!"# %#&'#"!

#$%&
!"##$%"&$'()* ,"-
!"#! #$ %&'( $) *'
!"#$%"!
!"#$"%&'() +'",%("&- ."/"&0"% 1202/3 4567 8%,2) 9%,:";0 !3A<
8y Song An1ALLCn -Salma SuL1AnA -ArLhur kLL8AnCvlCS

Table of Contents
ArLlcle Summary: ..................................................................................................................................... 2
lnLroducLlon Lo Lhe Loplc ......................................................................................................................... 3
8esearch problem ................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Soclal changes: from 19
Lh
cenLury Lo now: ......................................................................................... 3
2. Modern leadershlp approach: ............................................................................................................. 6
3. Modern organlzaLlons versus LradlLlonal organlzaLlons: .................................................................... 8
Concluslon: ............................................................................................................................................ 13
1heoreLlcal ulscusslon: ......................................................................................................................... 16
8eferences ............................................................................................................................................ 17















!"#$%&' )*++,"-.

The article Grant A.M (2011) displays the importance of end-users and managers in business
performance. Like leaders, end-users are an inspirational source. Indeed, end-users
experiences are considered as a great report of achievements and expectations for employees
(ibid). This can leads to the empowerment of employees. Employees empowerment is a
significant factor (ibid). Actually when workforce is empowered, workforce has the feeling to
do a meaningful work. More, employees tend to work harder (ibid).
Nowadays, leaders messages are less and less understood (ibid). Most of the time, they are
understood as talks to make employees exert themselves harder (ibid). This is why leaders
need end-users (ibid). In order to encourage employees to meet objectives, leaders need
powerful testimonials from end-users (ibid). Moreover, employees as a proof for convincing
prospects can also use those testimonials (ibid).
An experiment in a call center unveils that short feedbacks from a single end-users are really
helpful (ibid). In this case, it has help to convince more people to make donation (ibid). And
so, it raised organization profitability (ibid). Even more, assuming Grant even a reminder of
end-users can do the trick (2011).
Making employees and end-users interact can also bring an empathy feeling among
employees (ibid). This feeling will make employees considering more customers needs
(ibid). Thanks to this, products and service improvements will be easier and sharper (ibid).
Lastly, those interactions can also help leaders to have a clearer knowledge of their end users
that they sometimes dont (ibid).
Nevertheless, Grant (2011) appoints that customers-employees interactions are infrequent.
Even if leaders and end-users are complementary, leaders care of not being seen as visionary
leaders anymore (Ibid). Though, end-users can help leaders to get their visions come true and
to get shared among employees (ibid).
In brief, we can say that the resulting performance from end-users is threshold (ibid): Increase
of organization profitability, improvement on employees satisfaction at work leading to
more commitment and so more motivation and productivity at work, companys services
or/and products improvement over significant aspects. Despite this being proven, leaders do
not often integrate them into the frame (ibid).
/0#"12*%#$10 #1 #3' #14$%

From the first pages of his book, Gill features the importance of leaders (2012). A leader is
the person who leads a group of people to achieve something (Law, 2009). Leaders
characteristics may vary but the most common are: self-confidence, creativeness,
trustworthiness, smartness, respect and visionarism (Gill, 2012). Those characteristics are
important since it allow organization growth (ibid). Nevertheless, todays environment is
more and more complex than it used to be before (ibid). Indeed, today era faces a high
competitiveness of market (ibid). Unlike before, into a same market segment, there is a high
concentration of companies (ibid). And so, leaders cannot rely on themselves to make
decisions (ibid). Moreover, today employees are more soul-searching (Maslow, 1954). This
means that they are less and less likely to apply something without understanding the reasons
of why such commands (ibid). Then, it comes another characteristic required to leaders:
collaboration (Gill, 2012). This notion is about working in groups (Law, 2009). Despite this,
in an article dealing the importance of end-users in business performance, the author
emphasizes a certain lack of collaboration of leaders (Grant, 2011). Regarding Grant, leaders
miss out integrating end-users into their business strategy (ibid). This statement reminds us
Keynes criticism over past generations society (1936): leaders acknowledged that lead
influence demand, which is completely wrong today and into the new era we are going to.
In this paper, we will try to find out if leaders are more collaborative now than they used to be
before. We will discuss over the modern leadership approach, modern leaders features and
over realities in modern organizations. This paper will also include comparisons with earlier
time. The final point of the studies being to give an answer to the research question as set as
possible.





5'6',"%3 4"17&'+

As Gill points out in his book (2012), management is one of the most studied topics. For the
notion of leadership, we cannot find less than ten thousand definitions (ibid). The reason of
why this topic is highly told about is that from the creation of the earliest organizations,
human beings have had always in mind to improve organization performance (ibid). Indeed,
organization performance is not only about to sell more or to produce more. It is also about
human management (ibid). Without an optimization of human beings performance, producing
more or selling more can be a hard task to do (ibid). Though, each human being generation
is different (McGregor, 1960). And so, managing generations should not be the same from it
used to be before (ibid).
In today era, we assume that transformational leadership is applied (Gill, 2012) (see chapter
2). One of the core values of this leadership style is collaboration (ibid). Despite Gill studies,
an article (Grant, 2011) lets fall that collaboration is not the only stream for organization. In
fact, it appears that traditional leadership seems to perceive in today organizations (ibid).
Nevertheless, as this article deals primarily with end-users, we would like to find out if such
affirmation can stand for any hierarchy level. More, we would like to know if leadership
today mainstream is at collaboration.

