1st Week: Introduction to Strategic Management

-Strategy: commercial logic

- Leadership: human aspiration

Managers Leaders
Efficiency-na pravi nacin Effectiveness
Coping with complexity Coping with change

There are 2 types of leadership:

Transactional (to induce) and Transformational (to inspire)

Strategy is originally military term: ‘the art of a general’, from Greek word ‘strategia’ – the
command of a general
In business strategy means the determination of the long-term goals and objectives of an
organization, the adoption of course of action and the allocations of resources to carry them
out; Strategy comes from the top and it helps organizations to decide where they want to be
in the future and how get there;

Strategy is very important for every organization:

• A means by which organisations seek to compete
• A way that oranisation seek (attempt to find) to manage the environment by adapting
their behavior (particular market, conditions…)
• Non-business organisations adopt strategic planning in an effort to perform better

E.g. Airlines industry – in 80/90s Easy Jet was cheap; as the environment changed,
organization had to change to be competitive – (allocated seats, baggage)

Strategy applies to any sector of an organization:

• Looking outside the organization –scanning the environment, threats and changes
• Looking inside the organization

Real strategy: Mixture of planning and accidents (Honda in USA in 1980s – luck)
Assumption: Organisations are able to analyze external environment and capabilities as well;
It is important to develop and analyze a plan and simply implement it (environment changes,
an orgnisation makes mistakes, some dumb decisions and strategy doesn`t work --
Emergency!! (idea of planning and implementing – successful organisations – some plans
happened, some didn`t, therefore real strategy is a mix of plan and accident).

Leaders are doing the right things; they have vision, inspiration and values; in the past leader
was a great man in history; the world is shaped by great individuals and extraordinary people;
there are many followers who learn from leaders. Conception about leadership changed
generally.
E.g. Martin Luther King, Napoleon – they got something that most of the others don’t have
(charisma)

Leadership is the influence that individuals exert on others to achieve goals.

In organisations, we tend to associate leadership with formal managerial positions, but
leadership happens through all levels of organization, not just on the top; people have ability
to influence others.
Not all leaders are managers and not all managers are leaders.

Leadership is very important for each organization:

• Without it organisations cannot function
 • Strategy cannot be implemented
• It is an essential part of organization (undertaken by different individuals in various
ways).

Leaders are born, not made – some specific traits, personalities and characteristics made
them different form the other people; might be intelligence, might be extraversion, might be
male gender– doesn’t matter at all

2nd Week Looking outside the organization

Porter: radical break; sitting inside the organization and scanning the environment and
thinking what to do with organization to be competitive

The dimension of the strategy: (typical view of strategy – in reality it might not be this
logical and coherent)
1. Vision – any good strategy will start with vision (who/what/where we want our
organization to be)
2. Goals and targets – things to do to get there (working out things that you must do to
achieve the goal)
3. Allocation of resource – strategy without resources is like a hallucination - we can
plan, but cannot implement without resources
4. Tactics to do – action

Strategy is military term – to beat the enemy; Strategy is increasingly important for business
world

1945  1960s 1970s

Growth of big, large Business environment Growth of information

corporations; a lot of became unpredictable (a technology; innovations
resources were needed for floating exchange rate, oil
doing activities strategically companies)

Emphasis on SWOT analysis as a tool – Porter focuses more on opportunities and threats of
environment
Emphasis is more on the process of planning, but less on the content of strategy (what is
involved in strategy, what type of strategy) --
People focus on process, not on what they really do

His approach - Positioning School (strategies=positions)

There are few generic strategies that work (only certain ones were viable in a given context) -
he was economist, interested in money, market, competition and supply/demand
Previous strategy scholars had accepted that there was no limit to the range of possible
strategies

Positioning School is about adopting positions to beat the opposition

 A sound position is one that can be defended against competitors to beat other
organization product or service; a position that your competitors cannot beat easily

 Positions are generic; there is a number of general strategies – He didn’t specified it

in a lot of details – it varies but features are the same
  The choice reflects the nature of the market in which organization operates

 Rigorous analysis of the competitive environment allows strategists to choose the

right strategy

 The most important: The market drives strategy, strategy drives organization and
what it does (what organization produce to meet market demands)

The five forces shaping strategy

Determination of the sound position must be informed by rigorous analysis of five forces,
which shape competition in the market (a company must understand how to adjust to forces
and how to take advantage)

1. Threat of new entrants – economies of scale, costs, government regulations,

switching, legal protection
2. Bargaining power of buyer – a lot of power -- >choice (there are other products and
providers)
3. Bargaining power of supplier – how strong / weak you are
4. Threats of substitutes – very important (other products which could replace yours)
5. Rivalry among existing competitors - how competitive market is (completion with
other companies in your market

Porter’s diagram – four forces have an influence on the fifth (Readings)

ROUGH TIME
Competitive force High profitability Low profitability
Threat of new entrance High entry barriers Low entry barriers
Threat of substitutes Few potential substitutes Many potential substitutes
Suppliers’ bargaining power Weak suppliers Strong suppliers
Buyers’ bargaining power Weak buyers Strong buyers
Competitive rivalry Little rivalry Intense rivalry

Importance of these strategies depends (what kind of service / what kind of market)
Context of strategy: Decision of entering a market and if so, what kind of product

E.g. Australia Post – 50 years ago monopolist; Substitute: technologies, courier service
replaced regular mail service; Rivalry: substitutes to letters- adoption of the strategy; they had
to change their strategy – now: selling phones, toys, process of getting passport

E.g. IPod video – The most important the content of the strategy (Apple- people trust them) /
huge demand for a big market / very hard to compete – it was a really good product / good
decision at that time / valuable for the company

Porter argued three generic strategies / positions – the firm must make a choice, because the
worst thing is to be in the middle

Cost leadership –the lower Differentiation – unique Focus – pursue a narrow

cost-producer in an industry
(being cheaper than
everyone else); economies of
scale, low level of service
products or service (trying
to compete with doing
something that others
don’t)
segment of the market (you
find a piece that is not served
and you find a service or
product; either on a cost or
differentiation
Coles Tesla car (expensive, but Differentiation: Rolls-Royce –
WalMart Unique) small number of models, very
Go Pro expensive, almost nobody in
Pandora the world buys it
Voss  North (kite-sport)
Thank You Cost: Daiso – narrow and
cheap

Criticism of Positioning School:

