You are on page 1of 25

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? By Joseph Aluya, D.B.A Ossian Garraway, D.B.

Big data - the business perspective: During the first half of the twentieth century, companies revived the 1940's strategy pioneered by Robert Mc Namara. Under this strategy, Mc Namara and his colleagues applied statistical techniques to large databases, such as those of the US Department of Defense and the Ford Motor company to gain the insights necessary to improve organizational efficiency and performance (Edwards, 2013). These companies began applying sophisticated analytical techniques to large datasets to transform pertinent information subject to a reasonable balance between relevance and particularity. The practice led to the term "Big Data" to describe when the data available exceeded the capacity of the prevailing technologies. Effectively, big data invoked the totality of structured and unstructured data sources (Gruenspecht, 2011; Berg, 2012; Gobble, 2013). Many of the refined techniques were steeped in academic disciplines like climate science, economics, genetics, astrophysics, finance, and engineering all of which were used to facilitate problem solving by providing the appropriate lenses with which to view the complexities surrounding problems (Gadney, 2010). When applied, such techniques promoted a data-driven exploratory approach over a theory-driven hypothesis testing approach (Press, 2013; Brill, 1999; Tukey, 1977). Ultimately, the power of big data depended on how humans used it to find solutions. The volume, variety and velocity of the data available to modern organizations have compelled management to develop viable information governance (IG) programs internally. The benefits from such programs have included: (a) rendering a clearer perspective as to the content of archived data; (b) lowering business risks due to non-compliance; (c) reducing the time and expense of information discovery; and (d) reducing the storage costs of archiving information. Additionally, recent analyst estimates have shown that 80% of the data available was in an unstructured form generated from an increasing variety of sources like, mobile data, Facebook, twitter, blogs and emails; of which 70% might have lost value after 90 days. The major challenges confronting IG have included highlighting data of type business risk; finding, retaining and profiting from invaluable data; and eliminating the instances of irrelevant, redundant, and useless data. Companies that have formed proactive IG programs have been incorporating predictive coding technologies with subject matter experts to identify, tag, and

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? review workflow information in areas like data retention and disposition, data archiving, data remediation, file transfers, intellectual property, classified information, data security and fraud (Leigh, 2013).

While 21st century enterprises have been discovering ways to use data to gain more business value, unifying intuition with insights from data through analytics has turned out to be an effective growth strategy. For instance, the research marketing firm Acxiom in Britain has been applying analytics to help clients to assess returns on investment from the different channels of an advertising campaign in real time. This use of real-time data considered the short life span of the social media content harvested; as well as the practice of extracting contextual data to elucidate the possible reasons and procedures surrounding the data available (Bartram, 2013). Companies have discovered that organizational readiness was a significant part of the big data equation and have had to redefine business rules, thus affecting their chain of command operations. Previously, the marketing mantra had been to market the right product on time, and at the right price. Nonetheless, the example of the InterContinental Hotels Group (IHC) showed professionals operating in the current hospitality industry, have had to adjust their revenue management approaches as a result of the big data analytics surge in the industry. Kelly (2013) quoted Craig Eister IHC's Vice President of Revenue Management stating that "We're selling a view or the fact that the room is not near an elevator. The complexity around inventory is changing."(para. 5). Likewise, Eister noted the old approach to segmentation like grouping customers according to business or leisure classes no longer applied (Kelly, 2013). With respect to the competitive advantage, the literature has noted the duplicitous nature of this phenomenon in that competitors could in fact gain the advantage by applying analytics to big data against the non-participating firms. For example, Peoples Express Airlines was a highly successful and rapidly growing airline. The airline ceased to operate as a going concern in less than three months because it could not react to what the CEO called "sophisticated computer programs" that undercut the company's prices. The lesson learned from this case was that even though people skills, visioning, and leadership continued to be important; executives who overlooked the advantages of applying analytics to big data could find their businesses with no answer to the so called "sophisticated computer programs". In addition, It may be plausible to expect senior executives to be constantly in tuned with the external environment and to look for any technologies such as leading-edge analytics, whose practice could be a threat to the firm; and to suppose that those executives who continued to rely on instinct for decisionmaking will find it increasingly difficult to accept the latest concepts and innovations developing from practices like the combination of analytics and big data. Accordingly, it would be advisable to design any new business processes with an eye towards instrumentation (Bell, 2008).

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?

In the market place, internal and external environments have been driven by the churning of technologies and human perspectives, all of which changed over time. As a result, organizations have been constantly faced with the challenge of having to adjust for competitiveness. A part of this adjustment was to discover inefficiencies and inadequacies in the ever-changing enterprise solution sets while making the necessary changes. Installing attachment modules has been one of the solution paths modern organizations have chosen to follow. With the post 20th century trend going towards social media, mobile tools and the big data explosion, most of the modules have been pointing in the direction of business analytics and collaboration. To remain competitive, the need to be proactive has demanded that modern enterprises had to rely on real-time data to assess opportunities, and guide new product development improvements and initiatives. Analytic and collaborative attachments from vendors like IBM's Cognos and Statistical Analysis System (SAS) have provided frameworks to support the entire decisionmaking process, drive greater efficiencies, manage costs and pinpoint growth opportunities. Such attachments worked well in healthcare, manufacturing and financial environments (Fretty, 2008). In an effort to compress processing time, business analytic tools have been using large in-memory layers at the middleware level of their platforms to reduce the number of server transactions between applications. As a result in the banking sector, financial institutions have been implementing in-memory and visualization tools to boost the efficiency of their business analytic processes, thereby allowing employees more time to explore the data available (Quittner, 2012). Post 20th century, enterprises have used a data-driven approach to manage a growing volume of targeted services, improve performance, and reduce risks. Such companies implemented tailored programs to store collect manage and analyze high volume datasets from a growing variety of data sources to improve their insight quotient for better decision making. For example in the financial industry, the applicable financial sources of data have included stock prices, transaction records, currency trades, derivative trades, high-volume trades, unstructured information and texts. Primarily, modern businesses have used social media and the internet to measure consumers confidence and sentiments. Analytic techniques applied to the ensuing massive data sets has helped the firm to better understand and respond to threats by amassing a more comprehensive picture of its susceptibility to systematic risks. Such firms have been making the adjustments to get the necessary resources to manage the application of sophisticated statistical techniques in securities regulation, portfolio management, proprietary trading, risk management and financial consulting. On the other hand, the failure to keep pace with the necessary data-driven technologies has put some industries at a disadvantage. For example, in the banking industry, delayed implementation of big data solutions has had a negative impact on credit and operational risk assessment because increasing the lag times due to untimely implementation have led to the erroneous identification of statistical outliers. In addition, many banks have been using out-moded analytic techniques such as the Online

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?

