Week 3

post91

LeadershipVisionasaMoralDuty.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Week 3

Leadership vision as a moral duty Ken Kalala Ndalamba

Economic and Management Sciences, Methodist University of Angola, Luanda, Angola

Cam Caldwell Independent Author, Alexandria, Louisiana, USA, and

Verl Anderson School of Business, Dixie State University, St George, Utah, USA

Abstract Purpose – Although much has been written about leadership, the concept of leadership vision is not widely understood, is far more complex than is commonly perceived, and is profoundly ethical in its normative and instrumental nature. The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance of leadership vision, identify seven complex elements, which are key elements of leadership, and identify the importance of leadership vision as a moral duty. Eight testable propositions about leadership vision are presented that address the nature of leadership vision. Design/methodology/approach – This paper begins with an examination of the complex nature of leadership vision. After defining leadership vision, this paper identifies seven key elements and nine propositions that practitioners and scholars can test to assess the nature of that vision. Following the presentation of three significant contributions, this paper concludes with a challenge to practitioners and scholars to closely examine the importance of leadership vision. Findings – This paper invites leaders in today’s complex organizations to refine their leadership vision by honoring the duties they owe to others. The leadership vision strengthens leaders’ capacity to guide and serve their organizations and the people working within them. Practical implications – This paper assists leaders in their duty to serve their organizations, its stakeholders, and a society that badly needs great leaders with vision, commitment to excellence, and a clear moral compass. Originality/value – This paper provides three significant implications about leadership vision. It defines leadership vision as a complex and multi-faceted moral duty; it presents eight testable propositions about leadership vision, which have value for both practitioners and scholars; it raises the bar for would-be leaders with regard to the obligations that they have in serving others and in guiding organizations. Keywords Stewardship, Followership, Moral leadership, Covenantal nature of leadership, Leadership vision Paper type Conceptual paper

Leadership vision as a moral duty Although much has been written about leadership, leaders struggle to obtain the trust, followership, commitment, and extra-role effort required to compete in today’s global marketplace (Bennis and Nanus, 2007). Scholars such as Paine (2002), consultants such as Covey (2015), and practitioners such as DePree (2004) have written about the importance of both instrumental and normative outcomes and the importance of treating employees as valued partners. Block (2013), Hernandez (2008, 2012), and Ciulla (2014) have all addressed the stewardship obligation of leaders and Organ (1988), Organ et al. (2005), Pava (2003), and DePree (2004) have all described leadership as a “covenantal relationship” with sacred obligations. But often today’s leaders fail to meet the expectations of those whom they seek to lead – a problem affirmed as the challenge of leadership by such experts as Barnard (1938), Simon (1956), Pfeffer (1998), and Christensen (2016) for the past eight decades.

Leadership is an influence-related relationship (Rost, 1991) consisting of moral and ethical duties (Solomon, 1992; Covey, 2005; Cameron, 2011) demanding serious cognitive abilities from those exercising it (Mumford et al., 2007) to fulfill its purposes. Vision as a construct of leadership (Meindl, 1990; Shamir et al., 1993; Klein and House, 1998;

Journal of Management Development

Vol. 37 No. 3, 2018 pp. 309-319

DOI 10.1108/JMD-08-2017-0262

Received 22 August 2017 Revised 16 October 2017

26 December 2017 Accepted 1 January 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

309

Leadership vision

Hunt et al., 1999; Jacobsen and House, 2001 in Partlow et al., 2015) has been identified by scholars over the past few decades (Strange and Mumford, 2002; Partlow et al., 2015) as a critical element of effective leadership. The focus of this paper examines the nature of leadership vision suggesting that it is a duty that is: rarely fully understood (Bennis and Nanus, 2007; Burns, 2010), contextually complex (Brunner, 1997), necessarily contingent (Partlow et al., 2015), and morally and ethically interpreted (Ciulla, 2014; Caldwell, 2012; Caldwell et al., 2015). After defining leadership vision, we identify six key elements and nine propositions that practitioners and scholars can test to assess the nature of that vision. We identify three significant implications of this paper and then conclude with a brief summary of future research opportunities and a challenge to practitioners and scholars to closely examine the importance of leadership vision.