1. Narrow focus on economic forces and on analysis of quantitative data: be aware of

limitations / politics…focus on competitive market/ be able to measure
Porter, purest economist, didn’t look at the other things, only focused on competitive
market
2. Focus on a big, established businesses (large corporations in USA in that time) –
mature market, a lot of different resources for small organisations
3. Focus on analysis in head office – other people know more about other things
4. Focus on generic strategies – what about creativity and uniqueness (McDonalds
example- the whole industry had a strategy that was completely different from others
in that time – worldwide business)

Conclusion: everything starts with market, everything adapts to market; Porter about
statistical analysis and market
 Market forces dictate strategy for competiveness based on analysis of competitive
forces
 The organization configures its structure and activities to allow it to position its
products and services (product/service to compete)

3rd Week Looking inside the organization:

Looking inside the firm – the birth of Resource Based View (RBV) – it is not product that
compete in the market, but systems of production – Mintzberg et al
The structures and activities of an organization shape its strategy and its success; emphasis
more on Strengths and Weaknesses

RBV came from economics as well (does inform strategy making, not just explaining success)

1. Penrose 1959, female scholar, pre-dates Positioning School, Firms can be

understood as collections of resources, which shape firm growth
2. Wernerfeldt 1984 – first shifting (used resources in strategic management) – by
analyzing the resources of a firm, it is possible to infer the strategies it might pursue
3. Barney 1991 – real tuning point – idiosyncratic resources might give firms sustained
competitive advantage, capability of resources
To maintain advantage over time it must be idiosyncratic, specific…otherwise others will
get it

Looking inside the firm – RBV shift the focus, it doesn’t ignore marketing forces, but look at
organization, it starts with organization:
 It is not a product that compete in the market, but systems of production (what
organization is able to do)
 The structure and activities of organization shape its strategy and its success
Resources (capital, labor, land, technology, location, skills, relations, culture) – companies
own and control resources; resources can be tangible (land, capital) and intangible (culture,
brand, loyalty)

Capabilities are the capacity of a set of resources to perform a task or activity, to make firm
competitive (resources allow organization what to do)

 Resources (particular combination of characteristics that others don’t have) are the source
of capabilities, but capabilities are what make organization competitive

To facilitate sustained competitive advantage, resources must be VRIN

Valuable Make a profit, improve efficiency or effectiveness, make products valuable

to customers
Only valuable if allow the organization to exploit opportunities or neutralize
threats – do something what customers want (resources that allow the
organization to produce something that people want)
Ford car – T model – just one color, 1 model – mass production, mass
market (Henry Ford applied scientific management to mechanized production
technology to develop production lines, Taylorism (fast food restaurants) –
workers work as hard as you want them to work, simplify work, each worker
does one part over and over again…to increase efficiency)
Rare Allow stuff to be more creative; facilitate sustained competitive advantage –
something that other organisations don’t have
Fashion labels / design labels – different from others
Google appears to have developed an unusual org. culture, which
encourages innovations (allows stuff to be more creative)
Intellectual capital, Starbucks
Inimitable A resource may be valuable and rare, but if other organisations can copy
them, the competitive advantage they confer won`t be sustainable;
Some people are unusual and have capabilities itself, Tesla
Singapore Airlines – in Singapore, location can`t be easily imitated –
Emirates Airlines great substitution
Difficult-to-Substitute Resources which cannot be easily replaced (which do the same job)
Innovation makes this particularly challenging to maintain – aluminum drink
cans substituted for steel cans
Diamonds – natural resource (substitute for synthetic diamonds; for some
people they are not substitution

IPhone Apple
V – brand value and reputation
R – package, design, highly desired by customers
I - single platform gives users the same experience across multiple devices (IPhone, IPod),
San Francisco apple store (location)
N - iTunes – non substitutable

Criticism of BRV model:

 Circularity – we only know that a resource is valuable if it belongs to a firm that we

know it has sustained competitive advantage (identifying resources and capabilities
on the basis of success) – doesn’t provide really clear guide; you find that
organization is successful, but what resources made it successful
 Equifinality – Where is the competitive advantage in particular resource? – 100
different organisations, 100 different sets of resources and capabilities – infinite
number of configurations of resources are effective

How do resources shape strategy? (Grant)

 Select a strategy  4. Strategy

Assess the value  3. Competitive advantage

of the capabilities 5. Identify resource gaps
and attempt to fill them
 2. Capabilities
Identify
Capabilities

 1. Resources
Evaluate
Resources

4th Week: Problematizing Strategy

Plan the strategy: external and internal analysis

Approach strategy without planning – it is important to consider alternative ways looking at

strategy; if we look how strategy is made in real organisations, most of companies try to plant
the strategy through Positioning School

Processual approaches rather than planned approaches: planned approach is still important,
but we need to consider predictability.

Scholar Andrew Pettigrew: political aspect of strategy, power in the organisations; he

developed his idea by looking historically through organization: the whole idea of planning
strategy is problematic; he doesn’t say you shouldn’t plan!!

Planned approach s a lot rational; linear approach of planning

Processual approach seeing strategy being on going process, rather than linear

Power and politics (organisationas are political systems in which there are different interests
that mobilize resource) focus on two elements:
1. Things intend to happen = planned
2. Things didn’t plan to happen, but work = emergent

Honda – both planned and accident strategy

Planned Approaches (Positioning School and RBV):

1. Strategy making takes place as discrete (bounded in time) set of decisions, one-off
process - when we implement a strategy, a starting point - development,
implementation, evaluation
2. Political science: there is such a thing ‘as the organization’, which has a single set of
interests which can be pursued via effective strategy (organization as individual
human being – everybody agrees on interests, no conflict and different interest) - all
researches disagree as everybody actually has different opinion
3. The strategy-making process and implementation is a rational and predictable
process: we analyze, plan, implement, evaluate (hopefully followed by competitive
advantage) – where we want to get and how to get there (resources and strategies)

Processual Approaches to Strategy: it is really how strategy is made

 1. Developed by people who challenged the planned view (we don’t really see strategy
is happening)
2. Processual approaches suggest that strategy is continuous process = it is always
going on individual and groups make decisions and take actions (rather than
organization) which over time takes the form of strategy (people’s decisions all the
time shape the organisation)
-Strategy may only make sense in hindsight –it just happened through people making
decisions
3. Strategy as political process – Pettigrew
4. Emergent Strategy – Mintzberg

E.g. Interchange program: Students apply for a program in Asia; if they are chosen, they go
overseas, 20 students, and do consulting projects for 2 weeks; successful program and 8
years ago the university sent students to Asia to do the projects and the idea started to grow.
Systematic strategy is engaging with Asia = companies and interchange programs – beautiful
strategy for students to go to Asia and get engaged with companies, but all know that it
wasn’t rational project (business practicum). Something worked, something didn’t –
processual approach is really how strategy is made

Pettigrew – strategy as political process Mintzberg – political view as well, but focused on
emergent strategy

Political view of strategy: for some reason we might see it negatively; use of power and
politics to negotiate strategies favorable to particular interests; for example, in healthy
organisations there is no space for politics, while in functional organisations cannot be without
politics: all organisations are political, they involve the exercises of power (nothing would
happen without the power); power and politics are about the influence, pushing things to
particular direction.

