Resources

Some thoughts from a fellow traveler…

I recently received a comment from a blog comment of mine on ERE.net from Susan:

“You have a way of writing what most people do but don’t take the time to put words to it. One comment or suggestion, this type of workforce planning while includes some things to consider, does not consider cultural differences and government imposed rules of engagement, as well as market fluxes.

Ie., culturally downsizing is not necessarily an option in a global market as ever increasing compliance must be considered.

Also I’d love to see more depth around figuring out what those future skills sets are for the future–a road map on how to truly forecast beyond analysing the past. the problem with forecasting often is it lies in the assumption that demand influences supply — when Top Talent actually can influence demand.”

My response to Susan was that I agree wholeheartedly with her perspective. The fact is, Susan is exactly right. Organizations must take into consideration cultural as well as economic factors into workforce planning.

Susan, you are right on! I applaud your passion.

The fact remains that workforce planning requires strategic and tactical elements that satisfy both the organizational needs as well as the needs of the organization’s members, including their cultural perspectives.

Book Review – “Good to Great” by Jim Collins - 2nd Installment

This is a reprint of an article I wrote for my newsletter. I read it again and feel the same. Even in light of our current economic challenges…

Enjoy…

As mentioned in our last installment, “Good to Great” by Jim Collins is one of the finest reads in the modern business literature genre. It is based on a meticulous and statistically comprehensive comparison of “good” versus “GREAT” companies. Great companies are defined as having “sustained, market-beating” financial performance. After the great versus good companies were selected, Collins and his research team dug deeply into factors separating the great financial performance from the good.

It’s Leadership…what a shock!

Not surprisingly, Collins and his research team found that leadership was a key to success in all cases. However, the type of leadership that Collins discovered was not archetypal. Collins makes a clear case that the type of leadership made famous by such leadership luminaries as Lee Iaccoca and Jack Welch rarely leads to “sustained, market beating” performance, especially when these powerful personalities leave the helm.

Please, tell me I don’t have to be obnoxious…

Rather, Collins describes leaders of the great companies by such terms as modest, self-effacing, workmanlike and understated, not words generally attributed to the likes of Welch or Iaccoca. He also points out that these leaders are generally ignored by the popular business press, that is until their companies “blow the doors” off the competition. To be sure, the great company leaders are not push-overs either. They are ambitious, fanatically driven and incurable in their desire for excellence. They also genuinely like what they do, surround themselves with like-minded leaders, and desire honest and vigorous challenges to their ideas from the individuals they groom to be a part of their team.

In short, these leaders, referred to by Collins as Level 5 leaders (ie. the top level), are ambitious for the company and not themselves, focused on the company’s future and its people, willing to take personal responsibility when things go wrong, unwilling to take personal credit when things go right and unconcerned about hard decisions that may make them uncomfortable.

The book documents the behaviors of these leaders and often contrasts their style with more charismatic leaders. Collins makes a convincing case for this type of leadership. If you’ve gotten this far, you may be asking, “OK, I might agree but how can this be translated to benefit my organization, or perhaps even me, personally?”, or “How can I be a Level 5 leader?”.

Can a monkey lead…?

There is good news! Leadership can be taught and developed. Collins has developed a good deal of training materials, workbooks and other resources to help you do just that. His website is also an excellent resource and can be found at http://www.jimcollins.com/.

Additionally, the jury is in. Leadership can be taught and taught effectively. The question is, “where do I get the insights I need?” Resources such as Collins’ are available and digestible by the busiest of us.

Book Review – “Good to Great” by Jim Collins - 1st Installment

This is a reprint of an article I wrote for my newsletter. I read it again and feel the same. Even in light of our current economic challenges…

Enjoy…

Jim Collins is one of the most respected teachers and authors in modern business management press. He has written two books that have the business world literally abuzz with excitement. The first book, “Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies” was originally written in 1997. Followed by “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…While Other Don’t”, written in 2001 interestingly as a “prequel” to “Built to Last”.

Having read both (and they are excellent) I feel it important to understand just what Collins means by the assertion that “Good to Great” is a prequel to “Built to Last”. Hang in there for a little history. It will be worth it!

