboration,

Interaction, and Emergent Reciprocal Influence: Journal of School Leadership

v Ranson S.; Hinings B. and Greenwood R. (1980) The Structuring of Organizational

Structures: Administrative Science Quarterly

v Inamori K. (2006) Amoeba Management: The Dynamic Management System for

Rapid Market Response.Tokyo: Nikkei Publishing Inc.

v Bolden R. (2011) Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and

Research: International Journal of Management Reviews

v Warnecke H. J. (1993) Fractal Company: A Revolution in Corporate Culture.  

Springer Berlin Heidelberg

v Keynes J. M. (1936) The general theory of employment, interest and money. London:

Palgrave Macmillan

v McClelland, D. C.; Atkinson, J. W.; Clark, R. A.; Lowell, E. L. (1953) The

achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts

v Laegaard J.; Bindslev M. (2006) Organization Theory. Ventus Publishing

v McAuley J.; Duberley J.; Johnson P. (2007) Organization Theory: Challenges and

perspectives. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

v Herzberg F. (1966). Work and The Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing

v NCES.gov. 120 Years of Literacy