This chapter presents a variety of literatures tackling the main subject of the study – leadership and its styles. Further, it will try to critically analyze selected empirical studies, their methodologies, results, discussions, and strengths and weaknesses. From here, the justification on the conveyance of this research study is established.
Leadership Styles
The previous chapter provided fundamental information on the different leadership styles proliferated globally. There have been numerous research studies focusing on the evaluation of the effectiveness of certain leadership styles in application to specific area of practice, type of organization, and business operations. For decades, the issue on leadership has been undertaken in various studies and related discussion. In fact the study on leadership dates back in 1921 (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 1999, p. 8). The contemporary leadership theories continuously present new arguments that ignite the interests of leadership authors and researchers which in return creates another avenue for further empirical exploration and inquiry. Also, the emerging conditions that affect contemporary societies such as globalization and internationalization prompts leadership experts to redirect existing body of knowledge on leadership that will serve the idea of the current practice. The concept of leadership styles, similar to leadership theories, continuously changes and adapt to the conditions and demands of the modern society and its people.
According to Kousez and Posner (2002), credibility is the foundation of leadership. A leader should be credible for him/her to lead. In addition to this characteristic, a leader should possess honesty, competence, aspiration, and a forward-looking approach. Drucker (1995) sees leaders as the basic resource for an organization as well as the key factor for a healthy growing economy and supply, which is critical to the survival and further development of any organizations. In the business point of view, good leadership proves to be quite beneficial as aids in effectively meeting job-related demands, in creating higher-performing teams, in fostering renewed loyalty and commitment, in increasing motivational level and in reducing absenteeism and turnover of employees. Unfortunately, this so-called effective leadership is not that easy to attain; effective management is not as easy as writing down notes. Good leadership entails a lot of hard work, dedication, and many other factors. However, good leadership should not be a burden but a challenge (Kousez & Posner 2000).
Stevens (2001) declared leadership as an influential factor in doing things willingly to a standard and quality above their usual norm. As an element in social interaction, leadership is a complex activity involving a process of influence, actors who are both leaders and followers, and a range of possible outcome – the achievement of goals, but also the commitment of individuals to such goals, the enhancement of group cohesion and the reinforcement of change of organizational culture. The concept of leadership can not be separated from the issues of organizational power, influence and politics. These constructs most of the time bring forth conflicts within the business organization especially when an influential corporate entity puts first personal interest beyond that of the wellness of the company and the people working in it. Large organizations are empowered with political influence particularly when their reach and economic decisions presents dramatic change not just in their internal environment but also to the industry they belong to. The mismanagement of corporate power and influence usually result to scandals that end a giant organization. As such, it is highly important to always have a heart in the overall direction of the organization.
According to Bohn (2002), leaders have the ability to view the future. They are equipped with compelling abilities to visualize where things will naturally end or lead to. Unlike other people, individuals with leadership abilities see things that are not noticeable or obvious to others. In addition, leaders have the ability to build and establish confidence to others. Hence, in order to be a good leader, a person needs to have a personal sense of efficacy and confidence (Bohn, 2002).
Each of these aspects brings complexity to the leadership process. Somewhere between the broad personality trait and the specific behavior sits the leadership style. Styles reflect relatively stable patterns of response to social situations. Leadership style refers to the degree of direction that the leader provides to subordinates in attempting to influence their behavior toward the accomplishment of organizational objectives (Gibson & Marcoulides 1995, p. 45).
According to Gill et al (1998) the development of leadership theory has paralleled the development of organizational theory. The models of laissez-faire, transactional and transformational leadership both explain the old paradigm of the bureaucratic organization and reinforce the new organizational paradigm for the twenty-first century. The bureaucratic organization is analyzed in terms of laissez-faire leadership and the transactional leadership elements of management-by-exception and contingent reward. Flamholtz (1986) identified six leadership styles that were constantly adapted up to the current period namely: Autocratic Style, Benevolent Autocratic Style, Consultative Style, Participative Style, Consensus Style, and Laissez-Faire Style. These styles were commonly used in most research studies then eventually mixed up with each other. Similarly, DeVito (1999) identify three major leadership styles: laissez-faire, democratic, and authoritarian leadership. These are also similar to the following styles of leadership namely: authoritarian (autocratic) style (Lewin, Lippitt, & White 1939, p. 179-85), permissive (delegative) style, authoritative (democratic) style (Schriesheim 1982, p. 221-23; Newstrom 1993, p. 12).
