Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

Leadership Strategy and Innovation

Leadership Strategy and Innovation

Please read the instuctions carefully!

Two Components are there. Part A Google case study and Part B Essay. Referencing (at least 15) should
be done in Harvard style for both Part A (case study) � 2200 words and Part B (Essay) 2200 words. No
plagiarism. Quotes should be referenced. Provide tables/ diagrams, appendices where necessary for Part
A. Word limit excludes appendices and references. The subject is Leadership, Strategy and Innovation.
There should be introduction, body with headings (sub headings if necessary) and conclusion for both
Part A and Part B. Please read the questions, cases and guidances given below carefully and follow that.
For Part A information should be derived from the given cases only. I have attached the cases (google
who drives the strategy and google inc what’s the corporate strategy). I need it in 48 hours. This a
masters level final assessment. The level should be high and it should be written by top writers. The


writing should be critical and analytical with strong arguments and evidences. At least 12 out of 15

references must be from good journals.

Leadership Strategy and Innovation

Part A: Google Case Study

Q 1 Introduction

This part of the paper seeks to answer the question on the application of the Ashridge
Sense of Mission Model to a real life organization. The organization in mind is Google. As it has
been illustrated in the case study, Google has been a dominant company that seeks to attain its
goals and objectives. The achievement of these tasks is entwined in the company’s mission
statement whose applicability will be critically analyzed in accordance to the Ashridge Sense of
Mission Model (Kendrick & Vershinina, 2010). The subtle elements embedded into strategic
leadership are summarized in the Ashbridge model which is shown as figure 1 in the appendix.
By so doing, the aspect of transformational and transactional approach to leadership are
reiterated. The mission statement for Google Inc. is “to organize the world’s information’.

The Ashridge Sense of Mission Model

Ravindra1, (2014) cites that Mintzberg defined a mission as a basic statement that
describes the functions an organization intends to undertake both in the short-run and in the long-
run. It is inclusive of the products, services, customers, employees and all the other stakeholders


who could influence the operations of a business either directly or indirectly. The gist of the
mission statement applied by Google Inc. lies in the breaking down of the four elements
purported by the Ashbridge Model. These four basic elements include purpose, a strategy as well
as a strategic scope, policies and standards/codes of behavior and values and culture. Purpose is
derived from answering the question why Google exists. Apparently, Johnson and Scholes,
(2011) states that unlike most companies whose purpose is to create and subsequently increase
the wealth of the shareholders, Google is more purposed on organizing the world’s information
more than it is focused on profit maximization. By so doing, it can be argued that Google was
founded upon the need to improve the world’s access to information. Driven by this objective,
Larry Page and Sergey Brin who were then PHD students at Stanford University become more
focused on researching and coming up with a search engine that would improve the customers
experience and interaction with information on the World Wide Web (Grant, 2013).


The purpose of Google was to satisfy the needs of its customers and the society at large.
This is one reason why the company has a history of using transformational approaches to
leadership so as to develop superior applications, products, and operating systems among other
services that will facilitate the collection, arrangement, dissemination and access to information
across the internet. Apparently, Google has continuously achieved these objective as it has
maintained a rich history of market leadership in the face of other search engines such as Lycos,
Excite, WebCrawler, Inktomi, AltaVista, Infoseek and Northern Light. In the light of these
argument, Google has endeavored to protect its major form of revenue which is advertisement by
use of AdWord and AdSsense which are advertisement placement technologies that allows
administrators at Google to place adverts on third party websites in order to market them. The


quest to satisfy the informational thirst of the increasing technological society has seen Google
commit itself to employing the most competent and experienced personnel who can spearhead
innovations through research and development (Skokan, et al 2013). Additionally, Google Inc.
has continuously sought to ease the process of accessing information and this is one reason why
the company has invested in media channels among other products and services, some of which
are not financially viable.

Among the media sources that second this argument include the inception of new sources
of information such as the Google Book Search, Google Maps, Google News, Google Earth,
Google Patent Search, Google Video, YouTube, Picasa, Chrome, Google Finance and Google
Blog Search. Other services and products have been investment in the creation of G-Mail in the
year 2004, offering of services and software products some of which are available free of charge,
creating web pages, managing time, creating and subsequently manipulating images, blogs,
weblogs and social networking site (Google +) (Riemenschneider, et al 2013). On the other
hand, the revenue generating products and services include advertisements, android and mobile
telephony. Additionally, Google offers its employees with competitive pay rates yet they are
lower than its competitors such as competitors. Its key incentive lies in the provision of perks
such as free meals, massages, swimming pools and group incentives to lower on costs while
rewarding its employees properly to ensure that they are motivated. This implies that Google is
more focused on satisfying the diverse needs of the customers than on profit maximization.