By Collins’ own admission, “Good to Great” was written as a result of a comment by a reader, with whom Collins associated professionally, that “Built to Last” did not explain what differentiated visionary and comparison companies discussed in the book. In other words, Collins wrote “Good to Great” to explain the factors that enabled these companies to make the “leap”, hence the subtitle.

In “Good to Great”, Collins provides a meticulously researched analysis of elements that propelled businesses from their status of merely being “good” performers to being “sustained, market-beating” companies. Additionally, Collins provides discussion of comparison, “like-industry”, companies, that were not able to sustain the performance of the “great” companies.

My advice until the next book review installment…get “Good to Great” and start reading. My analysis will add to the book’s value as I evaluate possible implementation steps in your organization.

Is “Good to Great” by Jim Collins any Good?

In 2001 Jim Collins wrote a book title “Good to Great”, which became a sensation in the business management world. According to Wikipedia, the book has sold 2.5 million copies and has been translated into 32 languages. Wow! Everyone was reading it, commenting on it, giving it to their business associates, and claiming to be intending to read it very soon.

I read the book, read it again, and wrote columns for my newsletter that extolled the book as a great piece of work that should be read by any business or organizational leader that was seeking to be excellent.

…Another Fad?

History has shown us that short-term enthusiasm is not a good predictor of the ultimate worth of any product, service, movement or idea. The evidence is everywhere. In life it’s disco music, leisure suits and platform shoes. In politics, think of communism, fascism and various forms of totalitarianism. In business it’s TQM, charismatic leadership and the dot.com boom. Now we are in a huge mess that is arguably caused by leadership, or the lack thereof.

Collins’ book seemed to provide answers for business management and leadership that had real substance. Good to Great was a meticulously researched work that appeared to bring a number of digestible concepts for organizational success into sharp focus.

Wait a second! Collins touts “Good to Great” organizations that include Fannie Mae and Circuit City as examples of breakthrough performers!

Was I sucked in!? After all, I’m a skeptic. I am not a fan of many the books on business leadership that my cohorts find fascinating. Was my objectivity flawed… Am I guilty of following the herd? Did I recommend a stinker? Is this book another trendy but flawed work on business management and leadership? A FAD?

Nope. “Good to Great” is the Real Deal.

I can’t believe I’m saying this but Collins’ work explains – in common sense language – immutable concepts of organizational health and success. That’s translated: long-term, single-minded, hard won, dogged, deserved, honest and humble organizational success.

Forget Fannie Mae and Circuit City. Their problems are not Collins’ fault. That statement is obvious from a commons sense perspective and likely elegant in that had these organizations really understood the concepts that Collins espouses, their demise may have looked different.

The evidence that Collins gathers holds even today. Two of the 12 companies that Collins writes on are doing quite well today. Arguably Fannie Mae probably doesn’t belong here due to its political complexities. That makes 1 of 11. In fact, I would argue that Fannie Mae would be successful had their mandate not been diffused due to its quasi-political nature. By contrast, all 12 of the comparison (“Not So Great”) companies are extinct.

Read “Good to Great”, then Read It Again…

Collins is under some heat lately. It’s not hard to see why. Buzzards love to fly around what appears to be a dying body. We see it every day. Finger-pointing is being singled out as the most common cause of repetitive stress injury being diagnosed in Washington, DC, among national media bullies and our financial centers.

Collins is not wrong.

On the contrary, he is as clear as he has ever been. Take a look at this site for an excellent interview by Peter Hossli - http://www.hossli.com/articles/2009/03/02/steve-jobs-is-an-industrial-beethoven/

At times Hossli is kind of “snarky” with Collins. That’s what good reporters do. However, Jim handles Peter’s line of questioning very well. In fact, if I am any good at reading between the lines it seems to me that Hossli has read “Good to Great”. Like me, perhaps Hossli needs to be tough on Collins in order to assure himself that he is doing his readers a real service.

Collins is the real deal. I don’t agree with him in everything but his book operationalizes a lot of what we need in leadership literature. Keep up the good work Jim. I’m looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Good Old Fashioned Leadership

One last thing. While reading this interview with Jim I began thinking of my grandfather who was the president of a bank in Red Lodge, Montana. He would walk to work, walk home for lunch, walk back to work, eat dinner before walking – sometimes driving – to his office in the evening. When he died he left my grandmother quite comfortable financially and the entire town came to his funeral. Collins’ writes of leaders like Grandpa. They are out there. Perhaps they are finding themselves in trouble today but they will be there at the end of the journey. Their last days will be filled with joy and friends, many of whom will have followed their lead.