Defining leadership vision The etymology of “vision” provides rich insight into its practical meaning. The word comes from the Proto-Indo European root weid with usage found in the vocabularies of 19 different countries (Online Dictionary of Etymologyy, n.d.). Significantly, vision has traditionally meant “to know” as well as the capacity “to see” (Online Dictionary of Etymology, n.d.). It is in understanding vision in terms of what one knows and can apply – in addition to what one sees – which enables organizations and their employees to achieve their highest potential (Covey, 2005, pp. 98-99).

“Defining a shared vision” was identified by Kouzes and Posner (2012) as one of five key practices of exemplary leaders and a shared vision was cited by MIT’s Peter Senge (2006) as a necessary requirement for learning organizations. Kouzes and Posner (2012, Chs 4 and 5) suggest that a shared vision possesses four characteristics:

(1) Imagining possible opportunities – the ability to envision what can be achieved, and barriers to overcome, creates a road map to the future (cf. Nicholson, 2013).

(2) Finding a common purpose – recognizing motivations that bring people together achieves bonding and cooperation (Rost, 1991).

(3) Appealing to common ideals – this capacity includes sensitivity to the values and ethical assumptions which motivate others (Ciulla, 2014).

(4) Animating the vision – making possibilities come to life and communicating their potential enables a leader to inspire others (Covey, 2005).

A shared vision encourages individuals to make a deep personal investment, to risk failure, and to cooperate with others in pursuit of outcomes demanding constant learning (Senge, 2006). Shared visions empower others (Pearce, 2004) encourage positive deviance (Melnyk and Davidson, 2009) and include multiple moral assumptions about the leader’s responsibility to stakeholders (Hosmer, 2010, Ch. 1).

Kantabutra and Avery (2002, p. 22) suggested that vision consists of “brevity, clarity, abstractness, challenge, future orientation, stability, and desirability, plus vision content relating to employee and customer satisfaction.” Pirsig (1974) explained that the essence of vision was a state of harmony wherein actions mesh with the context of what is needed to achieve an optimal outcome. Zaccaro and Banks (2001) suggested that a leader’s vision responds to the demands of circumstance and situational context. Thus, leadership vision enhances meaning, provides clarity, demonstrates contextual relevance, and unites participants.

In identifying the ethical nature of leadership, Flynn (2006) cited the moral obligation to achieve a virtuous outcome. Collins (2001, p. 1) argued that the leader must understand that “(g)ood is the enemy of great” and that a leader must empower and direct an organization to achieve world-class competence. Cameron (2011) emphasized that the leader’s responsibility

310

JMD 37,3

encompassed the pursuit of virtuous outcomes and Caldwell et al. (2015) suggested that seeking virtuous objectives is the moral duty of all leaders. The integrated leadership and vision achieves transformational results that guide change, optimize performance, and benefit individuals (Howarth and Rafferty, 2009).

Lennick and Kiel (2011) explained that moral intelligence requires that leaders do no harm, create short-term value, and create long-term value. For Kohlberg (1981), moral choices were based upon rules and justice and for Gilligan, morality was a function of relationships, compassion, and responsibility. Although moral choices may be conditional, based upon the context and situation, Lennick and Kiel’s summary of moral duties is appealing as a universal leadership responsibility associated with the concept of leadership vision within the context of this paper.