Strategy and strategic scope

A strategy is a methodology that can be used by a given company to attain a competitive
advantage while a strategic scope sets and defines boundaries guiding the operations of a


business. These strategies and the strategic scope is set by the management of the company. At
Google Inc. the management body is composed of three figure heads. This is described as a two
tier governance structure which is composed on Brin and Page. The two were assisted by Eric
Schmidt an experienced veteran of the Silicon Valley. The two tier system has been
advantageous towards the formation and implementation of business strategies. This is because it
breaches the gap between the management and the employees thus facilitating decision making.
This statement is supported by the application of motivation based theory and the contingency
theories of management where the employer has to ensure that the employees are encouraged to
participate in defining the scope of a company by reducing bureaucracy. In fact, Googles
strategies were charged with Schmidt who is responsible for administration and performing other
classical roles associated with Chief Executive Officers, Brin was charged with the area of ethics
while Page was concerned with the social structure of the company (Grant, 2013). Through their
combined effort, the company has been spontaneous in its application of transformational
approaches towards organizing the world’s information.

Policies and standards of behavior

At Google, the policies and standards have been embedded into the corporate structure.
As Schmidt puts it, “Google is run by its culture…” (David, 2011). The policies and standards of
behavior among employees is defined by few regulations if any. This is because of the
management system employed at Google where the employees are encouraged to work with
minimal supervision. The control of the work groups, quality and the nature of the projects is left
in the hands of the employees while the management involves itself in the light-management of
the organization. This is seen in the employee to manager ratio which is accounted for as being
1:20. This is unlike most organizations in the USA whose policies and standards are strictly


regulated. Nonetheless, the management ensures that it attracts and retains the best employees
and engineers to as to ensure that the mission is achieved. Again, the engineer work in
autonomous teams while the peers look to it that quality, standards and policies are adhered to
the latter (Kamm, 2007). Thus it becomes the collective responsibility of all the employees to
determine the strategic direction of Google.

Values and culture

Google Inc. has its corporate culture and values entwined with its business principles
which are committed towards customer satisfaction. Google with the lead of Page and Brin value
loyalty and commitment and so does their 16,000 global employees. The employees are inspired
by the need for selflessness and commitment to research, development and innovation. This is
done with little supervision from the management but with the help and guidance of the group
members and the peers (McDonough & Michael, 2008). By so doing, Google has created a
culture of consistency while making sure that the organizational values are strongly grounded on
the delivery of quality software and hardware services and products respectively.

Q2 Google’s approach to strategic decision-making


This question is focused on explaining the relevance of the statement made by Eric
Schmidt regarding the long term plans for Google Company. The statement draws a lot of
questions on the company’s approach to strategic decision making. In the end, illustrations are
made on whether a similar approach can be embraced by other companies in the same industry or
in other industries. From the question, it dawns that Google Inc. is a uses the approach of short


term planning and at times the company makes no plan at all. It becomes evident that Google
substitutes the need to be futuristic with their ability to measure and analyze their strategic
moves and decision with precision. It is cited that the flexibility of the organizational structure
supports the making of faster decisions within an impulse which is unlike other companies such
as Apple where bureaucracy is involved thus the need for long term plans (Conaty & Ram,
2011). The management at Google believes that will their ability to employ corporate level
strategies that make the company devoid of rigid managerial control gives them an edge over
other companies operating in the same markets. The only form of rigidity that ensures the
success of Google is their strictness in recruitment and employment practices. The company
ensures that it attracts a highly rated employee brand. The HR department is choosy owing to the
many job applicants who sent applications to the company.