To DeVito (1999), laissez-faire leaders take no initiative in directing or managing the group; he/she allows the group to develop on its own, as it has no real authority. Specifically, the leader answers questions, provides information, or gives no reinforcement to the group. Furthermore, the leader evaluates and criticizes little, and is thereby non-threatening. The leader allows the members to make their own decisions. Sometimes called the permissive (delegative) kind of leadership wherein the followers are permitted to be involved in the decision making process. The leader implements minimal control or manipulation on their followers. However, the leader is still accountable for the final decision to be made. Herein, the opinion and ideas of the followers are being valued by the leader and each follower encompasses different tasks set by the leader.
On the other hand, democratic leaders provide directions, but allow the group to make its own decisions. In leadership styles, the democratic leader is in the middle of the styles. In this type of leadership, the leader and the selected subordinates are involved in the process of the decision making. Herein, the subordinates have the right to voice out their ideas and thought which they think would be helpful for the leader in making the final decision. As specified by DeVito (1999), members are encouraged by democratic leaders to determine goals and procedures, and to stimulate their self-direction and self-actualization. Moreover, democratic leaders offer suggestions and reinforce members' ideas. After offering these suggestions, providing information, and clarifying ideas, the leader allows the group to make the decision and holds the authority for the final decision which is acceptable by the whole group and majority of its members.
Lastly, the authoritarian leader is the opposite of the laissez-faire leader. Authoritarian style, as described by Huffman and Piggrem (2003) indicates thet authority of the leader over his/her subordinates. In this manner the authority have the right to do the decision making without asking the opinion of the followers. The leader is this type of leadership tends to tell the followers what must be done in order to achieve the goals or objectives of the organization. The authoritarian leader sets the agenda, determines the group's policies, assigns tasks to the members, and makes decisions for the group without consulting them. In the end, the leader takes responsibility for the group's progress, but accepts very few suggestions from the group. Rarely do the group members communicate with one another, but they communicate with the leader.
Osborn and Motley (1999) have three groups similar to Devito's styles of leadership. It was been explained that free-rein (laissez-faire) leaders allow the group the freedom to decide what to do, how to do it, and when to do it; participative (democratic) leaders seek participation of the group in making decisions for the group; and autocratic (authoritarian) leaders make decisions without the assistance or approval of the group. Whether a crisis is instantaneous and unanticipated, or gradual and long-term, effective leadership is what sets one organization apart from its competitors and often even determines it fate. According to Tesone (2000), during the challenging times, individuals engage in mutual communication processes that avoid the structure to achieve the performance levels. The difficulty is that most of the people are dealing with the very same fears, anxieties, and uncertainties. In here, the most effective style of leadership is employed.
In the previous discussion, other leadership styles are mentioned such as transformational, transactional, servant and others. Basically, these types of leadership are employed in specific areas wherein most practices cater to larger group of individuals. In transformational leadership, the presence of the four vital dimensions that serve as prime features namely: Charismatic Leadership (Idealized Influence, CL or IL), Inspirational Motivation (IL), Intellectual Stimulation (IS), and Individualized Consideration (IC) is expected (Bass 1998). These are the components that bring out all potential applications and results of the approach when used. However, the charismatic power of leadership has already been analyzed and challenged (Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Transactional leadership, the counterpart of the transformational style, is more on controlling people and giving out orders. In general, the qualities of transformational leadership style are opposite to transactional style of leadership. Servant leadership focuses on the leader’s role as steward of the organization’s resources from human, finance, and others (Greenleaf 1970). Lastly, other leadership styles are combination of one style or two.