POLOTICS=POWER – we can think about the power as ability of person A to make person B
do something person B wouldn’t do otherwise – to make people do what you want

Political action can take within the organization MICRO and by organizational leadership
against other organisations MACRO

The MICRO politics of strategy:

Pettigrew argues that strategy making is in inherently political process
He talks about dilemmas – (strategy is series of responses to problems)
Organisations are facing the problems and have to decide how to deal with those problems;
they are constantly faced with challenges – serious of questions (this course of action or
another; what product/service to exploit; introduction of new products lines or not…)

Dilemmas are faced by organization / strategies emergence;

Strategy is political – to find out the reason, there are number of questions to be answered
such as which problems / dilemmas to be prioritized or which dilemmas to support, for
example:
1st dilemma – short-term profitability  to cut costs and raise revenues in a short term
2nd dilemma – long-term product ability, developing new products and services… How to
make a decision? – Strategy starts to emerge, increasing production-reducing costs

1. Why is strategy making inherently political? Organisations are about the power – what
CEO wants is different from what HR thinks: a lot of different groups with different interests; it
is about self interest and different views what is good for organization, for example: CEO is
concerned about costs (to cut it down), while R&D on innovation – spending money on
projects that might fail
These are two examples of different interests, both of them want to succeed and both have
different views what is good for organization; INHERENTLY political is not always about self
interest, it is about different interest

2. How is power mobilized? – Usually about reward, if you give me this – I will do this in
return, how to persuade and change the mind (similar as parents-kids persuasion)
Resources – try to get from others what we want (rewards, authority and charisma)
Decision making – controlling decision making (1:1, chats, formal decisions)
The management of meaning – less tangible persuasion (when people see through your
eyes)
In Australia 25 % of female managers, mainly PR, HR, in-store managers / CEO hardly any
(the situation might manage meaning, we might find successful business minded examples
where woman are successful)

History of Apple: politics – very important; the point is that politic matters, different
views/strategies:
Jobs to make a lot of money, new stuff, creative products…Scaly to cut costs, increase
volume

Emergent strategy doesn’t say there is no plan, a lot of we intended didn’t happen, something
happened through luck/accident…people make mistakes, change directions, something
worked, something did not
Real organization: planned + emerged = quite what happens in reality

It is very rare that everything that was planned, happened; sometimes things just happen
(good, bad, mixture); Mintzberg – ‘if you ask a CEO did everything he was planned happened
and he said YES, he lies’

Example: Honda:
1950/60, after Second World War, Japanese economy was rebuilt, starting to be perceives as
a threat for Americans; Honda was the mayor manufacturer in Japan for small and big bikes.
In 1958 they produced car and established a new market in the USA through very clever ad
campaign, kind of image of motorcyclist in USA with slogan ‘You meet the nicest people on
Honda’
They sold it through sporting goods stores, not through motorcycle dealers and the US
industry was worried how Honda was taking market share. Honda was new and different
product, cost-leader, as in that time manufacturer costs in Japan were very low.
US Boston Consulting Group evaluated Honda business model to find out the secret of its
success:
Planned Strategy: Honda did everything right, very smart planned strategy, identifying the
market in the USA (big, a lot of motorcyclist); Supercub pushed niche market - cost
leadership and differentiate strategies – sport stores and campaigns (distribution and
advertising channel as competitive advantages)
Info collected – info analyzed – strategy formulated and strategy implemented

After researching of Boston Group, Pasquali came up with different story that Honda did
everything wrong (interweaving retired people from Honda)
1. They did not analyse the US market in detail, only some info was analysed, they just
said ‘let’s do it’
2. Big bikes – Americans like, ‘we will try to sell it and if we sell something more it will be
bonus’; the goal was 10% of large bike market
3. They went in winter (very cold and people are unlike to buy bikes), so the bikes broke
down all the time and they had to take it back to Japan
4. Supercub – their own transport to work (Supercub pushed)
5. The brilliant ad campaign was not from the company; some students from marketing
department made a campaign; Honda decided to give them right to try (cheap
campaign)
6. COD with distributors – Honda was the only supplier, no competition
Strategies from mistakes (good/bad) – it was planned, but not much! Luckily it was a success

Conclusion: The idea to understand that organisations are political systems and political
system shapes strategy!
We must understand strategy as much more complicated than just planning, we clearly need
to plan, but to be aware of both strategies, CONTINUUM – planned/emergent, much more
complicated and less predictable process

Planned Emergent

Strategic change is deliberate - namerna Strategic change evolves

(realized as intended - namenjena)
Process is linear Process is iterative (backwards/forwards)

Formulation and implementation are separate
Decisions are result of rational analysis
Strategic decisions are taken at top
…Are entwined (mixed, happening at the
same time)
Decisions are result of intuition, opportunism,
reflection
Strategic decisions are taken all over
organization (all levels of organisation)

5th Week: Organisational Change

Readings: the reasons of resistance (to understand change, culture is something that
organisations try to change, but always somebody is unhappy about that)

Change – result of strategic decisions!

If we look at large institutions such as Unimelb we consider every year more and more
changes – constant stage of change; Unimelb cut out over 70 undergraduate degrees and
shifted more professional degrees to postgrad – total change in structure

Philip Morris became Altria – changed the name, tried to move away from stigma of cancer

Australian car industry will have ceased to exit: totally gone and it used to be a big industry
not too long ago; too high cots, Japanese are the cheapest (car production)
Adelaide bank introduced a team-based structure in one division: radical change, profits were
dropping, need for change was born
 All of these changes are result of strategic decisions!