Strategic decision-making at Google

From a rational perspective, Claburn, (2011) states that it is assumed that the Googleplex
is pertinent in nurturing futuristic employees who do not need long term corporate level
strategies. Again, this assumption is closely followed by the fact that a sequence of short term
goals often give the company direction to work effortlessly. But the demerit of such a decision
making approach is that the company can easily lose direction and indulge in other activities that
might fail to be economically viable. For a company like Google which is committed towards
attaining its mission of organizing the world’s information, it is perfectly right for the employees
to use 20% of their work hours to indulge in productive activities that interest them (Merkle,
2010). Such a free spirited work environment is perfect for promoting innovations as it is
congruent to the motivation based theory. But on the flip side, it can be disadvantageous when
the employees become too involved with personal projects that will earn them royalty and


recognition than the collective activities of the firm. Based on this argument, the application of
such a strategy could be highly advantageous when properly managed but if not, it would lead to
wastage of resources such as time and finances and this will lead to imminent collapse of the

Reflecting on the contingency theory which reinstates that there is no one specific
leadership strategy that can assure an organization succeeds, there is the bottom-line which is
grounded on the need for innovations. By so doing, a company, in spite of its long term goals
becomes oriented towards advancing its competitive advantages so as to increase its profitability.
In the case of Google, the employees are elites holding Masters Degrees or Doctorates from
recognized and leading Universities (Pedler & Abbott, 2013). Again these employees are passed
through thorough vetting, interviews and assessment tests. By so doing, it is justifiable to argue
that each of the employees feels that they have a personal obligation to use the organizational
resources to advance their agendas and make innovations that will make them recognized. The
self-esteem that comes with being picked from the thorough vetting process might induce a sense
of individualism in the employees thus apart from the group projects, they might spend most of
their time working on projects that might not be successful in the first place. To counter this,
Google has invested heavily in measuring and analyzing the viability of all its psychometric
profiles. As Schmidt puts it, the measurement of the capabilities of the employees enable them to
handpick employees that are manageable. This is synonymous with the selection based on
laissez-faire attitude where the management can be assured of less control and productive use of
freedom (Morgan, et al 2010). The function of the management is supported by peer review
where the peers can influence the decision making process.



Google appreciates that peer review is stringent in analyzing performance management
and this becomes a secondary source of control for the decision makers. The other processes
undertaken at Google often follow rigid formulas thus preventing the employees from losing
track. One of the formulae is working in small groups of three to five while the supervisor issues
assignment to the groups. Deadlines are also given so as to ensure that the working of the
employees is kept within a stipulated timeframe. The working of these groups is supported by
technology which is ranked as a strategy (Riemenschneider, et al 2013). In spite of undertaking
such measures, it remains evident that decision making at Google is at times tricky as it is the
organization is disorganized by its lack of a long term goals. This is quoted in the instance when
Google failed to renew its German domain name in 2007 while the other instance happened
when they were not represented in a lawsuit. From these points, it is made apt that the strategic
decision-making used by Google cannot be transferable to other organizations. More so, because
Google has created an organic organization and such an approach to decision making can only be
applied in small organizations with less than 300 employees or in the industries that emphasize
on creativity such as entertainment theaters and advertising agencies (Wright, 2011). It is only in
these industries where short term goals are appropriate since the industry is dynamic as it is
dictated by competition and innovativeness of the rivals among other environmental factors.


Claburn, T. 2011. Google Founded By Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Hubert Chang? Information
Week Newspaper. Retrieved August 31, 2011.

Conaty, B. & Ram, C. 2011. The Talent Masters: Why Smart Leaders Put People before
Numbers. Crown Publishing Group: Arizona

David, G. 2011. Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda.
Harvard Business School Journal

Grant, R. 2013. Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 8th edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Case
Study 20 available online: Google Inc.: What’s the Corporate Strategy?

Johnson, G. & Scholes, K. 2011. Exploring Strategy. (9 th Ed.). Prentice Hall, Chapter 12
Strategic Development Processes, page 426-428: Google: who drives the strategy?

Kamm, F.M., 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harms. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Kendrick, M, & Vershinina, N. 2010. Management-International, Sidney: Cengage Learning

McDonough, W. & Michael, B. 2008. “The next industrial revolution,” Atlantic Monthly, 282
(October), 82-91

Merkle, J. 2010. Management and Ideology. Management Journal: University of California
Press. United States


Morgan, et al. 2010. Realizing Product-Market Advantage in High-Technology International
New Ventures: The Mediating Role of Ambidextrous Innovation. Journal of International
Marketing. Dec. 2010, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p1-21. 21

Pedler, M. & Abbott, C. 2013. Facilitating Action Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide. England:
McGraw Hill: Open University Press

Ravindra1, J. 2014. Innovation Promotion Strategies: A Conceptual Framework. South Asian
Journal of Management. Apr-Jun2014, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p44-70. 27p.