Howard (2005) identified another way to classify styles of leadership as presented below:
Analysis of Leadership Styles
Type-A (Fact Based)
· Expects others to perform at a high level, with emphasis on the bottom line.
· Factual
· Logical
· Technical
· Analytical
· Quantitative
· Mathematical
· Theoretical/Scientific
· Formal
· Conservative
· High Task
Type-B (Creativity Based)
· Provides an open and creative work Environment, which provides opportunity for suggestions and clarification.
· Artistic
· Flexible
· Imaginative
· Synthesizing
· Spontaneous
· Holistic
Type-C (Feelings Based)
· Makes decisions based upon how he/she feels about the issue.
· Emotional Talker (without reservation)
· Emphatic
· Intuitive
· Interpersonal
· Flexible
Type-D (Control/Power Based)
· Provides specific and detailed instructions and does not tolerate deviation from assigned sequence.
· Controlled
· Detailed
· Planned
· Sequential
· Conservative
· Organized
· Dominant
· Highly Structured
· High Task
· Formal
Source: Howard 2005, p. 384
Howard’s classification of leadership style is an extended version of the other types identified above. These are also mainly applied to most economically-driven organizations yet Howard also stated its given significance in general idea of leading and managing.
Early studies on leadership style sprouted from Hofstede (1980). Hofstede (1980) concluded that leaders in countries such as the U.S., Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands are more likely to exhibit autocratic and centralized leadership styles than leaders in countries such as Norway, Sweden, Japan, Taiwan, or Pakistan. The former were rated high on individualism while the latter rated low on individualism. Hofstede’s initiated debates on the issue of leadership styles as many researchers criticized several aspects of the report. Arguments include the following:
- That the employees of a single organization may provide a highly unusual representation of the values current within a particular country (Gibson & Marcoulides 1995); and
- Findings are based upon responses to a single attitude questionnaire, which may bear little relation to the actual experiences of leaders and followers in a given culture (Smith and Peterson, 1988).
On the positive side, Hofstede’s research started the proliferation of culturally-oriented research explorations (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Cultural attributes are connected with leadership styles such as the following researches and their findings: “Heller and Wilpert (1982) found that Swedish, French, and Dutch share power more than British, American, German, Israeli or Spanish managers; Jenner (1982) found that Americans are more individualistic and achievement oriented than Australians; Dowling and Nagel (1986) found that americans placed greater emphasis on personality fulfillment and equality than did Australians; Zemke (1988) found that Swedish managers are more participative than American managers; Douglas and Douglas (1989) found that Swedish managers are less adversarial and are more cohesive than British managers” (cited in Gibson & & Marcoulides 1995).
Berson and Linton (2005, pp. 51-60) examined the role of transformational and transactional leadership in building quality climate in R&D versus non-R&D settings particularly the relationship between leadership style and the establishment of a quality environment based on an empirical study of 511 research engineers and scientists. Results noted that both transformational leadership and transactional contingent-reward leadership are related to the establishment of a quality environment in the R&D part of a telecommunications firm. However, the impact of transactional contingent-reward leadership ceases to be significant once both leadership styles are considered simultaneously using structural equations. A transformational leadership style was also found to be related to employee satisfaction.
Basing from the earliest accounts on leadership literatures, a review of these studies suggests that no clear conclusions can be drawn with regard to why similarities and differences exist across cultures. Thus, this study addresses the need to provide specific characteristics on the similarities and differences of leadership styles particularly using Japan and United States as area of reference. Additionally, the inclusion of case study of one selected Japanese and American organizations chosen by the researcher will add credibility to the prospected results and findings.
Leadership Styles implemented within Japan and United States
Over the past several decades, researchers have been trying to determine whether a set of leadership styles is universal or whether cultural values in a particular country influence certain leadership styles (Gibson & Marcoulides 1995). The variety of research studies to be presented below identifies the pros and cons of leadership styles as utilized in specific regions.