Grandpa always had time to take me fishing… I miss him. I drank Orange Crush, he drank coffee with a little sugar.

An Frighteningly Funny Look at Communications…

The Colonel’s Order

Even if you have never been in the military, you are going to appreciate this…

A COLONEL ISSUED THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIVE TO HIS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS:

“Tomorrow evening at approximately 2000 hours Halley’s Comet will be visible in this area; an event which occurs only every 75 years. Have the men fall out in the battalion area in fatigues, and I will explain this rare phenomenon to them. In case of rain, we will not be able to see anything, so assemble the men in the theater and I will show them films of it.”

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO COMPANY COMMANDER:

“By order of the Colonel, tomorrow at 2000 hours, Halley’s Comet will appear above the battalion area. If it rains, fall the men out in fatigues, then march to the theater where this rare phenomenon will take place, something which occurs only once every 75 years.”

COMPANY COMMANDER TO LIEUTENANT:

“By order of the Colonel be in fatigues at 2000 hours tomorrow evening. The phenomenal Halley’s Comet will appear in the theater. In case of rain in the battalion area, the Colonel will give another order, something which occurs once every 75 years.”

LIEUTENANT TO SERGEANT:

“Tomorrow at 2000 hours, the Colonel will appear in the theater with Halley’s comet, something which happens every 75 years. If it rains, the Colonel will order the comet into the battalion area.”

SERGEANT TO SQUAD:

“When it rains tomorrow at 2000 hours, the phenomenal 75-year-old General Halley, accompanied by the Colonel, will drive his comet through the battalion area theater in fatigues.”

Leading for Better Group Meeting Outcomes

Leaders can have a substantial impact on the decision making processes in group meetings that will lead to effective decisions and result in positive outcomes for the team and the organization.

The question is how…

Teams: Consider the Nature of the Team

To consider this I will take the approach of narrowing the type of decision process that is intended, along with a narrowing of the nature of the team that is tasked with the decisions to be made. Gary Yukl (2006), one of the nation’s foremost organizational psychologists, discusses the fact that teams are typified in a number of distinct ways within organizations.

Specifically, he mentions:

1. Functional Operating Teams
2. Cross-functional Teams
3. Self-management Operating Teams
4. Top Executive Teams

Of particular interest to matters of strategic organizational development are cross-functional teams. This is due to the fact that such teams are often in the forefront of organizational change as they are frequently tasked with the broad ranges of decision complexity as they attempt to accomplish their objectives.

Group Meetings with Cross-functional Teams

Cross-functional team often consist of loosely related, yet diverse, subunits within organizations that are tasked with making decisions for joint organizational outcomes, such as product development, new system creation or implementation, marketing and advertising initiatives, and the list goes on. Such processes are becoming more common in organizational settings and will likely become increasingly important as cross-functional decision making efforts are impacted by:

1. The rapid pace of change in modern organization environments
2. The impact of increasingly rapid changes in technology
3. The fact that organizations are increasingly global rather than local
4. Economic, environmental and political challenges

Cross-functional Teams May Have Limited Lives – Translated: Time is of the Essence

Such teams will generally be transient as purposes for which they are created, environmental changes, and task completion all will contribute to an ever changing landscape of team members. These facts alone make the importance of developing rapidly implementable paradigms for effective group decision processes extremely important. It does not take too much imagination to see how important such rapid pace of change demands cross-functional teams that thrive in terms of effective communication, idea generation, and creativity.
Increasingly common, cross-functional teams go through a natural series of stages in the decision making process (Chakravorty & Franza, 2005).

• First Stage - Chaos Due to Subunit Competition - Communication and decision-making processes are typically focused on one team’s function over other subunit function. This stage can be chaotic while team members jostle with diverging priorities.
• Second Stage – Instrumental Compliance with Some Persistent Subunit Competition – This stage is typified by resolution of basic communication problems accompanied by continued difficulty making decisions due to a tendency to continue to favor their subunits functionality over others (Chakravorty & Franza).
• Third Stage – Decision Breakthrough – This stage consists of breakthroughs in communication and decision-making that comes from systems thinking that can be fostered by leaders that pull the cross-functional teams into decision processes. Please note the use of the word “pull”.