The main reason why the change management is so important is turbulent environment;
many period of turbulence in last decades – Asian economic crisis, global fin. Crisis, oil
price…many organisations haven’t survived, because they did not manage the change. The
most important for the success and survival of each organization is to manage the change
effectively!

There are both external and internal changes:

External: technological change (really fundamental changes for some industries), economic
factors (inflation), political factors (regulations), changes in consumer taste (socio-cultural
factors)

Internal: problems with internal processes (slow decisions), managerial philosophy or change
of leadership style, performance problems (dropping profits)

Anything that define organization, that we think that might define organization can be an
organizational change (structure, size, products/services, culture, brans…)

The nature of organizational change vary on few dimensions:

 Evolutionary change (small and slow changes that happen all the time, such as
improving existing products, changing individual parts of department…)

 Revolutionary change (big and fast changes, fundamentally turn organizations and
industries up and down, such as adopting radically new production, creating new
structure and management, seeking new equilibrium…)

We can also think about organizational changes in terms of planned - systematic

(privatization, entry into new market) and adaptive (modification to existing plans and
updating computer systems) and unplanned (chaotic as terrorist attack and transitory as
sudden change in commodity prices). Unplanned changes are drastic ones that happen over
night, without any kind of opportunity to plan.

The other distinction in types of change made in management structure: strategic change (a
shift of vision or direction) and operational change (anything affecting day-to-day operations)
– when people try to classify changes either strategic or operational, its meaningful distinction
really depends on how we understand the strategy and the change!!

Strategic change: strategy implementation involves change!!

 Planned approach to strategy (strategy drives change – common view, how things
happens, strategy comes first, then implementation) or unplanned – emergent approach to
strategy (strategy is change, strategy formulation is strategy implementation)

Planned approach to strategy:

Lewin – the most influential thinker + misunderstood as well; He was Jewish who moved from
Germany to the USA in 1930s; until Lewin managers thinkers were focused how to avoid
change, he said that organizations must be about change and in order to make them better,
people must think about the change; he was psychologist motivated by dealing with social
problems and influenced by work of Karl Marx (women’s right, racist violence/discrimination –
how to make better places for people and organizations to be); Lewin was about to make
better and more productive places and to involve organisations to change. On the other hand,
Taylor was about to stop changing, all about stability

Field Theory – We have to understand people being in certain situations; he said the way
individual and groups behave; Behavior is function of individualist characteristics and the
environment ‘field’ (attitudes, culture, values…if we want to understand why people do bad or
good stuff; what people actually like and to understand human behavior, we have to
understand the forces influencing this - what forces pushing them to do these stuff
(discrimination against Jewish, racist violence…). When we understand the forces, which
influence behavior, we should reduce forces that drive bad stuff and increase forces that drive
good stuff -weaker some forces and strengthen others
E.g. Pajamas factory, Lewin worked there – he observed behavior of supervisors (to change
their behavior not behavior of workers, he developed Field theory there)

Field Theory and Change: Push / pull

In every organization status quo (trnutno, postojece stanje stvari) is a function of the balance
between two sets of forces (forces of stability / change)
If we map forces of stability and forces for change and influence the balance of those then we
may be able to bring the change = equilibrium (framework to think systematically what drives
change and what hold it back (driving and restraining forces)

Force Field Analysis

Driving forces Resisting forces

CEO Ambition Plan Union Concerns (briga)
Tax incentives (podsticaji) Go multinational Human rights
Shareholders Resources

Strategic change – for example organization to stay or to go for new market – shareholders
keen on companies moving to a new market; resources may lead company not to do it, cost a
lot of money
If you want to change – analyze forces against and for change (try to reduces forces
against; driving forces must be stronger).

Lewin uses Force Field Analyses and – 3-step change model (using previous approach)
He argued that people do stuff which would lead to change; the problem is maintaining how to
stop people slighting back:

 Unfreezing
 Moving/Changing
 Freezing

Unfreezing (possibility of change) is the best way:

Reduction in forces that constrain (ograniciti) change

Breaking organizational members` psychological attachment to status quo (try to break
people’s attachment to status quo)
Provide info - a problem with status quo, convince people that they must change (sharing with
them)
It doesn’t mean that people are moving into direction you want to move them; for Lewin
moving phase is making decisions about a need of change and how the change will take a
place

Moving / Changing

Unfreezing creates conditions for change, while moving involves changes in attitudes and
behaviors: making decisions
What change is needed, what change is possible, how will we change
Importance of involving organizational members
Lewin recognized that senior manager should have a clear idea about what to change; in
practice it is necessary to take people on board and have some consultation and consider a
range of options; it is necessary to involve people and members reaching agreement,
something would work something not

Freezing: (practices in place to stop them back)

You change stuff, but people step back (practices in place to stop them stepping back) – new
attitudes and behaviors must be supported by systems and processes (hiring)
Ensuring consistency of practices
Group norms transformed

Retail organization that want to change in practice => customer experience, train people to
smile, reward them for behavior (stepping back or not), find the way to motivate them to go
forward

Organizational development OD (not very important)

It extends Lewin’s three-step model
Combination of research, analysis and action, aimed at changing organisations to improve
their effectiveness (change agents, empowering employees to act, openness in
communication, collaboration and continuous learning) – learning what works what doesn’t
and moving…
Eight Steps of OD
Problem Identification Someone identifies the need of change; what we
are going to do about the actual problem; you
cannot predict the end when you are in the
beginning
Consultation with an ‘expert’ OD specialist and senior managers – assumptions
of both parts
Data Gathering & Preliminary Interviews / questions to identify the problem
“Diagnosis” clearly, using surveys (managers know but that is
not enough / maybe they are completely wrong –
pajama example
Initial Feedback Analysis of team (employees) – to give them
degree of ownership of the analysis and solutions
Joint “Diagnosis” What is the problem and what we might do about it
– taking feedback
Joint Action Planning Both parties agree on further actions – to develop
the plan, a solution
Action What actions should be taken, moving
organization from one state to another, changing
structure, technology
Data Gathering after Action A process of evaluation – has the action you done
changed anything; going back to the feedback and
move through again
Common Criticism of Planned Approach:

 Model assumes a stable state – equilibrium / balance (forces for change and forces
for stability); balance is temporary – you have to move again
 Methods only suitable for small scale change projects – the bigger the organizations
the harder putting in place – it seems pretty hard for large organisations
(collaboration and feeding back) harder to put in place logical process
 Theories ignore organizational power and politics – what about conflicts?
 Approach is top-down and management driven