Analytical Processing tool (OLAP), which has been shown to have data granularity issues on the analysis of structured data (Bielski, 2006; Nong, 2003). Ever since the global recession in 2008, the traditional ways of building commercial value have been effectively faltering. Consequently, companies have been looking for new dimensions to build value in areas like talent development, intellectual property and supplier/customer relationships. With the subsequent explosion of big data, companies have been mining the data available, using the more efficient blend of cloud technology, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) technology, business analytics, data stewardship and data standardization to develop new ways to measure resource value with respect to talent retention incentives. For example, some companies have been using the estimates on housing starts to forecast the location of future talent given the demand for specific companies skills (Anonymous, 2012). One of the objectives of business analytics has been to provide wider contexts in which to derive insights from the mixed data. Given the relevant insights extracted from the mixed data on hand, decision makers have used these insights to develop predictive analytics. Nonetheless, there has been a need to change the mind-set in management and financial accounting to spawn the necessary transformation to optimize the use of big data. This transformation has enhanced the effectiveness of many professionals in their contributions to corporate leaders and planners. As a result, modern enterprises like Deloitte LLP, PeopleSoft and Lawson have turned to Human Resource Technologies (HRT) to understand how humans work by gaining insight into the relationship drivers between resource talent streams and the firms revenue stream. By the same token, these companies used regression analysis to resolve to those predictions that have provided leaders with different lenses through which to assess the organizational perspectives. For example in risk management, where strategic risks have been known to change into operational risks, Joachim (2012) claimed, BP's Gulf of Mexico catastrophe, demonstrate how strategic decisions in the boardroom led to a culture of sacrificing safety standards in pursuit of bottom-line improvements, and ending in disaster. In this case, what started as a strategic risk became an operational risk. (para. 11). In the public sector, the U.S. government has been underwriting ventures that applied sophisticated analytic techniques to massive data sets, in an effort to (a) boost efficiency forecasts coming from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); (b) lower incidences of tax fraud from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and (c) reduce a variety of fraudulent practices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. At HUD, the government partnered with the business consultancy firm Consolidated Analysis Centers, Inc. (CACI) and effectively predicted housing subsidies at the unit level, given area demographics and the tenants' income type. At the IRS, tax service professionals have been using a machine learning program to expand the statistical power of the audit samples for the purposes of reducing audit costs. At the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, analysts used seven

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? years of settled claims to train a machine learning application to flag fraudsters with 78% accuracy and fraud amounts as low as $4000. However, the government has made the continued funding of the program contingent upon the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' ability to produce more transparency with respect to the performance metrics being used by the predictive analytics program for assessment purposes (Tucker, 2013).

Big data and the business model: Ever since the 1950s, the popularity of the combination of the firm's revenue source identification, customer base identification, product identification and financing details, as the overall strategy to optimize operational profits, has grown substantially in relation to the decreasing cost and growing ubiquity of technology. Called the business model, this combination has had its foundation steeped in the depths of transaction cost economics; and has evolved to an established strategic component used to unify management and information systems. Essentially, business models have been used to characterize the modus operandi of a business in terms of (a) delivering value to the customer, (b) attracting customers to pay for value, and (c) transforming those payments into profit (Teece, 2010). To some extent, it was proposed the type of legal rights for sale has been fundamental to the model's typical commercial offering. Among these rights was the sale of: (a) the ownership of an asset, (b) the use of an asset, and (c) the potential matching of the asset. Weill, Malone, DUrso, Herman and Woerner (2005) have identified four basic business models as derivatives of these legal rights. The models were the creator, the distributor, the landlord, and the broker. Concomitant with the business models were 16 classic exemplars that included the manufacturer, the entrepreneur, wholesaler-retailer, financial trader, and several landlord and broker archetypes. Weill et al. (2005) noted that business models based on the sale of the use of the asset were more profitable than those based on the sale of ownership of the asset. Modern enterprises have used analytics to extract useful, managerial insights from big data that have resulted in a sustained competitive advantage. When integrated into the decisionmaking process of a firm, analytics has been credited with improving the quality of business decisions. There have been increased instances when business analytics has enriched managers' roles in those situations where they were constantly faced with making an excessive amount of decisions on a daily basis when using the analytical tools pertinent to personal loan approval systems, airline and hotel pricing systems, as well as supply chain optimizers. Effectively, managers have become even more empowered when their roles evolved from an operational level to a decision-making one; thus making the human a supervisor of a complex set of operations. Bell (2008) stated that the most promising outcome from the combination of analytics and big data has been the spawning of new business models. Such models have made

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? it easy for firms to segment markets based on the needs of the individual consumer thereby creating more opportunities for niche businesses.

The proliferation of falling prices and increased functionalities in technology has made it easier for the modern firm to leverage the business model and offer greater value to its customer base. For instance in the case of Apple's iTunes software and website, the success of the site has depended on the morphing of its service offerings from selling music to offering the customer more choice in its product delivery, by using a business model that allowed each of the choices to reinforce one another (Osterwalder, Pigneur & Tucci, 2005). Post 20th century, technology has been the key driver in shaping the fit and type of business models used. In reality, business models have been employed mainly to enhance the technology's capability to maximize the firm's customer outreach at minimal cost. Subsequently, the business model has become the post hoc representation of organizational structural change in the pursuit of the next opportunity (Bock & Bock, 2011, 2012). At the taxonomic level, Bonchek and Choudary (2013) have identified the shift in firms moving away from the traditional pipe business model towards the platform business model since the surge of big data has eroded the traditional benefits of linearity. In the past, pipe business models have operated on the premise of creating value up stream and consuming it downstream. Currently, platform business models have embraced the premise of using a framework that would facilitate trade by coordinating producers with consumers. Such coordination has been using data analytics to improve the stickiness of the framework. In addition, the onset of new technologies has invaded the business model space by making their characteristics fundamental to the business model's design (Chen, 2009).

Big data and deft leadership: Historically, information was the adhesive force that bound the firm's hierarchy, value chain, and supply chain. Information was the connection between the firm's brand marketing, development, manufacturing capabilities, and customer base. In the 21st century, companies have leveraged the internet to the extent that the competitive edge enjoyed from the privileged access to information has dwindled rapidly, since information has been dispersed at every node in the network. As a consequence, the growing ubiquity of information aided by the big data phenomenon has decentralized leadership authority and removed many of the critical boundaries needed to retain traditional organizational structures (i.e. the hierarchy). Whereas wealth in the 20th century was essentially the outcome of business leaders' focus on efficiency and productivity, wealth in the 21st century has been perceived to engender the added dimension of skillfully leveraging information from large data sets to improve economic relationships. In search of higher levels of innovation, modern corporate leaders have been

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?