Gibson and Marcoulides (1995) conducted a comparative study on the invariance or the unchanging relationship of leadership styles utilizing countries namely U.S., Australia, Norway, and Sweden. Their study builds upon previous cultural contingency research by examining the structure of a previously validated leadership model across four counties. Such countries were deliberately chosen in order to compare similar and divergent cultures. This study examined the generalizability of leadership models by comparing the structure of a six-factor leadership style model (Flamholtz 1986) across four countries. Overall, the results indicate that the leadership model does not differ with respect to the number of factors, the pattern of the estimates, or the correlations between factors. In review of this study, it is mainly descriptive. Also, it can be deemed that the facts presented were already subjected to changes because it has been two decades when they conducted such study. Furthermore, the need to provide empirical evidences is missing as it only employ descriptive evaluation of existing literatures related to the identified countries.
Allen and associates (2006) compared the competitive strategies of Japan and United States. However, this study is limited on the marketing and management applications. The concept of leadership styles is just a part of the overall parcel. Along the process, leadership has been considered as a vital element of powerful and strong organizational cultures (Kotter & Heskett, 1992). Leadership has been a subject of numerous discussions that oftentimes, it is considered as an attribute of personality, a characteristic of particular positions or behavior attribute (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 574). Clearly, organization culture and leadership have a strong and established relation. Leadership is vital in applying organizational culture. The role of the leaders for example, is significant in developing organizational efficiency and creating corporate culture.
Recent research in leadership has focused on developing leadership competencies in whatever field of specialization. For example, in the area of nursing practice, training nurses to lead and to follow should be standardized. The importance of successful collaboration in nursing practice is well documented in the study conducted by Reese and Sontag (2001).The role of leadership and teamwork is also proven in the study conducted by Lanza (1997) especially to the field of psychiatric nursing. Tichy and Cohen (1997) have taken the competencies discussion one step further arguing that all leaders must be able to not only demonstrate the competencies, but teach them to others in their organization as well. The concept of developing global competencies in nursing management was been widely understood by developing one factor that really considered in the success of many organizations – leadership and teamwork. The idea of teamwork and its promotion is vital in coping up with some cases of emergencies occurring in high risk and vulnerable population samples (Hutchison & Quartaro, 1993). In a study conducted in Uganda, leadership and teamwork promotion is important (Anvango et al 1997). After the study, there is a need to further develop the leadership and management skills of all the members of the healthcare community. The promotion of teamwork aims for continuous improvement through inclusive cooperation and involvement of frontline workers, systematic analysis of problems and data collection, and subsequent modification of hospital structures and processes. This is evident in the research conducted by Lebrasseur (2002) and colleagues in terms of implementation of transactional leadership and continuous quality improvement in hospitals in Canada. Further, in some studies, alternative structures in leadership such as program management (Morris et al 1994) and patient-focused care (Mang 1995) are more client-centered and teamwork oriented. The vast literature accounts of leadership in the healthcare practice traces back from its implementation as well as the styles utilized.
According to Gibson and Marcoulides (1995), leadership models that differentiate that of the U.S. have often found support in countries that are thought to be dissimilar to the U.S. in terms of cultural values. For example, Misumi (1985) demonstrated that although the Japanese are thought to be quite dissimilar to Americans in terms of cultural values, leaders in Japan appear to use an array of leadership styles (both task-oriented/autocratic and relationship-oriented/participative) in a manner similar to leaders in the United States. In addition, American leadership models have sometimes been rejected in countries that are thought to be similar to the U.S. (Smith and Peterson, 1988). For example, Bryman et al. (1987) demonstrated that although Great Britain and the U.S. share many cultural values, leaders in Great Britain (unlike Americans) focused almost exclusively on relationship-oriented, democratic leadership styles.
Dorfman and group (1997) conducted their study on the leadership in Western and Asian countries where results state that there are commonalities and differences that affect the overall effectiveness of leadership processes particularly involving various cultures. Further, Jenkins (2004) argued that Western leadership styles like the one utilized in the U.S. may not necessarily bring corporate success in Asia. This fact should be considered by Western business schools. Most people in the West sometimes refer to an Asian leadership style yet there is no single model that is presented. In Japan, Jenkins (2004) observed a superficial look that a consensus-driven leadership style seems to govern. For Jenkins, there is a great amount of undiscovered knowledge on leadership particularly in Asian societies. He specified one fundamental principle that applies in Asia and elsewhere – leadership is not one size fits all (p. 12). Thus, the need to improve and work into the development of leadership skills is a must.