Lewin did argue that change have to evolve all members of company; people evolve in
change may define the problem and solution; the alternative is

Processual Approach to Change:

 Change should not and cannot be solidified – from Pettigrew’s point of view strategy
is change
 Change cannot be meaningfully understood as a series of linear events (moving
from here to here)
 Change as a continuous process
 Change as an a complex interplay between politics, context and substance (politics-
power, what features do organisations change)

1. Politics of Change:
Comprise the political activities of consultation, negotiation, conflict and resistance – if
organization is about power and politics this is what will happen
In terms of MACRO and MICRO:
External Politics: senior business leader, industry groups, lobbying government – legislations,
government pressure
Internal Politics: drives changes in particular way (negotiations between unions and
management, struggles between different managers – how organization should operate)

2. Context of Change:
The internal and external contexts provide both constraints - ogranicenja and opportunities for
change
External: economic, political government regulations, competitive environment –
competitiveness between different organisations in the same industry
Internal Context: how many divisions / lines, from bottom to the top (overlap with previous) –
strategy, structure, culture, power relations
3. Substance of Change: (four main dimensions): change is obviously different from
planned (it can’t be predictable)

1. Scale and scope of change

2. Defining characteristics of change
3. Timeframe of change
4. Perceived centrality of change

Managing change:
Lewin and OD provide guidance for how we might actively seek to manage the change
Processual understanding reminds us of how messy and difficult change is to manage – don’t
expect everything will be as you want to be
Real-life organizational change will be partly planned and partly emergent (processual)
Research and practice have identified series of factors, which can facilitate change – most
changes fail, be aware of factors when you try to manage the process

Managing Change (cont’d)

Focus on: Culture and Resistance

Antagonism: The most beautiful relationship is conflict (managers themselves and

employees); even if we share interests, our interests are different;

Culture change is not possible to be changed quickly and easily

Organizational culture (norms, beliefs, assumptions, symbols, rituals…) = values, the most
important part of culture and the way how people interact with each other

Culture can be an object of change (something we want to change), attempts or a factor,

which impedes or facilitates change (culture is something that help to change effect)

Communication is really important, to change the behavior; values very hard to change
Police, military – strong culture

People often talk about changing the culture of the company – it is very hard, they can
change logo easily;

Resistance to change:
What managers want to change maybe others don’t want (change is driven by management)
– conclusion of resistance
Issue in management – Taylor, Scientific management – to increase efficiency by making
people do things as managers want; how to make them to do things they don’t want to do
An inevitable consequence of structured antagonism relationship managers and employees /
shared interests and at the same time conflicts (one interest: 12 hours for $10, another
interest: 8 hours for $10); real interest are different
Central to change management organizations political systems, very obvious to come t
resistance

Reasons:
Four common reasons people resist change:
1. Desire not to loose something of value – threat to job security (changes threaten
people) self interest (may loose the job, work/ will not like, more work to do…)
 2. A belief that the change doesn’t make a sense for organization – not self interest; not
good idea for organization, different opinions CEO and R&D
3. A misunderstanding of change and its implications: lack of communication,
misunderstanding - why changes are happening (reasons for it)
4. Low tolerance / openness for change: they fell uncomfortable about change

Dealing with resistance (some combinations of resistance):

Education and communication
Participation and involvement
Facilitation and support
Negotiation and agreement
Manipulation and co-option
Explicit and implicit coercion
To understand why the change is necessary and what it
means to them
People on board (Lewin) – people may influence direction of
change
To train people in new skills, to provide emotional support
(time off)
Making deals with people to accept the change (if you do
this…), addressing people to their self-interests (crucial to
any successful change)
Using info selectively (telling good news, not bad ones); if it
works it is very effective
Often doesn’t work; threaten people – if you don/t f along
this, you will be waiting a lot for promotion

Change management is very difficult, but essential for organizational success; necessary skill
for effective leaders and managers

Week 6 – Introduction to Leadership & Trait-based Theories of

Leadership

History of leadership Research

- 1900: Trait-based theories (Era of the great men; ‘who you are’) – leadership on terms of
triats in the begining (individual characteristics) history was made by extraordinary people
and shaped by great man
- 1940: Behavioural theories (‘what you do’)
- 1950: Contingency & contextual (‘it depends’) – people`s behaviour deffer in different
context, it is not just about who you are and what you do – how they lead depends on
context
- 1970: ‘New leadership’/transformational leadership (bringing together particular source of
behaviour + traits) -
- 2010: Biological/Evolutionary – much broader

What is leadership?
- its about influencing people to get people to do stuff; some managers are really good
leaders, some aren’t; some leaders are not good in managerial positions
- different leadership theories have different definition, thus how leadership is measured
differs
- typically it is captured using multi-item measures in surveys & relies on subjective
judgements about self or others
- Leadership Practices Inventory (Posner & Kouzes 1988) - what organisational memebers
say about leadership
- developed to measure leadership behaviours using a huge set of questions (scoring
scale 1-7, from strongly disagree to agree)
 - Self- and other-report versions
- Asked questions to identify good leadership e.g. actively listens to diverse points of
views, challenges people to try new and innovative approaches (surveys)…

Steve Jobs was talking about leadership, comunities, who is responsible for what
product, allocation of tasks, monitoring responsabilities; He talks about managerial
decisions (logistic, planning, scheduling, tasks)
-We can talk about leadership in distinction of management = both very important;
but what makes leaders’ leadership is to take management out

Leadership vs. Management (about order and stability, organizing the stracture)
Management Leadership

- Cooping with complexity - Cooping with change

- Efficiency - Effectiveness
- Planning & Budgeting - Establishing Direction – vision, where we want to go
- Organising & Staffing - Aligning People
- Controlling & Problem Solving - Motivating & Inspiring – way to encourage people
- Produces a degree of predictability & order - Produces Change – about change
- Resource Allocation
- Delegation

Does Leadership matter? We need to take leadership seriously, it matters enough to

worry about
- There is solid research-based evidence of positive effects (of leadership behaviour) on
outcomes
- Individual, e.g. engagement, commitment, satisfaction
- Group, e.g. team climate, turnover – associations between leadership and team-climate
- Organisational, e.g. productivity, innovation