All but the most unsuccessful cross-functional teams negotiate these 3 stages. However, the quality of decisions can vary greatly. For example, the third stage may be a Pyrrhic victory - where most of the troops don’t come home – that is probably not ideal for the organization or its members.

Brainstorming – No Let’s Call it Dialogue – May Improve Group Decision Processes

Brainstorming fairly typifies the kind of group cooperation that is so important in cross-functional groups. It is a common tool used in cross-functional groups and is designed to generate a high volume of creative ideas in atmospheres of mutual trust, and freedom from negativity in order to foster a culture that looks for effective common ground that is focused on success for cross-functional assignments (Schein, 1993). Edgar Schein (1993) makes a strong case for techniques similar to brainstorming. However, Schein modifies the term and refers to his similar conception of brainstorming as “dialogue”. Schein’s use of dialogue in organizational communications has the potential of becoming a central element for organizational transformation.

Specifically, dialogue is a powerful discipline that can have a very positive impact on cross-functional teams as they brainstorm and seek team objectives. As Schein describes the concept of dialogue, all problem-solving activities should be conducted as dialogue. This is particularly true in that dialogue is focused largely on thinking process, getting in touch with underlying assumptions, and focusing on what the other person is saying (Schein). More specifically, Stein’s concept of dialogue starts with a focus on philosophies and techniques similar to those demonstrated by Dugos, Paulus, Roland and Yang (2000) as the group focuses on higher levels of consciousness and creativity (Schein). As such, Schein’s dialogue techniques put such cognitive and social theory to work at the very beginning of organizational transformation that is typified by the kind of purposes that cross-functional group activities represent.

From My Experience – Probably Yours Too!

I have been part of cross-functional teams that have enjoyed great success and also part of teams that resulted in a stilted process of decay that ended in eventual acknowledgement that nothing of value was accomplished. As I reflect, I recognize that the successful outcomes were typified by idea generation and effectiveness that were typified by effective dialogue, where mutual expectations were met without fear, pride, or subunit territorialism. The unsuccessful ventures were usually a result of the opposite being the case. I have seen hierarchical issues put into play that completely seized effective decisions as leaders pulled rank. Never in so many words, but they pulled rank. Thankfully, I have worked with more excellent teams than poor ones. I have also made much of my career choice in organizational psychology for a crusade, of sorts, against bad actors in teams. Tally ho!

By the way, keep an eye out for the writings of Edgar Schein. I’ll have more on this brilliant man’s contributions as I continue to write.

John J. Earll
Management Vision, P.C.

References

• Chakravorty, S.S., & Franza, R.M. (2005). Enhancing cross-functional decision making: A simulation approach, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(2), 331-337.
• Dugosh, K.L., Paulus, P.B., Roland, E.J., & Yang, H. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 722-735.
• Schein, E.H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51.
• Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

What Does Leadership Mean in this Economy?

I Just Finished a Course on Leadership and Change – Here are my thoughts on the subject in retrospect…

I was really looking forward to this class and I was not disappointed. I have strongly held convictions on what leadership means and what it doesn’t. It is my opinion that “leadership” as a term is not only difficult to define but that it is also served poorly by the very organizations that need it so desperately. As a case in point, one has to look no further than the economic mess that our country is in the middle of at this time.

I will preface these comments with my conviction that the nature of free-market economies requires corrections – however difficult – as a part of their natural course. However, economics and its vagaries are not isolated from human behavior. Markets are made up of people and people impact economics as the market provides opportunities. However, similar to the famous “dot.com” boom, the popular version of this economic downturn shows that visionary leadership can be atrociously lacking to the point of intelligent people ignoring fundamentals of economics and business that are older than Hammurabi’s code.

We hear the news daily, those close to us are affected by the present reality, and the ground we are standing on seems mushier than it has for a long time. I am 50 and don’t recall this level of despair. However, it is my opinion that leadership, real leadership, is happening at this point of time that will teach us a lot in retrospect. I’m looking forward to hearing success stories as leaders – and I’m not thinking global or national political or economic leaders – took stock of the storm warnings and committed to paths that brought their organizations through this challenge in a way that points to doing leadership the “right way” and not the “expedient way”, the “opportunistic way”, or “following the herd”.