Similarly, Chan (2004) posed a challenging question: Is there such a thing as an Asian, as opposed to a Western, style of leadership? She answered it with the fact that Asian leadership styles including that of Japan are changing. Taka and Foglia (1994) evaluated the ethical aspects of “Japanese leadership style”. They described the three characteristics of the Japanese Leadership Style (JLS) namely: self-realization, appreciation of diverse abilities, and trust in others, which have both positive and negative ethical implications. From these characteristics, the authors associated it to the perspective of U.S. corporations. In application, the premise of the research is reflected to the idea that both the American and Japanese business communities, by analyzing their own ethical issues and leadership styles, can learn from each other. The study of Kustin and Jones (1995, p. 11-15) looked unto the influence of corporate headquarters on leadership styles in Japanese and U.S. subsidiary companies. Results state that US subsidiaries are found to be insignificantly influenced by their parent companies and to practise a professional style of leadership. However, Japanese subsidiaries are found to be significantly influenced by overseas parent companies and to practice a corporate style of leadership (when the CEO is Japan-educated) and a professional style of leadership (when the CEO is US-educated). These findings reinforce the perceived link between leadership style and cultural upbringing and education.
In general, the literature of leadership styles in Japan and U.S. is extensive. Conducting this literature review provides background information on the subject of this research. With the identified research studies, this research activity is directed to the revalidation of such findings as applied in two specified countries. As most studies are conducted years before, this study will mainly provide new body of information and applied to a case study of a contemporary business organization.
References
Allen, RS, Helms, MM, Takeda, MB, White, CS, & White, C 2006, “A Comparison of Competitive Strategies in Japan and the United States,” SAM Advanced Management Journal, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 24+.
Anyango, H, Ziegler, HD & Ziegler, PB 1997, “The Need for Leadership and
Management Training for Community Nurses: Results of a Ugandan District Health Nurse Survey,” Journal of Community Health Nursing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 119-129.
Bass, BM 1985, Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York.
Berson, Y & Linton, JD 2005, “An Examination of the Relationships between Leadership Style, Quality, and Employee Satisfaction in R&D versus Administrative Environments,” R&D Management, vol. 35, no. 1 (January), pp. 51-60.
Bohn, J 2002, “The relationship of perceived leadership behaviors to organizational efficacy,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 9, no. 2. Retrieved September 2007 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2283/is_200209/ai_n6491175
Bryman, A, Bresnen, M, Ford, J, Beardsworth, A & Keil, T 1987, “Leader Orientation and Organizational Transience: An Investigation Using Fielder's LPC Scale,” Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 60, pp. 13-20.
Chan, C 2004, “Is there such a thing as an Asian, as opposed to a Western, style of leadership?” Leadership in Action, vol. 24, no. 5 (November-December), p. 13. Retrieved September 2007 from http://www.cdl.rutgers.edu/e-leadership/pdf/Asian_&_Western_Leadership.pdf
DeVito, JA 1999, Essentials of human communication, 3rd edition, Longman, New York.
Dorfman, PW, Howell, JP, Hibino, S, Lee, JK, Tate, U & Bautista, A 1997, “Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 3 (Autumn), pp. 233-274. cited in
Dowling, PJ & Nagel, TW 1986, “Nationality and Work Attitudes: A Study of Australian and American Business Majors,” Journal of Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 121-128.
Douglas, M & Douglas, J 1989, “Institutions of the Third Kind: British and Swedish Labour Markets Compared,” Journal of General Management, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 35-52.
Drucker, PF 1995, The practice of management, Heinmann, UK.
Flamholtz, EG 1986, How to Make the Transition From Entrepreneurship to a Professional Managed Firm, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Howard, WC 2005, “Leadership: Four Styles,” Education, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 384+.