Pfeffer (1998) observed that the duty of leaders extended far beyond simply developing a great plan, and that the distinguishing characteristic and obligation of a leader’s vision was his or her ability to put that plan into action. Pava (2003) explained that there are sometimes “many paths” or options that can achieve outcomes, but that the vision of a leader empowered him or her to choose a path that was contextually achievable. Deming (2000) observed that the distinguishing characteristic of leaders included the “profound knowledge” to not only see what needs to be done but the capacity to bring together resources, remove barriers, and assist others in understanding their role in the pursuit of a desired outcome. Thus, leadership vision is ultimately an action-oriented responsibility that transcends articulating a desired outcome and communicating it to others but includes translating that plan into the action to accomplish a desired result.

Leadership vision has its theoretical foundations in the expectancy theory and identity theory. In expectancy theory, Vroom and Deci (1983) explained that the behavior is motivated by three primary perceptions associated with the decision to pursue a desired goal:

(1) Expectancy – the assessment as to whether a specific intended outcome, task, or goal is actually achievable. Expectancy addresses the question, “Is this task or goal actually doable?”

(2) Valence – the emotional preference for rewards or outcomes that are desired. Valence addresses the question, “Does pursuing this outcome produce a desired outcome that personally matters?”

(3) Instrumentality – the belief that achieving a task will actually result in a desired reward. Instrumentality addresses the question, “Will achieving the outcome really result in the reward that is expected?”

Expectancy theory conforms to the leader’s perception that an accomplishable task will achieve desired results.

Identity theory describes the cyclical process of comparing oneself to a self-image of who one ought to be and what one can potentially accomplish – using that comparator as a driving force for examining, refining, and redefining one’s actions (Burke and Stets, 2009). The “comparator” is one’s ideal personal identity and motivates individuals to seek the best within themselves (Stets and Serpe, 2013). Covey (2005, 2009, and 2015) addressed a similar concept in encouraging people to “find their voice” and discover their inherent greatness.

Integrating this research from these scholars, we define leadership vision as “profound knowledge that creates the moral and ethical capacity to conceive of a feasible and contextually relevant plan of action that inspires and motivates others to pursue the best possible outcome; identifies the resources required and barriers to be overcome in achieving a desired purpose; and unites others in understanding and carrying out that plan, despite obstacles that may arise.” This definition forms the basis for the remainder of this paper.

311

Leadership vision

Elements of leadership vision Leadership vision consists of six important elements. In this section, we identify those elements and present nine propositions.

Knowledge of oneself Leadership vision begins with profound self-knowledge (McKee and Boyatzis, 2008). Leaders achieve this awareness when they find their own voice, determine what they value, and discover their highest potential (cf. Covey, 2005). In writing about self-discovery and its moral component, Covey (2011) explained the following:

(Y)ou will find your voice when you can say you are 100% involved with what you are doing in your life, so that your body, mind, heart and spirit are all engaged in whatever is important to you. To find your voice, you need to examine your natural talent, what you absolutely love to do, what really interests you. And you must listen to the confirming inner voice of your conscience that tells you what is the right thing to do.

It is in following their inner compass that leaders are true to themselves, are able to achieve their own greatness, and assist others in discovering their highest potential (Covey, 2005).

Goleman et al. (2013) emphasized the importance of this self-awareness and the ability of individuals to control their responses to others as critical components of emotional intelligence. Being self-aware enables an individual to act with clarity and commitment in examining a problem (Boyatzis, 2015). Leaders high in self-knowledge are also perceived by others as being more authentic (Thacker, 2016; George and Gergen, 2015). Consistent with this research about self-knowledge and leadership vision, we present the first proposition:

P1. Leaders who are rated as high in self-knowledge are perceived by their followers to be more capable of articulating an inspiring organizational vision than leaders who are rated as lower in self-knowledge.

Commitment to others’ growth Leadership vision includes the ability to not only discern one’s own best self but to see the greatness in others. Covey (2005, pp. 98-99) defined leadership as “finding one’s voice and helping others to discover theirs.” Similarly, DePree (2004, Ch. 1) viewed the leader’s sacred obligation as helping others to achieve their highest potential. By demonstrating a commitment to the welfare, growth, and wholeness of others, leaders with vision honor the responsibilities of ethical stewardship (Hernandez, 2008, 2012).