Trait-Based theories of leadership

- specific inborn traits of the leader, early in the 20th century; power of individual to be a
leader – shaping history through a great man
- suggest that leadership success is associated with relatively stable and inherent features of
individuals including: intelligence (associated with success of leadership), personality
(better and worse leader), gender (woman are less likely to be in this position, there is a
research and evidence that men are better), charisma (kind of authority)
- Evidence Intelligence: a meta-analysis: is positively related to leadership success, but
not as strong as supposed – „smarter people should be bettter leaders“ - better solving
problems and convincing people; some leaders are really intelligent, it is significan that if
you are intelligent it will help you, but is not only about the intelligence
- Evidence Personality: The Big 5 Traits
- Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident) - negative correlation, highly
neurotic – hard to be a good leader
- Extraversion (outgoing/friendly vs. reserved/solitary) - positive correlation – how
friendly he is – strongest association - more likely to be effective leader
- Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. cautious/consistent) - positive
correlation – do you like new things
- Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached) - not statistically
relevant
 - Conscientiousness (organised/reliable vs. easy-going/careless) - positive correlation
– do you do stuff
- Evidence Gender: don’t matter in terms of leadership effectiveness
- common perception that man are naturally better at leadership than woman, BUT
- Men & women don’t rate differently in terms of leadership effectiveness – it doesn’t
matter in terms of effectiveness
- When other-ratings are considered, woman are rated higher than men
- When self-ratings are considered men are rated higher than women
- A lot of stereotypes; domestic work, children...
- Evidence tells that gender matter, but not in terms of ability to perform as a leader
and about effectiveness
- Charismatic Leadership
- Central to Great Men Era; in religious sence some people were giffted by god; formal
authority in other way is charisma; Martin Luther King inspired with charisma, his
success as a leader to inspire followers; charismatic leaders: self promoted image
about themselves
- Followers are willing to put their fate in the hands of their leaders and follow their
vision
- Charismatic leaders are characterised by: Self-confidence, Assertiveness, Moral
Conviction
- Model expected behaviour, work to build their image & self promote, e.g. Gandhi,
Mother Theresa

Transactional vs. transformational leadership

- transactional: exchange relationship; emphasises on the exchange process, where the
leader provides rewards in return for employee performance (to induce)
- transformational: builds on idea of charisma, emphasises on traits + behaviour, inspiring
relationship; emphasise on motivating employees to identify emotionally with a vision (to
inspire) – build on motivation, inspiration of people to follow particular vision, to go along
with you and adapt the vision

Four Key Dimensions of Transformational Leadership

Idealised Influence Leader as a role model —> behaving in an ethical & moral way, try to earn
credits, sharing credits for things that went right; blaming for things that went
wrong

Inspiratoinal Motivation Communicate clear expectation, create motivational atmosphere, getting

followers being involved in making decisions

Intellectual Stimulation Encourage people to try new ways, not criticising ideas; stimulating, not
punshing if they fail, at least not to critice ideas different from yours

Individualised Consideration Treating each person as individual, talk about what the need, mentorships,
support in career development, to get to the next stage

Evidence; transformational leadership not necessarly more effective

- transformational leadership is positively associated with organisational performance & with
individual (e.g. commitment and group, e.g. team performance outcomes)
- weak associations between personality traits and transformational leadership
- Suggests, that while to some extend charisma may be innate, transformation leadership
can be learnt
So What?
- trait-based approaches are useful to understand what predisposes people to leadership
success
- if leadership was only about traits, leaders would be born not made
- link between traits and leadership effectiveness is behaviours, which can be learnt Martin
Luther King lernt stuff
- If you are more intelligent and less neurotic you have an advantage, but everybody can
learn how to be a good leader (communication, dialogue); not to organize people – to allign
them, motivating people

Critisicm oft he Trait-Based approach: i fit is so important how should some people fail
to be effective in leadership roles and why do some people who do not have this
approach became leaders- really effective leader in one organisation, but not in
another...this criticism led people to focus more what people did rather than what
people were - Leadership Behavior

Readings: Both leadership and management are necessery for success of organisation,
Leaders do not solve problmes, do not organize people, they prepare organisation for change
Strong leadership with weak management – very bad; good management brings degree of
order (people cannot be manage effectively in the battle, they must be led)

Week 7 - Leadership Philosophy, Styles and Behaviours

Leadership Philosophies: assumptions about other humans in organisation

- Underlying assumptions about humans and their motivations; underpins style & behaviour
– it is like a chain: leadership behaviors specific ways we believe in particular rolls
(observable, measurable); specific leadership behaviour as a manifestation of leadership
style
- Model for understanding leadership philosophies —> McGregors theories, a simple mode,
framed around motivation; he was interested in human motivation and how managers
understand motivation – what make people to work harder:
-
Theory X (Extrinsic Motivation Approach) Theory Y (Intrinsic Motivation Approach)

- people dislike work and if they didn’t have to work they
wouldn't - you must do something to make them work
- people are not intrinsically motivated, organisations
have to provide incentives or controls to make them
work hard (people work hard when you make them to
work hard)
- At work, people don't want responsibility; they want to
be told what to do – they do not want to take
responsability
- Taylor – Scientific Management: all about managing
controll over and over again
- People find work inherently satisfying – work as human
activity, in any kind of society people work; it gives us
meaning and purpose
- People who are committed to goals at work will work
towards them – organisations are able to inidcate
employees about their goals and visions (athletes are
self directed as they are comitted to their goals)
- People want to take responsibility at work - given up an
opportunity people will be productive

- research shows, that employees gain intrinsic satisfaction from, and are motivated by, jobs
where they can make decisions and are not controlled tightly (responsibility & getting
feedback)
- employees in such jobs then to be more productive
- In practice: continuum between theory X and theory Y
Leadership Styles: general approach – several behaviours and phylosophies,
assumptions that we made about organisation led us to some style
- our broad approaches to leadership informed by our philosophies; our attitudes predispose
us to particular behaviours (behaviour depends on the style)
- 3 broad styles:

General Advantages Disadvantages

Authoritarian - employees need to be controlled to - Decisive & Efficient (clear - Generates dependency
Style (Theory X) make them do their jobs – people goals) with followers used to
need to be motivated to do the job - Goal focused – coming the leaders
- Leaders make decisions, from the top - Stifles creativity &
employees enact them (I say it, innovation – led by
you do it) somebody who controls
- top-down communication (and you
spread out) - Employees can become
- association with arbitrary rewards & frustrated & bored
punishments (Taylorism)
- can be de-motivating
Democratic - employees can be trusted to do their - Increases workers - time consuming (you
Style (Theory Y) jobs – work as activity, motivated satisfaction & have to discuss, provide
- Leaders work collaboratively with commitment guidance)
employees to make decisions - Increases social - may reduce overall
- Leaders are coaches/guides cohesion at work efficiency – lot of time
(collective identity
- Centrality of open communication & through way of
fair treatment communication &
collaboration)
- Fosters motivation &
innovation
- workers ‘own’ decisions
(take ownership)

Laissez faire - close to non-leadership - little is likely to be

Style accomplished
- neither control nor guidance
- workers can set own goals and do - workers lack order and
their job how they want to predictability and trend to
be demotivated
- typically someone who holds a (monotony)
formal leadership role, but does not - low productivity is likely
do the job properly

When is what style most appropriate & effective?