Heller, FA & Wilpert, B 1982, Competence and Power in Managerial Decision-making, Wiley, Chichester.
Hofstede, G 1980, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G & Bond, MH 1988, “The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth,” Organizational Dynamics, Spring issue, pp. 4-21.
Huffman, K & Piggrem, G 2003, Psychology in Action: Active Learning Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Hughes, RL, Ginnett, RC, & Curphy, GC 1999, Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience, 3rd edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gibson, CB & Marcoulides, GA 1995, “The Invariance of Leadership Styles across Four Countries,” Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 7, pp. 45-50.
Gill, R, Levine, N & Pitt, DC 1998, “Leadership and Organizations for the New Millennium,” Journal of Leadership Studies, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 46.
Hutchison, RR & Quartaro, EG 1993, “Training Imperatives for Volunteers Caring for High-Risk, Vulnerable Populations,” Journal of Community Health Nursing, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 87.
Jenkins, M 2004, “A Question of Leadership,” Leadership in Action, vol. 24, no. 5 (November-December), p. 12. Retrieved September 2007 from http://www.cdl.rutgers.edu/e-leadership/pdf/Asian_&_Western_Leadership.pdf
Jenner, SR 1982, "Analyzing Cultural Stereotypes in Multinational Business: United States and Australia," Journal of Management Studies, vol. 19, pp. 307-325.
Katz, D & Kahn, RL 1978, The social psychology of organizations, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Kotter, JP & Heskett, JL 1992, Corporate culture and performance, The Free Press, New York.
Kouzes, JM & Posner BS 2002, The Leader Challenge, Third Edition, Jossey Bass Wiley, San Francisco.
Kustin, R & Jones, R 1995 “The influence of corporate headquarters on leadership styles in Japanese and US subsidiary companies,” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 11 - 15
Lanza, ML 1997, “Power and Leadership in Psychiatric Nursing: Directions for the Next Century,” Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 5-10.
Lebrasseur, R, Ojha, A & Whissell, R 2002, “Organisational Learning, Transformational Leadership and Implementation of Continuous Quality Improvement in Canadian Hospitals,” Australian Journal of Management, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 141-145.
Lewin, K, Lippit, R & White, RK 1939, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 10, pp. 271-99.
Mang, A 1995, “Implementation strategies of patient-focused care,” Hospital & Health Services Administration, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 426-35.
Misumi, J 1985, The Behavioral Science of Leadership, edited by M.F. Peterson, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Michigan.
Morris, K, Stuart, N, Monaghan, B & Alton, L 1994, “An evaluation of program management: The West Park Hospital experience,” Healthcare Management FORUM, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 29-37.
Nadler, DA & Tushman, ML 1989, “Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change,” California Management Review, vol. 32, pp. 77-97.
Newstrom, JW & Davis, K (Ed.) 1993, Organizational Behavior - Human Behavior at Work, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Osborn, S & Motley, M 1999, Improving communication, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Reese, DJ & Sontag, M 2001, “Successful Interprofessional Collaboration on the Hospice Team,” Health and Social Work, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 167.
Schriesheim, CA 1982, “The Great High Consideration - High Initiating Structure Leadership Myth: Evidence on its Generalizability," The Journal of Social Psychology, April, pp. 221-228. Accessed http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html
Smith, PB & Peterson, MF 1988, Leadership, Organization, and Culture, Sage, Newbury Park.
Stevens, M 2001, Extreme Management, Warner Books, USA.
Taka, I & Foglia, WD 1994 “Ethical aspects of “Japanese leadership style”,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 13, no. 2 (February). Accessed http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7u7h0g1x0711664/
Tesone, D 2000, “Leadership and Motivating Missions: A Model for Organizations from Science Literature,” Journal of Leadership Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 60.
Tichy, N & Cohen, E 1997, The leadership engine, Harper Business, New York.
Zemke, R 1988, “Scandinavian Management: A Look at Our Future?” Management Review, July issue, pp. 44-48.