Riemenschneider, et al. 2013. Market and technology drivers: shaping an innovation strategy.
Journal of Business Strategy. 2013, Vol. 34 Issue 5, p4-11.

Skokan, et al. 2013. Emerging regional innovation strategies in Central Europe: institutions and
regional leadership in generating strategic outcomes. European Urban & Regional
Studies. Apr2013, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p275-294

Wright, P. 2011. The 2011 CHRO Challenge: Building Organizational, Functional, and Personal
Talent. Cornell Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Australia.


Part B: Essay Topic (Leader-member exchange theory)


This part of the paper triggers a critical analysis on of the leader member exchange theory
and its applicability or ability to provide an effective framework upon which the relationship
between followers and leaders can be examined. The leader member exchange theory also
known as the vertical dyad linkage theory refers to two-way relationship created between the
subordinate and the supervisors or the managers of any given organization (Walters, 2011). The
theory is grounded on the assumption that as the leaders and the subordinates interact, they create
a certain kind of relationship, which depending on the ties and bonds determines to a larger
extent the responsibilities, performance, access to resources and decision influence. The aim of
the theory is to augment employment experiences while equally promoting the inculcation of an
organizational culture of socialization and openness. The theory further focuses on increasing the
success of an organization by providing an effective framework upon which the relationship
between the management and the subordinate can be fostered so as to facilitate organizational
success (Cogliser & Schriesheim, 2010).

Application of the leader-member exchange theory

Dienesch and Liden, (2007) identify that the leader-member exchange theory emanated
from the need by managers to treat all the employees equally. It proposes that continued
interaction between team members lead to the development of a strong bond between the two
interacting parties. As a result, such people tend to trust each other and as a result, the member
works harder so as to fulfil the expectations of the leader. On the side of the leader who has the


power to assign responsibilities, he or she tends to assign more responsibilities to the employees
that they have less bond with in such a way that it favors the trusted employees. Inequality creeps
in when the employees who are assigned with more responsibilities are denied promotions
among other rewards in favor of the trusted employees who are not assigned much of the
responsibilities. The heart of the leader-member theory is therefore built on the need to
understand such scenarios at the work place and how they may either contribute to work related
growth or failure among some employees. The history of the theory dates back to the 1970’s
(Ehrhart & Klen, 2011). After its hypothecation, the theory went through a series of refinements
to include three stages in which the relationship between the subordinates and the leaders grow.
These stages begin with role taking, through role making to routine.

These first stage is associated with the joining of members into a group. The managers
use this time to assess the abilities and skills of the new members in the group. It is during the
second stage of role making that the managers expect the team member to be hardworking,
trustworthy and loyal. After observing their working, the manager subconsciously begins to
classify the employees into in-groups and out-groups. The skilled, trustworthy, hardworking and
loyal employees are classified into the in-group while the out-group contains the employees
deemed to be unmotivated and incompetent. The members in each group are treated differently.
Those in the in-group tend to be lavished with attention, they are open to opportunities such as
personal advancement and additional training (Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). They are given the
challenging tasks among other works that are interesting. They enjoy a close and cordial
relationship with the manager thus they tend to share in work ethics and personality. On the
contrary, those in the out-group are issue work that is unchallenging and restricted. They enjoy
less access to the manager and they are often denied opportunities to self-growth and


advancement. This stage ushers in the formation of routine which is the last stage. The in-groups
become accustomed to working hard, showing respect, loyalty, patience, empathy and
persistence while the out-groups begin to have a negative attitude towards the manager or the
leader. It becomes hard for those in the out-group to liberate themselves because of the
perception already formed in the manager.

The relationship between the manager and the members in these two groups created sub-
consciously can easily lead to self-fulfilling characteristics. For example the in-groups will be
accorded promotions and good opportunities which test their skills and expose them to growth.
The manager spends less time on the out-groups and in the end they receive few challenges and
opportunities alike. One of the shortcoming identified with the framework upon which the
leader-member exchange theory is that the theory assumes that all the members of a time have
equal levels of commitment, trust, loyalty thus they have to be accorded equal opportunities for
self-advancement. According to recent studies conducted by Dansereau, Graen and Haga, (1975)
the theory seconds the role theory which provides by providing an empirical support on the
applicability of the framework of these theory. In spite of this, a review of the existing researches
on the leader-member exchange theory identifies some merits and demerits.