Leadership vision recognizes the need for others to grow and creates an opportunity for organizational synergy and change that transcends what each person can contribute as individuals (Guidroz et al., 2010). Beer (2009) found that leaders who treated employees as valued assets, created a learning culture, and empowered employees to become contributing partners in an organization, and saw their organizations improve performance and employee commitment. Leaders who strive to help others become their best understand that doing so benefits both their organization and their employees and is a moral responsibility (Block, 2013; Paine, 2002). Anderson and Caldwell (2017) have noted that the commitment to the welfare, growth, and wholeness of others is a moral imperative consistent with the ethic of self-actualization and is an ethical obligation of leaders. Regarding this importance of commitment to others as a key element of leadership vision, we present the second proposition:

P2. Organizations with leaders who demonstrate a moral commitment to the growth of others are more profitable than organizations with leaders who do not demonstrate this same commitment.

312

JMD 37,3

Recognizing the need to change Continually learning, innovating, and improving are key elements of leadership (Dallas, 2015) and are implicit moral obligations of the visionary leader (Dorsey, 2016). The ability to coordinate the process of change has been identified as the key role of effective leaders and distinguishes leaders from managers (Bennis, 2009; Spiro, 2010; Kotter, 2012; Covey, 2015). Leaders understand the nature of today’s chaotic and conflicted world (Peters, 1995). The abilities to innovate, to constantly monitor competitors, and to adapt quickly to customer requirements are essential for survival and are fundamental to successful change (Christensen, 2016). Organizations must constantly be improving just to maintain their competitive position (Collins and Hansen, 2011).

Leaders with vision understand their market, their competitors, their products, and their technology and use that knowledge to develop a constantly learning organizational culture (Conner and Clawson, 2004; Hess, 2014). Leaders with vision create a competitive advantage that allows them to meet the needs of existing customers and to generate new customers through disruptive innovation (Dyer et al., 2011). As a moral and ethical imperative recognizing the need for change is essential to the ethic of economic efficiency, which emphasizes the obligation to optimize outcomes with a minimum of waste and is essential for building trust (Hosmer, 1995). Ethical stewardship obligates leaders to manage the change to produce optimal long-term wealth creation (Caldwell et al., 2008). The third proposition addresses how leadership vision applies to recognizing the need for change as a moral obligation of leaders:

P3. Leaders who understand the moral responsibilities of constant change are perceived as having greater vision than leaders who lack this understanding.

Defining the right problem Leadership vision includes the ability to focus on the right problem and to identify critical factors essential for success (Deming, 2000). This vision incorporates the ability to observe and to discern at a level not understood by others (Collins and Hansen, 2011). Stickney (2016) explained that Ulysses Grant’s distinguishing virtue in the civil war was his ability to understand the superior resources that he possessed and his recognition of the importance of keeping constant pressure on the southern armies. Grant focused on his ability to grind down the Confederate forces in a war of attrition (Stickney, 2016) and his understanding of the correct approach to beating the Confederate forces made him far superior to General George McClellan or any of the other Northern generals.

Deming (2000) emphasized the importance of profound knowledge, which he explained consisted of a clear contextual understanding of the factors that made up any system. Dettmer (2007) described this same process of logical thinking as the Theory of Constraints, explaining that achieving a goal required defining it properly, carefully determining the key factors or constraints to be addressed, and understanding how to effectively utilize these factors to optimize a desired outcome. Effective leaders recognize that they must constantly distinguish between what is urgent and that which is truly important in the pursuit of optimal organizational outcomes (Covey, 2015). Utilitarian ethics encompasses the leader’s commitment to pursuing the highest and best utilization of resources in the search for the best possible outcomes and is consistent with the moral obligation to leaders to demonstrate clear vision by understanding the implications of decisions and options (Anderson and Caldwell, 2017). Related to the importance of defining the right problem as an element of leadership vision, we present the fourth proposition:

P4. Leaders who understand the moral responsibilities of optimizing organizational results by analyzing what is needed to be most effective are perceived as having greater vision than leaders who lack this understanding.