- authoritarian: quantitative targets, routine work, high-volume tasks, high risk - low skills -
low competency e.g. oil-industry, corporate fast food, military organisations
- democratic: creative industries, customer-facing roles, high-skills/professionals, values
- laissez faire: where each individual is a single business unit, e.g. team out of contractors
with targets in contract

Leadership Behaviours: fundamentally about influence others to pursuit their goals

- the specific ways we behave in leadership roles, which are (partly) manifestation of our
styles
- to be effective, you must influence others in pursuit of goals
- 2 things in organisation have to be achieved to meet goals:
- Completion of tasks - organisations are set-up to produce outcomes
 - Management of social relationships - organisations are social systems which have to
functions smoothly – interaction between humans, not about friendship
Task-oriented Leadership (Hard side, more logistical) Relationship-oriented Leadership (soft side)

involves behaviours that help workers to achieve goals,
including:
- Planning & Scheduling – logistic things to be done
- Setting targets, e.g. for production
- Assigning tasks to individuals & groups – giving people
stuff to do
- Monitoring production and output
- Managing resources – financial, human...
People: color codes, daily planners, sticky notes, list for
everything
involves behaviours which ensure social cohesion and
harmony in an organisation, including:
- Building trust btw. leaders & followers, general in
organisation
- Facilitating communication
- Establishing norms of group behaviour – unwritten
rules, acceptable or unacceptable
- managing conflict btw. individuals & groups –
disagreements, organisations political systems
- Encouraging joint decisions
To connect / attach with others, being rather than doing;
relation and atmosphere, focused on well-being

Tasks + Relationship = tied together

Evidence
- task-oriented behaviours positively associated with leadership outcomes: most strongly
with leader performance & group/organisation performance
- relationship-oriented behaviours positively associated with leadership outcomes: most
strongly with follower job satisfaction and satisfaction with leadership, with motivation and
with leader effectiveness
- both behaviours matter, but the relationship-behaviour has more impact by this meta-
analysis
- Associations: task -> performance; relationship -> motivation

So What?
- Individuals make assumptions about other human at work —> leadership philosophy
- Theory X & Y are simple models of leadership philosophy
- Leadership styles (collections of behaviour) reflect significantly leadership philosophy
- 3 main leadership styles: Authoritarian, Democratic, Laissez faire
- Effective leaders must exhibit both task and relationship-oriented leadership behaviours

Readings:
Mc Gregor: do people like work or think it is unpleasant; effective manager may understand
what motivate people

Week 8 - Power & Influence

Power and Leadership

- effective leadership can be understood in terms of traits & behaviours
- leadership literature emphasises mainly on ‘soft’ aspects, such as vision, leading by
example…
- within organisations different individuals pursue different interests
- Leaders encounter resistance and must attempt to find ways to deal with it —> includes:
exercise power

Dimensions of Power

1. Resources to overcome Resistance: Power is relational, reflects dependency, is

primarily based on control of resources.
Categories of resources to reduce resistance:
1. Coercive Power: Ability to punish or damage someone
2. Reward Power: Ability to reward someone tangible or intangible
3. Authority Power: Holding a formal position in the hierarchy relative to someone
4. Expert Power: Possession of special knowledge or expertise which someone else needs
5. Information Power: Access to information that others don’t have
6. Charismatic Power: Charisma or social skills which allow development of rapport with
others

2. Sidestep Resistance: Power reflects the ability to control decision making

processes, is exercised by control over ‘the rules of the game’ through ‘non-decision
making’.

Leaders can exercise power in a number of ways:

1. Decision making process: Control who is involved in decision making processes, e.g.
make sure small group of people in the board & who
2. Reporting relationship: Control who reports to whom
3. Allocation of responsibilities: Who is responsible for what and how they are evaluated,
measured and held accountable for it
4. Make decisions ‘offline’, e.g. informal meetings, over lunch

3. Shape meaning to prevent Resistance: Power is exercised through shaping how

people understand a situation and possible courses of actions; reflects the ability to
convince that particular view or course of action is right.

Power of meaning
- desired outcomes are made to be seen as legitimate, natural, beneficial
- often by associating outcomes with symbols and skilful use of language
- no opposition because outcomes are accepted
- by targeting attitudes, behaviour is influenced indirectly
- is central to charismatic/transformational leadership

Leaders can manage meaning by:

- Encouraging others to see them as leaders
- creating a vision for the future
- persuading others that their views of the challenges facing the organisation, and the
solutions are correct
- Framing issues in a way which encourages people to accept a particular course of action;
e.g. Not your fault, its economic; no pain, no gain; matter of survival; business
improvement, streamlining, re-building, transformation

Influence Tactics in Organisations to influence others

- tactics are behaviours, which are used in 1-on-1 relationships at work to try to shape
outcomes
- requires appropriate power base to be effective (almost relies on power-dimension 1 only)

Yukl & Tracey Reading To get commitment of

subordinates peers superiors

Rational persuasion: using evidence + + +

Inspirational Appeal: re values + + +

 Yukl & Tracey Reading To get commitment of

subordinates peers superiors

Consultation: talk about what they need + + +

Ingratiation: Einschleimen + + /

Exchange + + /

Personal Appeal + + /

Coalition / / /

Legitimation / - /

Pressure - / /

So What?
- power is essential to effective leadership
- is a complex phenomenon which can be exercised in different ways
- Influence tactics are the one-on-one behaviours we use to exercise (first dimension) power

Readings: When you have control over the resource such as money and information, you can
build your power (ability to have things your way); access to information may be more
valuable than money