nudged to incorporate the deft management of relationships to their skill sets. For instance in companies like eBay and Dell Computers, leaders have been exploiting physical, digital and human networks to create new value by fostering innovative methods of communication and collaboration. Assisted by the internet and the enthrallment of big data, such leaders have managed to increase the quality and quantity of their relationships exponentially. Moreover, this modern practice of relationship-building has brought about certain attributes of deftness to leadership which included the abilities to: (a) distinguish and create those relationships that maximized economic value; (b) sculpt and leverage new linkages of relationships and interactions to convert business models into flourishing enterprises; and (c) focus on core competencies while increasing communication and collaboration with other firms (Hargrove, 2001). In the past, economic downturns have usually corresponded with the surge of interest in leadership, hinting at the assumption that positive leadership might rebuff the negative effects of a downturn. With respect to the followership, the alpha tails of the performance distribution have correlated to those personality traits linked to overrating the importance of leadership. The literature has shown the perceived effectiveness of leadership varied with individual belief as a function of the internal locus of control. In other words, those individuals who exhibited strong internal loci of control were more likely to exaggerate the effects of leadership (Meindl, 1990; Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985; Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Moreover, it was asserted the more inclined an individual was to entertain heroic images of leaders, the more likely he or she was, to perceive leaders as possessing transformational qualities. Leveraging the notion of charisma, has required the alternative view that charisma was a process of social contamination attributed to those social realities created by and shared among followers. Subsequently, by capitalizing on the insights gleaned from big data analytics, deft business leaders have been able to exploit those cues that have exposed social despair within the interaction of the followership, by implementing various frames of collaboration and communication. For example, under certain circumstances, consumers might be aroused to act on, or respond to those elements of stress caused by increasing volatility in the marketplace. Such actions made consumers as a group, more susceptible to the allure of charismatic leadership, which has often resulted in those collective reactions attributed to being engrossed in the "moment" (Chemers, 1997). In business, the objective of a deft leader's communicative and collaborative style has been to adroitly implement a vision that would encourage constant managerial support given the appropriate alignment between the resources available and the trajectory of the vision. Essentially, the deft leader should be skilled, nimble and flexible at identifying those cues that allow for modulating the pathways of negotiation by making competent situational assessments on the ground; and leveraging the thought processes of others to adjust his or her

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?

position for the next successful move (Baldoni, 2010). With respect to successful innovation, corporate leaders have skillfully leveraged their collaborative skills by removing organizational silos. Based on the assumption that every human resource had a valuable contribution to advance the enterprise's innovative process, such leaders have been adept at engineering the full participative and methodical involvement of talent at every level of the organization. For instance, Johnston Jr. and Bate (2013), quoted Procter and Gamble's CEO A.G. Lafley that Innovation is all about connections, so we get everyone we can involved. To succeed, companies need to see innovation not as something special that only special people can do, but as something that can become routine and methodical, taking advantage of the capabilities of ordinary people, especially those deemed by Peter Drucker as knowledge workers. Every day, more P&Gers are involved in innovation (p. 275). Subsequently, in the innovative space, one might suggest corporate leaders who were adept at collaboration could straighten the balance of privilege to include more diversity and participation to achieve or maintain the competitive advantage. Leadership has generally influenced how businesses adapt to architectural and modular changes from big data streaming into organizations. Various leadership styles have influenced how the architectural machine of incremental or modular changes has led to disruptive technologies. Markedly, irrespective of the type of leadership deployed, applying sophisticated analytic techniques to big data could soundly provide a logical, objective, or rational conclusion to disrupt the marketplace. For example, leadership in Apple Corporation typically has added and changed its core components in an attempt to disrupt the technological terrain. Apple's changes apparently have been based on continuous architectural designs to incrementally improve and disrupt its existing technologies. On the back hand, leaders in organizations such as Amazon have used different business models or machine platforms to kindle and transform the publishing industry. Google used smart phones to power cars. Twitter and Facebook shares have been waxing stronger due to radical business models. Using modular platform changes to its business model, Android has moved from the incremental change of smart phones, to phone powered cars, to complex home electronics and phone powered sophisticated schemes. Blackberry was on the auction block. Barnes and Noble's disengagement from Nook brought its parent company to the abyss of bankruptcy, Nokia sold to Microsoft due to it s leaders failure to leverage big data, even though it had become glaringly obvious that the marketplace was shifting(Choudary, 2013; Weill et al, 2005). Modular changes to radical platforms were disruptive to technologies. These modular changes were historically regarded as the creative destruction as advocated by Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. An erudite and witty economic thinker, in his typology, he indicated the semi-perennial gale and objective of creative destructiveness was the idyllic purpose of discarding the old or failing existing technological products and systems (Garrison, Harvey & Napier, 2008;

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?

Greenspan, 2008; Smith, Ward & Schumacher, 1993). Schumpeterian scholars advocated creative destruction and the historical nuances inculcated in the theory remained a pathway to growth in capitalism (Koster, 2012; Perry-Smith, 2006). According to Koster (2012), Creative destruction has helped deft leaders to filter the overwhelming data generated by genomic sequencing and continuous sensors. Likewise, this phenomenon has ensured equal access to resources having to do with the potential of eugenics; the protection of genomic data from authorities and corporations; how and when the exorbitant upfront costs could offset the current fiscal inefficiencies, and prevent the formation of "cyberchondriacs. There was a complementary or competing hypothesis to the Schumpeterian growth theory. Some scholars advocated that Creative destruction destroyed jobs and created massive economic downturns. The literature has noted creative destruction on its own, did not lead to the transactional situational happenstances associated with innovation. Instead, creative destruction was the outcome of a set of processes that propagated innovation (Aghion & Howitt, 2009; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Perry-Smith, 2006; Wallas, 1926). Our gleaned literature and study revealed replete of this theory. A competing hypothesis stated that creativity started with preparation, incubation, insight and verification, and that the entrepreneurial success was intertwined with the combination of intrinsic value and certain supportive forms of "synergistic extrinsic" motivations (Maliranta, 2010). Present-day Schumpeterian scholastic growth theorists espoused that innovations have brought about new business opportunities and eventually created new jobs in the units (plants or firms). In addition, exploiting and implementing these innovative processes have made some of the old units and their technologies obsolete, resulting in job loss (Germmell, Boland & Kolb, 2012; Maliranta, 2010). Generally, the difference between creative destruction and creative innovation was the latter led to the innovative process of creating new disruptive technologies within organizations; while the former spawned the trajectory towards transactional leadership for innovation. For instance, Kodak's failed leadership fell into this category, where online printing, digital and microchips led to its complete demise. Radical platform networks have displaced high cost gatekeepers with meritocratic crowds. YouTube and eBay have flipped the gate-keeping process away from the traditional brick and mortar businesses. Implementing platform business models has disrupted existing technologies and disconnected the intermediating players in these fragmented industries. Open Table rolled out unconnected and unaffiliated restaurants doing business in a profitable manner (Weill et al, 2005). This paper explores how various leaders used big data analytics through transactional situational happenstances (TSH) to disrupt existing technologies. Leaders have made strides by favorably interpreting gleaned information due to profit motivation because of the obscure definition of leadership, the organizationally anchored culture, human dexterity and the bias from the inferences of big data analytics. A closer interest on the differences in leadership styles and its influences on big data analytics have become paramount to understand the disruptive nature of these technologies