313

Leadership vision

Understanding the context There are often many paths to solving any organizational problem (Pava, 2003), and leaders recognize that their organizations must create solutions that work, based upon the unique combination of resources that are available to them (cf. Dosi et al., 2008). The vision to assess one’s resources, to recognize the context of a situation, to determine which of many possible options best meets the needs of an organizational goal, and to understand how to integrate available resources into a workable strategic plan are key elements of leadership competence (Collins and Hansen, 2011) and are consistent with the moral obligation of leaders to achieve the best possible outcomes (Anderson and Caldwell, 2017).

Leading an organization is no simple task (Collins and Porras, 1994). Strategic vision requires knowing who to rely on, creating a powerful team of resources, and utilizing that team to obtain the best possible information to make decisions (Collins and Hansen, 2011). This sense making capacity guides the visionary leader as (s)he evolves through a process that is future-oriented, action-oriented, macro in focus, closely tied to organizing, meshed with identity, highly visible, behaviorally defined, less sedentary and backward-looking, and infused with emotion and with issues of sense-giving and persuasion (Weick et al., 2005, p. 409). As a moral duty, the obligation of leaders includes incorporating this vision of possible opportunities from both a utilitarian and economic efficiency ethical perspective and also incorporates the wisdom implicit in virtue ethics (Hosmer, 1995). The leadership vision associated with developing a workable solution leads to the fifth proposition:

P5. Organizations with leaders who are skilled in assessing context, identifying options, and making sense of how to utilize organization resources are more profitable than organizations with leaders who lack this set of qualities.

Communicating the problem Leadership vision recognizes the importance of clearly enumerating problems to be resolved, the goals to be achieved, the moral basis for making value judgments, the positive and negative impacts of options on stakeholders, and the rationale used for the leader’s ultimate decision (Hosmer, 2010, Ch. 1). But leadership vision also recognizes the need to establish an organizational culture that promotes internal integration of systems and processes necessary to accomplish critical tasks with the adaptation to enable the organization to fit the needs of a constantly changing external environment (Tsui et al., 2006). By communicating to stakeholders their key roles and involving them as partners (Block, 2013), visionary leaders recognize that they are communicating by both word and action the alignment of their goals with their values (Hosmer, 2010). By honoring relationships owed to others, leaders conform to the ethic of care (Gilligan, 2016) and demonstrate the high level of responsibility upon which this ethical perspective is based.

The ability to lead others effectively means that leaders must both inspire a shared vision and encourage the hearts of those whom they lead (Kouzes and Posner, 2012). Leadership vision enables a leader to realize that (s)he must communicate so clearly and effectively that those with whom the leader works share the same vision as the leader in understanding what needs to be done and why it is important (Kouzes and Posner, 2009). Consistent with this information about the ethical implications of the importance of the leader’s responsibility to others, we present the sixth proposition:

P6. Organizations with leaders who honor interpersonal duties owed to others and the responsibility to pursue others’ best interests are perceived as more visionary than leaders who lack this perspective.

314

JMD 37,3

Executing the action plan The most difficult step in the leadership process is in executing a strategic plan (Pfeffer, 1998). Leadership vision entails understanding how to carry out that plan and each step along the way. In executing an action plan, the people, resources, and timing of each step are each critical factors in its success (Fogg, 1999). Matching the skills needed to execute a plan with people who have the requisite abilities is an essential factor. Technology and other resources are necessary but not sufficient to accomplish a desired result (Rivard et al., 2006).