Week 9 - Leadership in Teams

We all leave and work in a group; we intercat with the group to get stff done (uniwork, home,
school); leadership is primarly and individual activity – for autonomous or semi-autonomous
teams there is no leader, individual is not responsible; to understand leadership in a team we
need to understand bunch of things – raise of the team and team based work, behaviour in
groups, some limitations in teams; leadership in a bossless group)

Team: Autonomous or semi-autonomous teams/workgroups (freedom to make decisions)

- make own decisions about how to deliver products/services (to achieve goals, given
targets..what is the best way to do it)
- their own decisions about work allocation (who does what)
- make their own decisions about rules (how they solve problems, reward each others)
- Managers outside the team set targets, but the team is self-managing to a significant
extent

Consistent problems for Mgr. how to organise jobs & work systems efficiently & effective led
to the development of 2 approaches: Scientific Management (the starting point) &
Bureaucracy

Scientific Management - how to organize people to Bureaucracy

be efficient and effective (organisational structures & processes)
(Production & organising systems)

Characteri • Division of labour: work divided into the narrowest • Application of rules to whole
sics possible tasks organisation
• Time & motion studies: scientific system for • Organisation structured hierarchically -
 Scientific Management - how to organize people to Bureaucracy
be efficient and effective (organisational structures & processes)
(Production & organising systems)
• calculating the best & efficient way to do tasks (each top-down leadership (each position
person doing one simple task over and over again) specific tasks)
• Simple performance pay systems: workers paid on • Pyramide structure (every single person
the basis of output —> greedy - money seen as only reported to CEO)
motivator, the more they produce the more they earn • Clear division of labour
(theory X, people are lazy, work as little as possible) • Documented roles & procedures
• Managers plan & control production: managers =
highly scientifically trained ‘heads’; workers =
ignorant ‘hands’ (stupid, they did not make decisions)
Influence - Frederik Tailor - Max Weber (people in cage)
- Dominant approach until 1970-1980 - Dominant organisational form in the 20th
- spread though the world in early 20th century to most century
industries
- Applied by Henry Ford to develop manufacturing
production line —> basis for ‘Fordist Mass Production’
(for standardised products – cheap model, llarge scale
of production); picked by Henry Ford and spread
around across industries
- Massive production gains
Stenghts - good for organising things & providing structure

Problems • Restriction of innovative problem solving: rigidity of hierarchical structures, formal positions, rules &
procedures were restricting (hard to see from where innovation and creativty come from)
• Limits to devision of labour: efficiency gains of division of labour finite
• Boredom, frustration & demotivation of employees due to narrow repetitive jobs with little discretion

In 20th century researched came up with the School of Human Relation to make people work
hard without the downside (losa) both Taylorism. Stimulation for Scholars to think about better
solution, people rose up; better way to organise production that meet human rights and
productivity relations

Human Relations
- Concerned with productivity, but recognised limits of Taylorism
- Limits in terms of productivity gains
- bad for workers and may lead to industrial unrest

We need to thnk about human activity that meet people`s need – they are motivated by
feeling that work is meaningfull – working in a group to produce something;
- Key Insights
- Employees need groups to give their work meaning
- Groups must have the capacity to make meaningful decisions and to delve their own
rules, norms & values
- if work is organised in groups, workers will be more happy & productive

Rise of teams
- massive growth since 1990, influenced largely by the ideas of Human Relations (alongside
maintenance of Taylorism and bureaucracy in many organisation)
- based on the recognition that teams have the potential to deliver performance gains,
increase worker well-being and reduce managers workloads
 Why are teams effective Challenges of teams

- Problem solving: groups problems better than
individuals; reassurance
- Meet human needs: e.g. cooperation, task variety,
discretion, ‘the whole job —> increased satisfaction,
commitment & motivation, feeling of ownership
- Synergies between skills of different team members
- conflict & cooperation; free riding
- activities need to be coordinated to ensure that
everything gets done
- there is no boss
- group think, duplication, reliance

Distributed leadership within teams

Influencing people to ensure that things get done:
Two kinds of activities have to take place:
a) Task activities: planning, scheduling, allocation & completion of work – mechanical,
logistical
b) Maintenance/Process activities: maintenance of functional relationships and process in a
team, e.g. developing shared team vision & team cohesion

Four kinds of leadership (Barry, 1991)

1. Envisioning Leadership: Facilitating shared vision (good at beginning) (b) – what makes
us a good team, helpig a team, how we do stuff
2. Organising Leadership: bringing order to the team’s activities (a & b) – ordering task,
rules, norms, but also about scheduling / getting tasks done and not wasting time
3. Spanning Leadership: facilitating links with other teams/individuals (good at start & end)
(a & b) – it is necessary to communicate with other teams, to make people aware what is
happening (strong image with outsiders,
4. Social Leadership: facilitating good relations and managing conflict (b) – how people get
along each other; assuring that everyone gets his/her views heard

- each kind of leadership needs different expertise & few individuals have all necessary skills
to perform all types —> leadership is shared/distributed among team members – people
have different strenghts – one are good at this, another at other things; it is hard to find
individual good at all things
- different kinds of teams will need different mixes of leadership
- distribution of leadership changes over time as team evolve
- distributed leadership is emergent
- is based on skills/experience rather than on formal hierarchy
- distributed leadership is a collective activity which is enacted as group members interact
(interaction rather than individuality)
Different source of leadership will be important in different time

Role of senior managers

- sets the framework in which the team operates
- may stifle the autonomy which is necessary to team effectiveness
- highlights the importance of top management creating a vision & direction for the
organisation
- shift in activities of managers outside the team from monitoring & controlling to coaching
and facilitating
- reluctance (opiranje) of senior managers to let go is often a problem - papiriii

Evidence
Distributed leadership in teams is facilitated by
- shared purpose / vision among team members
- social support among team members
- communication & participation
- coaching from senior managers external to the team

Does distributed leadership work?

- strong association between distributed leadership and team performance in consulting
teams

So what?
- if introducing team-based work, rethink conventional approaches to leadership
- top-down leadership is counterproductive
- very different model with changed roles for employees and managers
- allows organisations to reap the benefits of team-based work

Readings: SMT – self managed teams; bosless temas solve many problems. Increase
productivity and creativity; growth of technologically information – motivated and educated
specialist; equipment improved, ability to make real time decisions
Person-centred approach (leadership quality exists in one person – trait theories
Group-centred – how leadership should change