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


First, irrespective of the type of leadership deployed in the interpretation of big data analytics, the deft of a leader has helped to transform and disrupt the existing systems. The deft leadership philosophy was the fundamental concept upon which the leaders cleverness, intuitive sense and curiosity led to rational strategic decisions based on the sound knowledge of all the peripheral informative materials gleaned (See the vignette below). Profitability remained the ultimate driver of the deft leadership concept with respect to businesses, organizations, institutions or on a personalized level (Callahan, 2008; Chemers, 1997). In a complementary hypothesis, Yukl (1999 and 2006) pointed out these differences in leadership theories with the commonalities especially among the pioneers who constructed various leadership styles from the ground-up such as Bass (1985) and Burns (1978). Weill, et al. (2005) espoused leadership in organizations must define the business model or concept clearly, stating it elegantly, and in a way that was intuitively sensible. Second, without leaders adapting to the analytics from the gleaned datasets and quickly making the necessary architectural and modular changes, the original concepts of leadership could become extinct. Pivotal to this world view, was the human-based knowledge of continuous learning as advocated by Dr. Deming (Walton, 1986). Third, continuous learning, continuous improvement, continuous design of business models and continuous radical modular changes have been key to a business' sustainability in the field of disruptive technologies; be it from analytical datasets or from business model predictabilities. Hence, new startup business models in places like Silicon Valley California have been usurping and competing with the historical unchangeable anchored brick and mortar businesses (Choudary, 2013). As business models have inconspicuously become the disruptive technologies within Information Communication Technology (ICT), innovative technologies, big data analytics has been used for predicting trends to the degree that these transforming technologies have become core to the organizational strategy. According to Weill et al. (2005) firms might have multiple revenue streams without the necessary inferences to multiple business models. Subsequently, what has mattered has been the transformation of such business models. In addition, organizational leaders have been connected to business model design as a nucleus of the business to be used in predicting future trends. Likewise, deft leadership has used big data analytics as the basis for addressing disruptive technologies within the global terrain. In predicting future trends, leaders in organizations have been designing business models around the products and services the firm sold to customers. In other words, the design of such models assumed that in presentism, the future was reminiscent of the past. Nonetheless, deft leadership in the modern era has often been attributed to those successful technocratic leaders who have managed to navigate the global economy by leveraging the insights gleaned from big data. In some instances, the leadership of companies like, the Samsung Corporation, and the Apple Corporation has managed to forge disruptive change as a result of

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? implementing these insights (Junod, 2011; Isaacson, 2011; Adamson, 2013; Fields, Blake & Travers, 2008).


Dmitry (2007) contradicted Burns and Bass theories regarding transactional or transformational paradigms of these deft leadership styles. Dmitrys contradiction stemmed from the differences rather than the commonalities between the theories. For instance, Burns theories on leadership emanated from political conceptualization while Bass theories were operational from the military standpoint. Political conceptualization has indicated collective and democratic leadership styles. Military or operational theories have been referred to as an authoritarian or transactional leadership style. However, the underlying differences were the ways in which these leaders used the coalesced information from big data to their organization's advantage in the market place. As advocated by scholars, core to the business model was the goods or services sold; whether or not the economic value attached to the analytics remained profitable (Brewer, Gyan and Clayton, 1999). Undeniably, how deft leadership applied the analytics coalesced from these datasets to gain the comparative advantage over competitors has been of paramount importance. Strategically, irrespective of the type of leadership style advocated, internally, the analytics from the datasets if properly used could remove the bottleneck which would open an effective conduit in disseminating information within organizational hierarchies, industries, and institutions. To redact, Porter (2001) emphasized that clearing the clog or bottleneck in businesses has helped leaders to understand that the revenue generating arm of business models was substantially different from the creation of economic value. This information when clearly disseminated has helped leaders to make effective decisions in an efficient manner. According to Koster (2012), Creative destruction has helped deft leaders to filter the overwhelming data generated by genomic sequencing and continuous sensors. Likewise, the phenomenon has ensured equal access to resources having to do with the potential of eugenics; the protection of genomic data from authorities and corporations; how and when the exorbitant upfront costs could offset the current fiscal inefficiencies, and prevent the formation of "cyberchondriacs. The effectiveness of using a political or a military style of leadership has depended on the temperament and the situation within the environment. The foundation arising from the transactional situational happenstances on the diffusion of innovation and knowledge in the environment has suddenly become relevant to the business model. For instance, the anchored culture within the organization could impede and resist disruptive technologies as in the case of Nokia's acquisition by Microsoft for 7.3 billion US dollars. The unchangeable characteristics of an organization have remained critical to the sustainability or disruptiveness to the existing technologies. A leaders temperament might also adversely affect the risks associated with the firm's profit or loss. These naturally uninhibited actions have reflected how subordinates within organizations would accept the leader (Aluya, 2009, 2010 and 2013).

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


Extrapolating historically, a modular change could be traced back after World War II, when leaders used transistor technologies that have since become extinct and ineffective. Concordantly, big data analytics helped to upscale the existing technologies from transistors to the present cloud and planetary computing technologies. Based on the leaders curiosity, knowledge and continuous learning, these well-calculated risks have resulted in adapting to these new innovative disruptive technologies (Garrison, Harvey and Napier, 2008). This paper explains the commonalities, the fundamental underpinning differences and the divergent theories from various leadership styles; as well as how these styles were used to create, envision, exploit and implement valuable information from big data analytics to enhance organizational performance. Within this context, we shall examine how big data analytics should be used to shape and determine the effectiveness of leaders. Effective and efficient leadership styles have been derived from the culture, and those intrinsic values extracted from interpreting big data have become core to the disrupting technologies. Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership styles will be examined from the prism of leaders progressively using analytics to position the organization for competitive vim. Historical positioning or contra-positioning of transformational leadership brought about by big data will be critically examined as well. Transformational leadership and different perspectives: Within the prism of understanding transformational leaders and the role of big data analytics, the ground-up theory of transformational leadership will be narrated. Markedly, Bass (1985) developed an empirical study of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The empirical study measured the four-Is (a) idealized influence-Charismatic, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individual consideration. Bass (1997) stated that transformational leaders are intellectually stimulating, have faith in their subordinates, and they are compassionate (pp. 218-220). Bass theory has since cascaded into scholarly discourse and cameos for dissertations. For instance, in reference to Bass theorie s, Drucker and Peters (2002) described transformational leaders as leaders who get things done through others. Such leaders have been known to bring the desired mix of pragmatism and vision to the role of a transformational leader. Interestingly, transformational leaders have leveraged big data analytics using a combination of incremental and radical approaches to change the organization's status quo at the architectural and modular levels. For example, Apple Corporation currently has moved from a radical to an incremental change with respect to producing its technological components to the iPhone, by constantly releasing new products to the market place. Respectfully, the disruption in technologies has always shifted in favor of Apple. In another spectrum, the introduction of Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn to the internet has completely radicalized their modular changes that resulted in disruptiveness to the existing technologies (Garrison, Harvey and Napier, 2008).