The dynamic integration of elements of a strategic plan is a refined but rarely possessed skill but is critical to successful execution (O’Reilly III and Tushman, 2011). Leadership vision includes the ability to adapt quickly as changing parameters affect execution. Wise leaders acknowledge that developing an action plan is far easier than actually making it happen – and that the value that they add to organizations is both a leader’s duty and a function of execution (Pfeffer, 1998). Because achieving the best possible outcomes for individuals and organizations is so consistent with the moral obligations of ethical stewardship (Caldwell et al., 2008) and the obligations of transformative ethics (Anderson and Caldwell, 2017), an effective execution is clearly a moral and ethical responsibility associated with this facet of leadership vision. Consistent with these insights about the relationship between leadership vision and effective execution, we present the seventh proposition:

P7. Organizations that are led by leaders who are skilled in executing a plan of actions are viewed as more ethical than organizations with leaders who are less effective.

Integrating the elements Each leadership vision element is a contributing factor that can enable a leader to perform his/her role more effectively. The confluence of the respective factors increases the likelihood that organizational outcomes will succeed (Kouzes and Posner, 2012). In addition, the research suggests that the nature of organizational dimensions essential to leadership effectiveness occur on a continuum from low to high (Senge, 2006; Hayes et al., 2015). Consistent with these findings, we present the last two propositions:

P8. Organizations with leaders who demonstrate high levels of all of these elements that make up leadership vision are viewed as more ethical than organizations with leaders who are low in one or more element.

P9. Because leadership vision is measurable on a continuum, organizations with leaders with a greater cumulative amount of leadership vision are viewed as more ethical than organizations with leaders who have lesser amounts of leadership vision.

Implications of the paper This paper provides three significant contributions about leadership vision and its practical implications:

(1) It defines leadership vision as a rarely understood, complex, and multi-faceted moral duty. The definition presented in this paper adds clarity and insight to the importance of leadership vision in earning the trust and commitment of others and in achieving organizational success. This definition broadens the understanding of leadership vision for both scholars and practitioners and explains why leadership vision demands the profound knowledge that Deming (2000) described as vital to organizational success. The definition also expands on the understanding of the nature of leadership vision and the implications of vision on the duties of leaders.

315

Leadership vision

(2) It presents nine testable propositions about leadership vision, which have value for both practitioners and scholars. These propositions address the obligations of leaders as they relate to leadership vision, provide opportunities to examine and test these propositions, and explain why practitioners should learn more about the characteristics of leadership vision. This paper also encourages scholars to join in the dialog, to test these propositions, and to confirm or disconfirm their practical value.

(3) It raises the bar for would-be leaders with regard to the obligations that they have in serving others and in guiding organizations. By clarifying the complex nature of leadership vision, its implicit moral implications, and its importance for organizations, this paper helps to emphasize the responsibilities of leaders in guiding organizations, serving stakeholders, and creating long-term wealth.

Each of these practical implications has value as leaders seek to earn the trust, followership, commitment, and extra-role behavior of their employees (Beer, 2009).

Conclusion Opportunities for future research abound in testing the elements and propositions of this paper. Each of the propositions suggests measurable elements of the leadership that have practical implications for the modern organization. As leaders struggle to earn and retain the trust of those whom they seek to lead and to serve they require wisdom, experience, and a broad range of skills that are important to understand (Kouzes and Posner, 2012). As scholars and practitioners work together to examine the propositions of this paper, they have the opportunity to confirm or disconfirm the validity of the assumptions and ideas contained herein.

Quinn (1996, p. 158) described the difficult moral challenge facing today’s leaders:

(T)here are no written guarantees, no insurance policies that will save us if we fail. The possibility of failure is a constant companion who walks beside every real leader. Leaders cope with this presence because they understand that whenever they sacrifice their principles for pressure, both they and the system take another step toward slow death. They are willing to accept the necessary risk because it is the right thing to do. They care enough to risk dying for the organization, which would kill them for caring.

The duty of leaders is to serve their organizations, its stakeholders, and a society that badly needs great leaders who have vision, commitment to excellence, and a clear moral compass. By refining their leadership vision and honoring the duties they owe to others, would-be leaders can develop the insight and wisdom to guide and serve their organizations and the people working within them – despite the risks of not being appreciated.