In the journal “Expanding the scope: Social network and multilevel perspective on
leader-member exchange theory” by Ronald Piccolo and David Mayer, it is alluded that the
leader-member exchange theory abbreviated as (LMX) focuses on determining the impact of the
dyadic relationship between the followers and the leaders (Ehrhart & Klen, 2011). As a result,
Piccolo and Mayer launch an investigation into the advantages of followers developing high
quality relationship with their managers and leaders. In their acknowledgement, they state that
most of the prominent scholars who have conducted research on the LMX theory fail to elaborate


on the social context identified by the proponents of the theory. Because of that, it is suggested
that researchers have to take a contextual approach while studying the foundation of the theory.
By so doing, the researchers will be provided with a more accurate depiction on the existence of
such a relationship in a real world situation. By so doing, the authors of the journal present an
assessment of the leader member exchange theory and whether there exists a relationship
between the followers and the leaders. It is further made rife that other theories on leadership
have elicited much research, empirical and theoretical attention than the LMX theory. The theory
which was originally referred to as the vertical dyadic linkage theory is slightly differentiated
from LMX by virtue of its focusing on the relationship between the leader and the followers
unlike the former which assessed the vertical interaction and linkage between the management
and the followers.

The originality of the LMX theory lies in the positing that leaders differentiate their
followers depending on their quality of relationship and as such they tend to spend less resources
and time with those followers who are incapable. Therefore, this becomes the background upon
which the analysis is based. Additionally, it seconds the statement made by Roe, (2014) arguing
that followers who experience high quality relationships with leaders are likely to receive higher
rewards amounting to bonuses, pay and challenging assignments which expose them to growth
opportunities (Burt, 2012). Recent research on the possibility of such a relationship identified
that the leader-member exchange theory failed to provide an effective outline upon which the
relationship between the followers and leaders can be examined. A further assessment of this
relationship is purported by an elaborate comparison between other management theories such as
the average leadership style and LMX as explained in the subheading below.

Comparison between LMX and other leadership styles/theories


According to empirical studies conducted to contrast the LMX theory against other
management theories such as practice theory and alternative theories. These two theories
represent classical management/leadership theories upon which LMX was contrasted. It was
asserted that these two theories made use of average leadership styles (ALS) approach. Using the
ALS approach, it was assumed that leaders act in rational and relatively uniform manner towards
the followers. As a result, the research concentrated on the average and expected behavior
towards the followers. By so doing, the research presents a standard measure upon which
analysis and comparisons were made. Deviations from the average standards of expected
behavior towards subordinates based on the unconscious perception were treated as variance
errors thus they were ignored (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975). One instance of a study where
these two approaches were used interchangeably was on a sample population involving 672
members of the Army National Guard Unit. Hierarchical regression was used to analyze and
compare within and between groups variations in relationships and interaction between leaders
and followers. The aim of the research was to correct any theoretical assumptions related to
LMX model especially after the inclusion of variance from within group differences.

Augmenting the results collected from this research into the critical analysis of the
effectiveness of the framework used to examine the relationship between followers and leaders
as hypothesized identified the framework the theory fails to cater for some variations which leads
to inaccurate assumptions which affect and hinder the effectiveness of the relationship. For
instance, there is the challenged posed by the unethicality in the behavior triggered between the
leaders and the followers. This is shortcoming was identified by Western Researchers such as
Porath and Pearson, (2010) who noted that the leaders have to maintain a harmonious
relationship with the followers. This has to be done by ensuring justice and equity so as to


facilitate the achievement of job satisfaction as well as the organizational goals and objectives.
The attainment of higher levels of satisfaction among employees have an overall impact on the
effectiveness and efficient use of resources in the organization. In fact, on a fair ground,
employees who are treated equally often exhibit higher levels of commitment to the organization
since they are all given an even ground upon which they can compete and be rewarded for any
improvements noted. This is unlike the theory which inadvertently seems to support schisms in
the relationship between the employees and the managers. By doing, the employees will be
dissociated from holding the notion that some employees are grouped into the in-group while
others are in the out-group. These classification breakdown the essence of satisfactory
relationship since it makes it harder for the employees in the out-group to move into the in-group
and in the end they becomes dissatisfied with the management and this leads to further division
(Borgatti & Foster, 2013). As a result, the breakdown in the relationship leads to increased
absenteeism and employee turnover as the followers in the out-group exit the company in search
for employees who will help them grow and develop themselves.