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


Deft leaders in the late 20th century have implemented analytic toolkits to exploit the internal and external data available in an effort to stimulate and prepare subordinates for the next challenge. Leaders have also used germinal historical metaphors to inspire and stimulate neophytes and followers by promoting the need for innovation in response to technological changes triggered by transactional situational circumstances (TSH). Smart technologies in the telecommunications and information spaces have profoundly disrupted the industrial standard. The analytics gleaned from large datasets has now become the benchmark for interpreting and understanding leadership within the context of effectiveness and information dissemination (Aluya, 2013). Conversely, Burns (2003) described Bass and his followers as depending heavily on management oriented styles (p.10). Burns relied more on a flexible approach to deft leadership. Burns contentiously proposed that the transformational leadership approach could be viewed as appropriate in certain situations - situational leadership. If scholars agreed to Burns construct, then the situational leadership style would conjecturally trump the transformational leadership style (Dmitry, 2007; Yukl, 2006). TSH, changes in the business model and data analytics have expeditiously helped to determine whether or not the amplitude of transformational leadership styles remain appropriate. Scholars found commonalities or differences in Bass (1985, 1996 and 1997) and Burns (1978, 2002, 2003 and 2006) deft leadership styles (Erickson, Shaw and Agade, 2007). Other scholars harbored crotchetiness to Bass and Burns theories (Keeley, 1995; Mckendall, 1993; Snyder, 1987; White and Wooten, 1986). Innovation diffusion scholars have constructively remained neutral to Bass and Burns theories (Dmitry, 2007; Yukl et al, 2005; Yukl, 2006). Without architectural, modular, and TSH as an enabler to mitigate potential systematic consequences, leaders in organizations will find information from analytics machines degraded or distorted from effectively reaching strategic and tactical planners. Organizations that embraced transactional leadership styles without any knowledge based on innovative technologies could find it difficult to effectively filter or distill informational materials from visionary leaders to subordinates. Distilling and filtering machine based informational materials from leaders to subordinates could be particularly difficult with transactional leadership styles. Typically, Amazon fell into this category. Amazon's business model told the story of its products. Amazon's story was that of generating revenue from its intrinsic economic value for its stakeholders. In a competing hypothesis, Porter (2001) described the emphasis in business models on generating revenues to be different from economic value. In contrast, Magretta (2002) purported that a business model tells a story about the economic value that encompasses the profitability of the business. Transformational leaders or the entrepreneurs of a business should focus on nuances of business models and how they might differ from the competition. Interestingly within organizations, this leadership style has often been dithering.

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? Alternatively, transformational leaders disseminating informative materials gleaned through the various stages of the analytics process have sustained or affected the overall profit of the organization.


Profit motives: Incremental or radical changes have been based on the knowledge of leaders using analytics from large datasets to adversely cultivate profit, and disrupt existing technologies via transformational deft leadership styles. Smart technologies with embedded analytics have congruently illustrated how transformational leaders who usually plan six months to a year to maximize profit and earn bonuses; have now been disrupted and replaced. Not leveraging the information gleaned from big data, not understanding the shifting environment, not having strong knowledge of when to incrementally or radically navigate change, has become the Achilles' heel amongst the CEO in the foreground. In most cases, the leaders as chief executive officers have been replaced for not understanding, adapting, or being flexible enough to relate to the global economic sea change. Take the case of the former appointed CEO of Nokia, Stephen Elop. Elop stated, Some of our most recent product launches illustrate that we have the talent, the capacity to innovate, and the resources necessary to lead through this period of disruption (Nokia Corporation, 2010a). Fascinatingly, despite Stephen Elop being regarded by some scholars as one of the most interoperable persons, his leadership failed to adapt to the extremely ambiguous modular or radical situations that disrupted the existing technologies. Hence, Elop led Nokia into the hands of Microsoft for acquisition (Versace, 2013; Swisher, 2013). Swisher (2013) stated that Stephen Elop unfortunately became the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who led the company into the hands of Microsoft. Markedly, many scholarly critics contra-posed how Elop made so many gaffes by not understanding the changing environment (TSH). No need to be ad hominem about his character. Stephen Elop was appointed the CEO on September 21, 2010, a day after the former CEO Ollila-Pekka Kallasvuo resigned (Versace, 2013; Aluya, 2013; Nokia Corporation, 2010). Elop however, refused to leverage big data analytics to change with the shifting sand in the technological environment; hence Nokia went into the enclave of Microsoft. Ultimately, the capacity of a deft transformational leader to anticipate and understand that times have changed has become paramount to organizational goals when maximizing profit. Evidently, the arcane of organizations serendipitously maximizing profit has gone. Crux to this study was the ability of deft transformational leaders to diffuse the insights gleaned from big data through analytics, to anticipate and navigate through the capricious global economy. Eventually these leaders could then predict trends and use them for their competitive vim. Even

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


the iconic Steven Jobs was replaced intermittently despite his distinction for successfully leveraging innovation in the form of Apple's i-technology. Without facing the rigors of modular change with deft dexterity, leaders today would eventually be replaced. Steve Jobs was back again at the helm of Apple, rejuvenated, innovated and led the company's intrinsic value to an unprecedented level using analytics to disrupt existing technologies (Kahney, 2011). On the other hand, Nokia's Stephen Elop was one of those CEOs who failed to navigate the modular disruptive changes brought about by transactional situational circumstances. Rationally, the interpretation of the analytics used to predict trends could affect profit in situations where CEOs failed to leverage big data because of their lack of skills in predictive analytics to shuffle through the dynamic trends in the marketplace. On the contrary, social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter exponentially experienced increases in profit during the global economy recession and recovery periods, all due to the massive datasets that the analytics were used to gauge customers needs and tailor services to this end. Notwithstanding, the inability of Kodak's leadership to use creative destruction to navigate disruptive change led to its eventual demise (Aluya, 2010 and 2013). Kodak's executives missed the critical aspect and path of innovative business modular change. Conjecturally, for example, the replaced CEO of AOL or Nokia corporations could have adapted to a transactional type of leadership by reading the trends in the tea leaves from the analytics to maximize profit during the global economic downturn.

Transactional leadership: Most business models have fallen into the lap of those transactional leaders whose leadership styles are a hybrid of the democratic and the authoritarian. The influence of big data analytics has elucidated the phenomenon in which disruptors have been competing against each other in places like Silicon Valley California. New business models have been usurped by newer ones on a continuous basis. Bass (1985) postulated in the MLQ three components of transactional leadership: (a) contingent reward and active management by exception; (b) passive management by exception; and (c) laissez-faire management which was redefined as the nonleadership component. These leadership styles have affected how organizations used incremental and radical changes to create and disrupt existing technologies. In Bass approach to situational leadership, leaders have always had the capacity to use big data analytics to predict trends in innovation and diffuse them using the stick and carat method as a form of implementation in their organizations. In organizations, passive followers have been cognitively dissonant in embracing, and adapting to disruptive changes in technology. Bass theories, however, encompassed an autocratic approach that delegated and disseminated