References

Anderson, V. and Caldwell, C. (2017), “Transformative ethics and trust: the keys to a competitive advantage”, in Caldwell, C. and Anderson, V. (Eds), Competitive Advantage: Strategies Management, and Performance, NOVA Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 133-146.

Barnard, C.I. (1938), Functions of the Executive, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Beer, M. (2009), “High commitment high performance: how to build a resilient organization for sustained advantage”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Bennis, W.G. (2009), On Becoming a Leader, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. (2007), Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper Business Publishers, New York, NY.

Block, P. (2013), Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland, CA.

Boyatzis, R. (2015), Emotional Intelligence: The Essential Skills, Create Space, New York, NY.

316

JMD 37,3

Brunner, C.C. (1997), “Women’s way of succeeding in educational administration”, ERS Spectrum, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 25-31.

Burke, P.J. and Stets, J.E. (2009), Identity Theory, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Burns, J.M. (2010), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Caldwell, C. (2012), Moral Leadership: A Transformative Model for Tomorrow’s Leaders, Business

Expert Press, New York, NY. Caldwell, C., Hasan, Z. and Smith, S. (2015), “Virtuous leadership: insights for the 21st century”, Journal

of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1181-1200. Caldwell, C., Hayes, L., Karri, R. and Bernal, P. (2008), “Ethical stewardship: the role of leadership

behavior and perceived trustworthiness”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 78 Nos 1/2, pp. 153-164. Cameron, K. (2011), “Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98

No. 25, pp. 1023-1036.

Christensen, C.M. (2016), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business Review Press, New York, NY.

Ciulla, J.B. (2014), Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, Praeger, Westport, CN.

Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Collins, J. and Hansen, M. (2011), Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck – Why Some Thrive Despite Them all, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1994), Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Harper, New York, NY.

Conner, M. and Clawson, J. (2004), Creating a Learning Culture: Strategy, Technology, and Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Covey, S.R. (2005), The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, Free Press, New York, NY.

Covey, S.R. (2009), Everyday Greatness: Inspiration for a Meaningful Life, Thomas Nelson, New York, NY.

Covey, S.R. (2011), The 3rd Alternative: Solving Life’s Most Difficult Problems, Free Press, New York, NY.

Covey, S.R. (2015), The 4 Imperatives of Great Leaders, Compact Disc, Brilliance Publishing, Grand Haven, MI.

Deming, W.E. (2000), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Boston, MA.

DePree, M. (2004), Leadership is an Art, Crown Business, New York, NY.

Dettmer, H.W. (2007), The Logical Thinking Process: A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Dorsey, D. (2016), The Limits of Moral Authority, Oxford University Press, London.

Dosi, G., Faillo, M. and Marengo, L. (2008), “Organizational capabilities, patterns of knowledge accumulation and governance structures in business firms: an introduction”, Organizational Studies, Vol. 29 Nos 8/9, pp. 1165-1185.

Dyer, J., Gregersen, H. and Christensen, C. (2011), The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.

Flynn, V. (2006), Executive Power, Simon & Schuster Audio, New York, NY.

Fogg, C.D. (1999), Implementing Your Strategic Plan: How to Turn “Intent” into Effective Action for Sustainable Change, Amacom, New York, NY.

George, B. and Gergen, D. (2015), Discover Your True North, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY.

Gilligan, C. (2016), In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2013), Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.

Hayes, L., Caldwell, C., Licona, B. and Meyer, T. E. (2015), “Follower behaviors and barriers to wealth creation”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 270-285.

317

Leadership vision

Hernandez, M. (2008), “Promoting stewardship behavior in organizations: a leadership model”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 121-128.

Hernandez, M. (2012), “Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 172-193.

Hess, E. (2014), Humility is the New Smart: Rethinking Human Excellence in the Smart Machine Age, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, New York, NY.