The research exhibits a scenario where these grouping break the relationship structure of
the organization rather than foster it to desirable standards. This is because the employees in the
out-group will feel less connected to the organization and this will make them engage in
unethical behavior and practices that will be harmful to the whole organization. Such
characteristics are likely among employees who feel unappreciated as they make attempts to
compensate for the despair and unfair treatments received in the hands of the managers. Bliese,
(2011) states that unethical behavior is undesirable as it breaks the relationship structure of an
organization. It creates bigger rifts as employees become sidelined depending on the unconscious
grouping of the manager. Such practices are against most organizational policies as they are


illegal might jeopardize the image of the whole company. The general public is likely to
sympathize with the employees who are made to suffer in the hands of unfair managers and this
taints the public relations, brand and image of the whole organization. From the illustrations, it is
made lurid that the LMX theory creates a direct link between job satisfaction and ethics among
the employees (Lian, Ferris & Brown, 2012). Looking at it from this perspective, the theory
provides a framework for analyzing the relationship between these the follower and the leaders.
Therefore, managers can embrace behavioral theories in addition to the leader-member exchange
theory so as to foster the relationship between the organization and its key stakeholders such as
the employees and the publics. It is further recommended that since the hypothesis underlying
the theory was sidelined and lacking in practicality, it inapplicable to modern organizations as it
will bring a divide and inequality.

The application of the theory

The application of the LMX theory is flawed because if the leaders together with the
followers decided to apply and implement the use of the theory to the latter, then it means that
when new employees are recruited and absorbed into an organization, they have to indulge
themselves into activities that will make them gain the trust of the management. This practice is
faulty because it will encourage individualism rather than collectivism and team work (Mahin,
2008). This in return will lead to unhealthy competition. Instead, an organization has to ensure
that the employees are treated equally but rewarded with perks depending on their level of
commitment. Bass, (2010) seconds that all the other factors have to remain constant since
employees are often offered with assignments of varied magnitude thus it might be unfair to
group employees after a short period of time. In fact, promotions have to be offered to employees
who portray competence over a long period of time.



Balkundi and Kilduff, (2005) proposes that the failures of the LMX theory are seen in its
propagation of two extremities. One of the extremes is too low while the other is too low. The
other failure of the theory is that it fails to acknowledge variations such as those experienced by
regulating the size of the groups, the financial resources of a company and the nature of work or
the workload. The other variations is the theory fails to assume the possibility of the follower
from the out-group being promoted upwards. Thus the LMX theory fails to be particular in its
description of the specific behaviors that either promote or undermine high quality relationships
(Warren, 2013). The only good side with the theory is that it only presents a generalized view on
the need for the followers to be loyalty, trustworthy, and respectful but fails to identify instances
of autonomy in the relationship between the leaders and the servants.


Balkundi, P. & Kilduff, M. 2005. The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 941-961

Bass, M. 2010. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bliese, P. 2011. Within group agreement, non-independence and reliability; Implications for date
aggregation. In K.J. Klein & S. W. K. Kozlowski (Ed), multilevel theory, research and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions 9pp. 349-381). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Borgatti, S. & Foster, P. 2013. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and
typology. Journal of Management, 29. 991-1013.

Burt, R. 2012. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Cogliser, C. & Schriesheim, C. 2010. Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange.
A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21. 487-511

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in
formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78

Dienesch, R., & Liden, R. 2007. Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and
further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.


Ehrhart, M. & Klen, K. 2011. Predicting follower’s preferences for charismatic leadership: The
influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153-179

Hershcovis, S. & Reich, T. 2013. Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational,
contextual, and method consideration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34 (S1), 26-

Lian, H. Ferris, D. & Brown, M. 2012. Does taking the good with the bad make things worse?
How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need
satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 117, 41–52

Mahin, L. 2008. ‘Critical Thinking and Business Ethics.’ Business Communication Quarterly,
61:3, 74-78.

Porath, C. & Pearson, C. 2010. The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 64-71.

Walters, K. 2011. ‘Critical Thinking, Rationality, and the Vulcanization of students.’ Journal of
Accounting Education, 9, 15-31.

Warren, B. 2013. Leadership in a digital world: embracing transparency and adaptive capacity.
MIS Quarterly. Jun2013, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p635-636.

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.