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


information in a top-down fashion. Opponents have suggested that Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia, have been patterned on the concept of vertical integration from top to bottom while HP Corporation had a flat, or horizontal approach (Fulmer, 1999; Nickerson and Zenger, 2002; Nye, 2008; Nye and Armitage, 2007; Scott, 2003). Under Bass theories, reward and punishment have been obviously present, thus leading to the adaptation and acceptance of new disruptive technologies. Other social, political implications, ramifications for an organizations inability to explore and leverage an external environment framed by transactional situational happenstances (TSH) were not clarified or inculcated in Bass theories (Garrison, Harvey and Napier, 2008). Burns (1978, 2002, 2003 and 2006) emphasized the transactional approach involved collaboration, synergistic outcomes from leaders interacting with followers drawn closer by social media and other forms of data communication. Burns sought mutual benefits between leaders, followers, political correctness in leadership geared towards good corporate citizenship and social responsibility. Scholars have conclusively suggested that most corporate leadership styles in the United States have been based on transactional rather than transformational archetypes (Friedman, 2005, Scott, 2003). From this prism, pundits have grasped the opportunity to leverage the big data explosion to continuously monitor those seamless shifts that leaders have taken in their positions on the issues of good corporate citizenship and social responsibility. Burns approach also embraced the influence of TSH in disseminating information from leaders to subordinates. Leaders or active followers have always had mutual stakes in adapting to the new innovative disruptive technologies. Significantly, stakeholders have been aware of the benefits, the associated penalties for not adapting, embracing, or changing with the innovative technologies by phalanxes of subordinates. To reiterate, Burns and Bass theories have had commonalities and differences even within the traits approach to leadership in interpreting the analytics from datasets used in predicting trends or disrupting the newly creative technologies. The Traits approach to leadership: Bass (1985, 1997) defined the traits approach to leadership as an effective method of making critical decisions based on leaders abilities, characteristics or personalities. Furthermore, these critical decisions could emanate from those insights gleaned from big data when implementing incremental or modular changes to the organization. Such changes could become the signature of a corporate leadership that might be disruptive to newly created technologies (Nickerson and Zenger, 2002). In contrast, egalitarian leaders have been conjecturally born with the abilities that gear them towards adapting to the highly ambiguous situations with respect to disruptive technologies. These leaders have been described as sensibly intuitive, born with the sense of curiosity and a propensity to quickly innovate or create futuristic unfathomable

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


technologies. Examples of people with these traits were: Steve Jobs of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and Jeffrey Bezos of Amazon who recently conceptualized the idea of using flying drones to deliver freight. Inborn curiosity to see futuristic technology has been cardinal to the success of these CEOs and other entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley currently incubating new innovations that will eventually disrupt current technologies (Choudary, 2013; Versace, 2013; Swisher, 2013; Weill et al, 2005). Toted up, there may be competing hypotheses to this argument when psychoanalyzing these leaders with trait leadership personalities. The traits approach in leadership styles emanated from the cognitivism, effectiveness, and self-confidence through implementing business models to cope with TSH. Contentiously, however, do these traits augment a leaders success? Answers to this question in connection with the influence of big data are full of conundrums. For example, entrepreneurs like Jeffrey Bezos or Steve Jobs might not have necessarily been predisposed to propagate innovative ideas. But they might have the innate quality that makes them exceedingly curious and keenly sensitive to a vision of the future. Leaders with these traits have been categorized as inherently geared toward the successful exploitation and implementation of new technologies in organizations. Scholars also found differences and commonalities in Bass theory on traits approach (Burns, 2003; Erickson, et al., 2007). Conversely, no clinical or empirical study has suggested within these ground-up theories that leadership traits have been inherently preferred contra-posed or juxtaposed to other types of leadership styles in implementing innovative technologies within organizations (Friedman, 2005). The environment, anchored culture mores, and the minions might have decided to select a person to ascend the throne of leadership based on some null hypothetical theories and the skewed insights gleaned to reinforce the status quo. Without schisms, for instance, a person who might have been inherently tinted towards adaptability, with a creative global mindset, curiosity and vigor to the rigor of a highly ambiguous situation could easily be given the scepter and throne in a digitally divided innovative environment. Success could be based on cultural mores, motifs inherited from predecessors in predicting the trends from big data. The predecessors conjecturally should have established track records of success based on known philosophies or anchored cultures that allowed them to adapt to disruptive technologies. Likewise, ethnocentrism within the culture could conjecturally produce a barrage of generational future leaders or fiefdoms that would destroy the concepts of innovation. Within the same stratum, organizational situations or circumstances, however, could also dictate what type of leadership would fit and adapt to a particular situation (Aluya, 2007, 2007a and 2008).

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? Situational leadership:


Situational leaders fortuitously emerged from circumstances, conditions, place, time, and the environment. Burns (2003) succinctly stated that situational leaders examined the objectives and historic causes of leadership. Leapfrogging, insights from big data analytics have been used to repair and improve failed technologies. There has been no other place where this anomaly was more common than in Silicon Valley where failed entrepreneurs have been regarded as hallmarks of success. Idiomatically stated, failure was not failure but regarded as a learning curve to be more creative in the next incubated innovation. For a situational leader to emerge within an organization, the historical trends and etiological instances of the situation might warrant or dictate the emergence of the leader. Analytical trends may not be enough to produce a situational leader. Gauging the situation, envisioning, exploring and adroitly implementing the information gleaned from big data has been the hallmark of a deft situational leader (Versace, 2013; Swisher, 2013). Authoritarianism could be embedded in the enclave of situational leaders modus operandi. Therefore, the situational leaders theoretical description could also be fluid. The leaders emergence might come from subordinates allowing the leader(s) to take over the mantle of leadership due to prevailing circumstances (Aluya, 2013). Circumstances extrapolated from historical idiosyncrasies have been used to rationalize the positions held by leadership in an organization. For example, in the United States, mortgage lenders have leveraged the insights from big data to take advantage of home-owners. Those mortgage-backed securities that became toxic papers were generated from a volume of large datasets, thus leading President Obama to infuse over $850 billion dollars in a financial institutional bailout (Gandel, 2009). The resultant effect of this singular action led to the reversion of recession, which before then, the United States economy was well on its way to a depression greater than the one in 1929. Presently, the United States economy has rebounded, and the unemployment rate was reduced from 11.6 to 7.2 percent in 2013 (Aluya, 2009 and 2010). Even though insights from big data were used to generate toxic mortgage papers, such insights were also used to avert one of the greatest economic depressions in the United States history. So, without understanding the brutal reality of the situation on the ground, transforming or disrupting the existing technological systems with the use of big data analytics could be duplicitous. It was often mooted that if the United States economy were to sneeze, would the worlds economy catch a cold?(Aluya, 2009, p.146). Scholars historically have answered these questions in the affirmative (Austums, 2008; Aversa, 2009; Labonte and Makinen, 2002; Margo, 1993; Temin, 1990). Despite other economic factotums, insights from large datasets and information gleaned from TSH have laid the foundation for President Obama's rationale to bailout the Wall Street aristocrats.

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


Collective vs. personalized leadership styles: Explicitly, Burns (2006) analyzed transformational leadership styles of several United States Presidents from John F. Kennedy to G. W. Bush. Burns synthesized and triangulated transformational leadership with emphases on the dangers of personal leadership when practiced by aggressive power seekers (p.5). Literally, the interpretation has been that aggressive power seekers not only could but has leveraged the insights from big data for ulterior motives to support their positions by employing either hard or soft power (Nye, 2008; Nye and Armitage, 2007). Burns stated that transformational leadership in the United States was gravitating to personalized leadership. Insights from the data leveraged were used by the leadership in the United States to support said positions or contrapositions. Contentiously, Burns postulated that during the G. W. Bush administration, American leadership styles gravitated to the periphery of transactional leadership. Core to this accession by Burns was that President G.W. Bush adopted a personalized leadership style instead of a collective or a transformational leadership style before leaving the office especially during the Iraq war. Assertions within the scholarly domain could be relative, or subjective to various extrapolations and interpretations on the role of big data analytics in establishing this charge. Burns (2002, 2003 and 2006) emphasized that in the midst of U. S. leaders' gravitation to the transactional realm of leadership, the diffusion of sights gleaned from big data was used nefariously. For example, the U.S. garnered insights from large military datasets to selectively frame the dissemination of information with the intent to defraud its citizens to prosecute the Iraq war. Historically, such nefarious uses of information have been characteristic of the practice of the personalized leadership style (Blix, 2013). Riggio, Levin, and Reese (2005) in their study of US presidential charisma ratings proffered that leaders who used inspirational metaphors motivate followers more than those who used personalized leadership styles. Collective leadership has usually been linked to charismatic leadership because it transcended self-interest for the benefit of the group (Howell and Shamir, 2005). Collective leadership has been mostly practiced using incremental or modular innovative technologies in organizations or countries where people were inspired by the likes of Nelson Mandela, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or more recently, Barak Obama (Friedman, 2005; Friedman and Langbert, 2000). For instance, President Obama, who realized the implication of losing some congressional seats and the possibilities of an elusive re-election back to office started to leverage insights from the large datasets of social media to collectively gain the competitive advantage. Most recently, creative destruction, the knowledge of radical modular changes were used to eventually re-elect Obama to the presidency. From the insights gleaned from large political datasets, the Republican opposition leaders tailored an agreement with