Hosmer, L.T. (1995), “Trust: the connecting link between organisational theory and philosophical ethics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 379-403.

Hosmer, L.T. (2010), The Ethics of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Howarth, M.D. and Rafferty, A.E. (2009), “Transformational leadership and organizational change: the impact of vision content and delivery”, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, No. 1, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2009.44243043.

Kantabutra, S. and Avery, G.C. (2002), “Proposed model for investigating relationships between vision components and business unit performance”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 22-39.

Kohlberg, L. (1981), The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Kotter, J.P. (2012), Leading Change, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B. (2009), “To lead, create a shared vision”, Strategy Magazine, Harvard Business Review, January.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2012), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Lennick, F. and Kiel, D. (2011),Moral Intelligence 2.0: Enhancing Business Performance and Leadership Success in Troubled Times, Pearson, New York, NY.

McKee, A. and Boyatzis, R. (2008), Becoming a Resonant Leader: Develop Your Emotional Intelligence, Renew Your Relationships, Sustain Your Effectiveness, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.

Melnyk, B.M. and Davidson, S. (2009), “Creating a culture of innovation in nursing education through shared vision, leadership, interdisciplinary partnerships, and positive deviance”, Nursing Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 288-295, doi: 10.1097/NAQ.0b013e3181b9dcf8.

Mumford, M.D., Friedrich, T.L., Caughron, J.J. and Byrne, C.L. (2007), “Leader cognition in real-world settings: how do leaders think about crises?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 515-543.

Nicholson., N. (2013), The “I” of Leadership: Strategies for Seeing, Being, Doing, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex.

O'Reilly, C.A. III and Tushman, M.L. (2011), “Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit”, California Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 5-21.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Organ, D.W., Philip, M.P. and Scott, B.M. (2005), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.

Paine, L. (2002), Value Shift, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Partlow, P.J., Medeiros, K.E. and Mumford, M.D. (2015), “Leader cognition in vision formation: simplicity and negativity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 448-469.

Pava, M. (2003), Leading with Meaning: Using Covenantal Leadership to Build a Better Organization, St Martin’s Press, New York, NY.

Pearce, J. (2004), Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation, and Control, Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Peters, R. (1995), In Search of Excellence, HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

318

JMD 37,3

Pirsig, R. (1974), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values, William Morrow Publishers, New York, NY.

Quinn, R.E. (1996), Deep change: Discovering the LeaderWithin. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Rivard, S., Raymond, L. and Verreault, D. (2006), “Resource-based view and competitive strategy: an integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 29-50.

Rost, J.C. (1991), Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.

Senge, P.M. (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Simon, H. (1956), Administrative Behaviour, Free Press, New York, NY.

Solomon, R.C. (1992), Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Spiro, J. (2010), Leading Change Step-By-Step: Tactics, Tools, and Tales, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY.

Stets, J.E. and Serpe, R.T. (2013), “Identity theory”, in DeLamater, J. and Ward, A. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 31-60.

Stickney, J. (2016), “How did grant succeed: America’s civil war magazine”, available at: www. historynet.com/how-did-grant-succeed.htm (accessed March, 2018).

Strange, J.M. and Mumford, M.D. (2002), “The origins of vision: charismatic versus ideological leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 343-377.

Thacker, K. (2016), The Art of Authenticity: Tools to Become an Authentic Leader and Your Best Self, Wiley, New York, NY.

Tsui, A.S., Wang, H. and Xin, R. (2006), “Organizational culture in China: an analysis of culture dimensions and culture types”,Management and Organization Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 345-376.

Vroom, E.L. and Deci, V.H. (1983), Management and Motivation, Penguin Books, New York, NY.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005), “Organizing and the process of sensemaking”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409-421.

Zaccaro, S.J. and Banks, D.J. (2001), “Leadership vision and organizational effectiveness”, in Zaccaro, S.J. and Klimoski, R.J. (Eds), The Nature of Organizational Leadership: Understanding the Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 181-218.