This kind of leader is out there. We are not hearing about them now because their heads are down and they are leading based on values that transcend politics or economics. They are leading with a commitment to their employees, their customers, their suppliers, their community, their family, and – yes – their board of directors. They will make tough decisions based on their best instincts, knowledge, and experience. They will make mistakes, own up to them, and make more decisions with mud dripping from their faces. They will look into the eyes of those that are counting on them and they will go to bed at night after facing themselves in the mirror and sleep soundly, knowing they are doing their best given the circumstances based on values that transcend their singular self-interest.

Accordingly and finally regarding my thoughts on leadership and this class, if my opinions are strong it is vital that I understand the subject. This course has given me a good deal of grist for the mill. The perspectives of scholars that I looked to in my research , the students in this class, and the professor are not always mine but their contributions to my education, values, and knowledge stand firm as important building blocks to fostering and participating in leadership as a disciple of the kind of real leadership that our country needs so desperately.

It’s been a pleasure. Thank you all!

John

Powerful and Effective Leadership – Within Reach!

Does the Definition Tell Us Much?

Leadership is a term that has been thrown around in organizational settings for a long time. So much so that the term itself has come caused frustration due to the range of meanings for which its definition contains. One hand, leadership can typify the kind of charismatic, and often selfishly destructive, behaviors of a Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte, while at other times we see the term bounded by the determined and effective pacifism of Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Both extremes make excellent arguments for what leadership is really all about. The trouble is they are poles apart!

In my last offering, I made an attempt at what represented an arguably academic discussion of the quandary that leadership can represent. (Click here to see: Does It Matter How You Define Leadership?) With my apologies to for sounding overly clinical, I am offering this discussion of leadership that will attempt to put some “flesh on the bones” of the term: Leadership. In so doing, it is my hope that I will offer some down to earth perspectives on leadership that can be of value to leaders in any organization.

Suffer the Academics a Little Longer. You’ll See My Point…

With this said, I will still rely on the benefits of the best that organizational science has to offer on the subject. Hang in there.

The science is solid and I believe its conclusions will make sense: Common sense that will empower you as a leader, and application that will be effective to impact subordinates to levels of greater effectiveness.

Organizational Science Brings Some Powerful Insights!

Leadership has been studied by behavioral theorists, organizational psychologists and social scientists from antiquity. However, the 20th century has seen the most intense studies in the field of leadership. For decades, such study has resulted in a natural ebb and flow of theories that have been tested, analyzed, re-tested and refined. Even though studies continue, leadership as a behavioral phenomenon is well defined for practical application.

The good news is that theoretical integration of leadership theory can bring bottom line value to almost any organization. Such value can be within reach of organizations and teams from the largest to smallest organizations.

Let’s Talk Transformational Leadership…

Of all of the elaborate and complex issues within the scholastic study of leadership a key concern is theoretical integration. In other words – “If we have learned anything in all those years, what can we apply from our knowledge that is readily trained in leaders, transferred to the workplace and applied for positive effect?”

The Answer: Transformational Leadership Theory!

Originally formulated by Bernard Bass (1985) and based on prior work related to concepts of charismatic leadership, this practical theory of leadership has undergone what amounts to the equivalent of being run over by a fleet of diesel trucks from a scientific perspective since Bass proposed the theory and as it exists today. Heck, the title alone sounds almost “too special”! In fact, Bass and his associates now refer to the theory as the Full Range Leadership Theory, which is arguably better. (Maybe not!?) In any event, the theory has changed little since the mid-1980s. Again, it has been tested, critiqued and largely confirmed as being valid.

More importantly, it is a theory that can be rapidly deployed, trained and used to bring effective improvement in any organizational environment. The evidence is in…

Here We Go – Transformational Leadership Theory…

The theory is composed of 3 levels, which represent tiers or typologies of leadership behaviors that are shown to be predictable of improved organizational performance as measured by a number of quantifiable factors. Yes, including increased profits. The 3 levels, low to high, represent constructs of leadership behaviors and attributes.