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? President Obama to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for another two years (Aluya, 2013). Chimed, Obama suggested that there should be a tax increase for those who earned over $250,000 US dollars (Akerson, 2010). As a general rule, the collective leadership style has required compromise between leaders, constituents, colleagues and subordinates. For example, by President Obama agreeing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts, the opposition party (Republicans) in turn extended the unemployment benefits that President Obama seriously needed to jumpstart the economy into full recovery mode in the United States.


Albritton, Oswald, and Anderson (2008) noted that leaders who were perceived with higher intelligence ended up with a higher degree of inspiration. These leaders used unprecedented amplitude of insights gleaned from social media to inspire subordinates, hence becoming more likeable. Leaders and subordinates usually arrived at collective decisions that were beneficial to the organization as a result of disruptive technologies. Leaders or subordinates shared the benefits, risks, stakes, and the penalties for their collective decisions. Effectively, the collective leadership style has been linked to the diffusion of innovative techniques to effectively disseminate information in a clustered environment where leaders and subordinates were team players. An example of this type of environment would be the decentralization of HP's leadership style. Nickerson and Zenger (2002) purported that the decentralization of HP promoted innovation and flexibility. As team players within the heart of decentralization, leaders and subordinates set collective goals then strived to meet those set goals.

Bad or dysfunctional leadership: To understand what constitutes bad or dysfunctional leaders, the role of insights culled from large datasets has been pivotal to organizational change. The leaders of Enron, Kodak, WorldCom, Webvan and others abused the information repository of large datasets which led to their demise. According to Gallagher (2002), the traditional emphasis on effective leadership, visionary leadership, inspirational leadership, and strong leadership raised the philosophical dilemma of what constituted ineffective leadership, non-visionary leadership, non-inspirational leadership and non-situational leadership (p.27). A complete polar opposite of good leadership was at the center of bad leadership. For example, take the non-candescent leadership style of Laurent Gbagbo, the President of Cote d Ivoire who refused to acknowledge or accept defeat by Alassane Quattara in a conjecturally credible political election. They somehow foisted their authoritarianism on their pacified people. Alassane Quattara reportedly defeated the incumbent President in an election that was observed by international observers, yet he would not relinquish power to the duly elected President in Cote d Ivoire. Take the Arab spring as a case in point, musing why Assad of Syria

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


has been contentiously refusing to budge despite the perceptions gleaned from social media that suggested his abdication. He would rather go down the path of Gadhafi or Mubarak of Egypt instead of adhering to the democratic convention of handing over power in the jaws of a popular defeat (Aluya, 2013). So, what clearly has emerged was the bad or dysfunctional incumbent leadership style currently prevalent in societies with a low tolerance for the democratic convention. These challenges have been taken into consideration within the context of analyzing the dynamic nuances that differentiate developed and developing nations. Apparently bad leadership styles have been reflected in the leaders attitude, behavior, greed, and self-aggrandizement. Erickson et al. (2007) conducted a web-based analysis of 335 respondents who indicated the prevalence of bad leaders with behaviors that were perceived as dysfunctional in organizations. In the study, nine out of 12 reasons stated herein were responsible for a dysfunctional leader: (a) the inability to use technology or read the tea leaves of change gleaned from big data, (b) poor communication, (c) ineffective in dealing with subordinates, (d) very poor ethics or lack of integrity, (e) leaders with inconsistent and erratic behaviors, (f) leaders with very poor interpersonal behaviors, (g) leaders with excessive political behaviors, (h) leaders who micromanage, and (i) leaders who lack strategic skills. Denrell (2005) succinctly stated that unlike effective leaders, ineffective leaders who were demoted, transferred, forced to resign their positions or get terminated must reasonably be examined. Aside, there were hare brained narcissistic proclivities of indispensable despots engrained in their styles that made them bad leaders. In compendium, all the good elements that were enshrined in effective or good leaders were conspicuously missing in bad or dysfunctional leaders. Further examining bad or dysfunctional leaders required using all the apparatus, benchmarks or yardsticks exemplified in good leadership styles to understand bad leadership styles. Anecdotally, bad leaders in organizations were synonymous to using analytics gleaned from big datasets as modular to a flexible sigmoidoscopy to conjecturally cut out a biopsy that could be cancerous to the entire system. Alternatively, using modular business models as a barometer to examine and diagnose the biopsy, then, extinguish or terminate any possible spread of the vitriol cancer to the entire organizational climate. Or, the analytics from the datasets could also be metaphorically compared to a high-powered electricity voltage used to jolt complacent leaders in organizations. Complacent leaders have been inexorably compelled to renovate, reengineer or reset new industrial standards, or perpetually sink into the turbulence of the white water (Veil, 1996). Ideas matter! Good ideas, innovative ideas cannot be sequestered in an enclave. Good ideas have been used to solve glaring problems in organizations. Perceptions garnered and implemented from big data, could help bad leaders navigate through the turbulence of the white water. Leaders who could not navigate through the sea change created by the visible trends were terminated. For example, this was why Apple continued to dominate