The lowest level is referred to as passive/avoidant behaviors, the second level consists of transactional behaviors, and behaviors at highest level are considered transformational. Within each typology are 9 single-order factors. Due to brevity, I will dispense with a description of these 9 factors. However, my next post will delve into these factors at greater length. However, of these 3 tiers and 9 typologies, the lowest tier and lowest 2 typologies are removed from our discussion of the theory at this point. We will discuss them in our next post.

The reason they are removed at this point is that the lowest tier, passive/avoidant behaviors, and the lowest 2 typologies, passive management by exception and laizzez-faire (“do nothing”) management are counterproductive and such behaviors need to be eliminated.

Please stay with me. You will like this.

Look at This Chart – It’s a Summary of Transformational Leadership Theory

So we took the lowest out. That leaves us with the two higher tiers, transformational and transactional and 7 remaining single-order factors. This chart summarizes effective leadership behaviors in a logical and easily understood structure for organizational training.

Also note that I have divided the transformational tier into transformational and charismatic typologies. This is important and I will discuss in future posts.

So, What’s it Mean?

I’m glad you asked. The chart reflects behaviors that are almost always beneficial when applied by leaders within organizations. Additionally, it has been shown that if leaders increase their skills, behaviors, and attributions within each of these tiers and/or single-order factors that organizational effectiveness improves.

Hence the organization benefits as value increases through improved leadership.

It Seems Complicated…

It’s not really. My commitment is that you understand the theory in a way that can be of benefit to you, your developing leaders, your staff and your organization as a whole. There is more to come.

Reference

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Does It Matter How You Define Leadership?

It matters! The experts agree…

Yes, it matters a great deal how leadership is defined. Gary Yukl, Ph.D. (2006) is widely recognized as an authority on the subject. Dr. Yukl convincingly asserts that the definition of leadership is not precisely defined. He poses this question in many of his writings and provides answers to this important question. He points out that although the term is broad by nature, viewed quite differently by academicians, and prescribed variously by practitioners, the fact remains that it is too important a phenomena to eschew definition due to the complexity of the intervening arguments. With this in mind, it is of great importance that those studying leadership consider a number of elements of leadership that can be measured through research processes. Yukl (2006) discusses roles, influence processes, behaviors, traits, and situational variables that comprise lines of research in leadership.

Accordingly, in line with the academic perspective Lord and Brown (2004) do an excellent job of discussing the need for understandings of cognitive, social, and personality psychology to understand how the results of these lines of research can be integrated in order to understand dynamics of processes of leader and follower interaction. Their thoughts take into consideration an arguably complete, if not theoretically exhaustive, perspective of matters related to a working definition of leadership.

From the perspective of the practitioner, transformational leadership theory provides useful definitions of elements of leadership that integrate a broad range of social process, while simultaneously providing useful subsets of leadership typologies that answer the oft-debated manager versus leader discussion. By describing leadership in hierarchal typologies of charismatic, transformational and transactional leadership, Bass (1985) and a host of other theorists have conceptualized a model that is inclusive of aspects of traits, influence, behaviors, and contingencies (Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Yukl, 1996) that is useful as applied science in organizational environments.

With the perspective of academic research and practical application in mind the facts are clear that the definition of leadership is complex. However, complexity is no reason to avoid definition. The challenge for those that would apply scientific standards to the definition is to seek integration of theory and practice, regardless of the difficulties the definition presents.

How does this make a difference to me as a leader and my organization? The answer is not as complex as this brief article would lead us to believe.

Let me explain. First, academic and scientific leadership theories describe predictable function of leadership in organizations. Secondly, the application of this theory can make a difference in real world applications. Third, practitioners that understand these concepts have answers that can address and moderate organizational dynamics to help the implementation of effective leadership.

Moreover, effective implementation of leadership can bring positive impact to all levels of organizational hierarchy.

References

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Yukl, G. A. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 309-317.

Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

What Else Do We Offer?

Personality Testing is great. However, Management Vision offers so much more in terms of Organizational Finance, Strategic and Financial Planning, Human Resource Strategy, Leadership Development, Executive Coaching and more…

John speaks from his heart as to how we can be of Value to your Organization’s most important assets. You and your people!