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


with its incremental change strategies on iPhones while Nokia's unchangeable culture led to its acquisition by Microsoft. These trends from business models, analytics from big dataset also helped to terminate bad leaders who were still in their infancy of contaminating the entire climate of the organization. Hakonsson, Obel, and Burton (2008) explained the Hakonsson, Burton and Obel (2007) climate model. This model was an extension of Burton, DeSanctis and Obel (2006) and Burton, Lauridsen and Obel (2002) Multi Contingency Model. In their study, Hakonnssion et al., postulated, organizational psychological climate essentially captures effective events (p.63). In contrast, ineffectiveness in leadership, however, arose when bad leaders refused to use analytics from big data or business models to capture events that would have propelled the organization to an improved operational capacity (Porter, 2001). For instance, Kodak leaders inability to the new business models gleaned from the insights of big data and creative destruction to captured uninhibited prescience events in technology led to the companys demise. In addition, the internal process, goal-oriented and team climate were usually contaminated by dysfunctional leaders in organizations (Magretta, 2002). Stakeholders should use cognitive and effective experiences to assess the brutal reality of situations in an organization. After assessing the situation through the prism and insights from big data, it has become imperative to expeditiously terminate bad leaders before they affect the entire organization. Atypical, rational irrationality picayune decisions have been often made by bad leaders to the detriment of the entire organization. Bad leaders also lacked emotional intelligence when delegating designed assignments to their subordinates. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) noted how the lack of emotional intelligence could be the panacea to resolving bad leadership crises. Emotional intelligence has become the catalyst for intuition. Leaders who lacked emotional intelligence were detached from the brutal reality confronting their constituents because these leaders were not creative, empathetic nor humanistic in nature. Business models should predict any doubt how to expeditiously isolate or terminate these bad and dysfunctional leaders. On the other hand, emotional intelligence might not be enough without profitability, efficiency and market value as incentives (Weill et al, 2005). Bad leaders have often failed to meet organizational objectives to generate profits through incentives given to subordinates. Apart from the lack of empathy generated through the lenses of organizational stakeholders and shareholders, the corporations financial statements have remained a trajectory toward terminating a bad or dysfunctional leadership style. To reiterate, bad leaders have polluted the organizational climate and languished the national growth of many countries. Altogether, business models have expeditiously and instantaneously helped to facilitate the termination of the bad leader's modus operandi.

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology? Big data in the 21st Century:


Applying analytic techniques to large data sets, and using predictive modeling have rendered insights into: (a) how the organization's goals would interact;(b) how optimizing for net revenue would affect turnover, quality of operations, portfolio diversity and other key productivity indicators; as well as (c) how the likely impact of changes would affect the organization's existing strategies. Subject to reality check or practicality tests, predictive modeling has provided practical and impractical results. The practical ones were implemented while the impractical ones were used to rethink policy decisions (Berg, 2012). From a data leveraging context, modern organizations that counted on consolidated command and control architectures were at a disadvantage because not only were networks dispensing valuable data at every distributed node, but the competing technologies had strengthened the levels of connectivity between humans. In addition, anecdotal evidence has alluded to the dangers associated with humans depending on computer algorithms and other forms of data analytics to acquire an enhanced view of the world. Such dangers included the inability to distinguish the level of significance associated with every modicum of data, thus giving meaning to the emerging idiom "dumb learning". Wisniewski (2013) warned against the uncertainty of modeling because of the feedback loop. In data modeling, the feedback loop can happen if the model were to give the researcher the deception of control; thus likely affecting the data to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The author concluded "It doesn't mean the models are right, but they become more right if they've engendered trust" (Wisniewski, 2013, para. 3). In addition, Wisniewski (2013) warned of the inherent risk embedded in many of the new data models and algorithms; claiming that some of the techniques were biased in favor of predatory marketers (Anonymous, 2012; Wisniewski, 2013). The goal of pre-purchase preparation was to garner deeper transaction insights to guide the consumer during his or her shopping decisions. Today, pre-purchase preparation at the consumer level has evolved to the use of technologies in cash flow estimation; and other forms of financial modeling to improve information about one's financial picture. Such technologies were designed to help the consumer avoid making wasteful, needless and unwanted purchases. In addition, institutions were using consumer based predictive spending patterns to provide data nuggets at the point of sale as another channel to deliver more personalized spending information to the consumer. For example, such data products might show the consumer his or her general spending on a Wednesday in comparison to previous Wednesdays. Data products like those on "spend management" guidance have been propagated in the market place because technologies that provide better aggregation capabilities, have increased the velocity in transaction processing and the growing mobile technology market (Wisniewski, 2013). As a mechanism, the value brought forth by modeling could only be as good as the clarity of insights extracted from an organization's mission, goals and priorities that were compatible with the

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


firm's culture. Data consistency over time as well as data quality could likewise be important. Using the best models at one's disposal would only account for a part of the variance to be explained. For instance in econometrics, models have ignored external factors like the unforeseen changes in a market sector's dynamics, or the pricing and policy changes coming from the competition. So, since predictive models have been based typically on historical data, significant changes to the structure of the current consumer pool will militate against the model's predictive power (Berg, 2012). Globally, multinationals have concentrated resources to extract value from the emerging data sources that constitute big data. Notwithstanding, there were significant problems managing big data will have to address. For example, data scientists faced the fundamental flaws in modeling like, tendentious assumptions, the overabundance of new data sources; and data obesity stemming from the indiscriminate hoarding of data. The increasing competition in the contemporary data products industry has lowered the prices in the information retrieval technologies to the point where it is now feasible to analyze data and tender customized data products to meet the need and context of the consumer. (Wisniewski, 2013; Greller & Drachsler, 2012). The traditional use of questionnaires and interviews as data gathering instruments has presented substantial barriers in terms of scope, time requirements, cost, and authenticity. Nowadays, competing technologies have lowered the cost of data collection by data-mining the digital footprints; while automating the behavioral analysis of any given population. Such technologies rendered more authentic results than the traditional techniques of population sampling. For example the power of data mining to reflect the real and continuous behavior of the subject equated more to direct observation than the invasive unswerving methods employed traditionally. As a result, the use of sophisticated data techniques has helped to bridge the gap between the subject's perception and the subject's behavior (Savage and Burrows, 2007). In yet another example, using the maximum modularity algorithm to assess online communities, the data showed online communities like twitter were more structured than random networks with the same distribution. Modularity referred to the degree a community was self-contained relative to the rest of the corresponding network. Data analysis revealed the variance of word usage found within a social network correlated to the community structure, and that intra-community similarities arose when group participants limited the choice set of topics during communication. In addition, variations in word usage led to the evolution of strongly typed linguistic patterns to the degree that they carried the signature of the societal structure within social network communities. In general, such applications of data analysis techniques have contributed to phenomena like targeted marketing, crowd-sourced characterization and customizing the online experience of consumers (Braden, Funk & Jansen; 2013).

Big Data - A Disruptive Technology?


Anecdotal evidence has supported the view that technologies used to leverage big data have catalyzed the rate of success among participating companies. Such companies have had to hire workers equipped with the skill sets necessary to capitalize on the big data wave. Currently, enterprises have begun to experience the benefits brought forth by the ensuing paradigm shift in thought and analysis. Historically, companies have applied business intelligence and data warehousing models to structured data successfully. To satisfy the modern consumer, the influx of unstructured, and real-time data from the modern competing technologies like cloud computing, low-cost data storage, and faster networks; has brought about new and different ways of thought and analysis, to manage amorphous data more quickly and proactively (Brynko, 2013). At the resource level, big data companies have been forced to move away from the traditional data architect and data administrator; in favor of the data scientist or data researcher whose skill set allows for more insight in leveraging big data (Brynko, 2013). In the business intelligence (BI) arena, the past and current structures of business intelligence support within organizations have been increasingly becoming ineffective. The explanations for such ineffectiveness include:(a) BI's focus on technology at the expense of ignoring business outcomes; (b) a dearth of commitment to BI initiatives at the executive level; (c) out-moded project management and IT methodologies applied to BI initiatives; (d) the project-based approach in addressing BI issues; and (d)the focus on the features of utilitarian coverage surrounding BI tools at the expense of making the competent efforts necessary to understand and apply data effectively(Evelson, 2013). For more information contact DrAluya at