!Research question: Are leader more collaborative now than it used to be before?
!"# %&'#()*+# %, )"*- .#-#/.(" *- )% 0#)#.1*2# *, 3#/0#.- /.# 1%.# %. 3#-- (%33/&%./)*+# 2%4 )"/2 )"#5
6-#0 )% &# *2 )"# 7/-)8 920#.2#/)" )"*- 76.7%-#: *) *2(360#- )"/) 4# 4*33 /3-% 0#)#.1*2# *, 3#/0#.- 4#.#
(%33/&%./)*+# *2 )"# 7/-)8





89 )1%$,& %3,0:'6. ;"1+ 8<
#3
%'0#*"- #1 01=.

Education shapes individuals (Bateson, 2001). Our behavior comes from experiences,
education and social belief (ibid). In this point, we will discuss on development of education,
customs and social belief into generations in order to emphasize eventual differences. In
emphasizing eventual differences, we hope partially answer our research question at knowing
if leader were educated at collaborative behavior in organizations or not and why.

Many empirical studies from researchers like Murray (1983); Rowe et al. (2005) ; Gill (2012)
and Smith, Carson, and Alexander (1984) unveiled that leaders are likely to have a same
social and educational background. Leaders have a high degree of education and most have
already been leaders in their social activities (ibid). Though, education today does not have
the same meaning than it was before (NCES
1
). In the 19
th
century, leadership and work skills
were still learned in large and on-the-job (NCES). Less than one-third of employees had a
baccalaureate-level and a very few portion had ever attended university. Leaders were not
much educated but seen as leaders because of their creativity, smartness and charismatic
personality (The Guardian, 2011). People do higher studies since late-20
th
century and
leadership studies became popular in the late 21
st
century (NCES). Plus, investment in
leadership development programs existed since 21st century (Gurdjian; Halbeisen; and Lane,
2014). More, we assume that all leadership theories that we have access today were not
available before mid-late 20
th
century. For example, at the time of the rationalization of work,
generations were more disciplined (McGregor, 1960). More, employees and leaders were
blessing Taylorism (1911) for its ingenious idea (Nelson, 1992). In fact, drawbacks of
Taylorism (2011) have been acknowledged a few years later (ibid). As we know, we can only
understand that something is bad when we have already experienced it. Taylorism (1911) is
the separation of executive function to the conception function. It is evident that Taylorism
(1911) is cons collaborative management (Taylor, 1911)(Nelson, 1992). But, collaborative
management paradigm is born in the late decade of 20th century (Gill, 2012)(Bolden, 2011).

1
naLlonal CenLer for LducaLlon SLaLlsLlcs
Before that time, this paradigm was not taught because it was not seen as a significant factor
of organization performance (ibid)(Nelson, 1992).


>9 ?12'"0 &',2'"63$4 ,44"1,%3.

Leaders activity is what we call leadership (Law, 2009). Though, Leadership is a power that
can affect people in various ways depending on the type of leadership applied (Gill, 2012). In
this part of our work, we will discuss on two approaches of leadership: the modern approach
with the transformational leadership and the traditional approach with the transactional
leadership. The aim is to oppose those two kinds of approach to understand if one of those
approaches is more prone to collaboration than the other one. Plus, to know if modern
approach made the traditional one disappeared.
A. Transformational leadership:
According Gill (2012) we are on a new leadership era called Transformational leadership
dimension. The transformational leadership model is the combination of several leadership
styles (ibid, 2012). It includes the transformational style since value-driven and with sense of
higher purpose. Combined to the Transactional style since exchange-driven. Combined to the
laissez-faire leadership style while ignoring problems, not taking a stand, not following up
and not intervening. So, the transformational leadership involves (ibid, 2012): The individual
consideration, the intellectual stimulation, the inspirational motivation and idealized
influence. In common terms, the transformational leadership is the collaborative leadership
(ibid).
As it names can make it guess, the collaborative leadership put an emphasis on collaboration.
This leadership is supposed to blur lines between leaders and employees (ibid). One of the
most relevant core themes to illustrate this point is empowerment (ibid). Empowerment is
enhancing productivity and job satisfaction (Law, 2009). The most common way to empower
is to maximize employees contribution while delegating and asking for their opinions (Gill,
2012). This means that people create and participate at decisions and purpose (ibid).
Today, this leadership is becoming more and more popular since its overwhelming
advantages are proven (Grant, 2011)(Gill, 2012): more positive atmosphere in workplace,
motivated employees, facilitations at doing efficient brainstorming and increase of creativity
and performance. Though, we notice the penetration of this leadership is irregular depending
on companies and departments (Bolden, 2011). Collaborative leadership tends to be more
popular in education and turned-to-customers companies (ibid). Even more, penetration of
collaborative leadership in turned-to-customers companies seems to be greater in departments
in charge of marketing, sales and innovation (ibid).

B. Transactional leadership
Opposing the transformational leadership model, there is the transactional leadership model
(Gill, 2012). This model does not allow empowerment and so collaboration (ibid). This is the
managerial approach of leadership (ibid). It is based on contingent reward or punishment
regarding performance (ibid). In organizations using this model, there are lot of controls to
prevent eventual deviations and an enforcement of rules and procedures (ibid). Moreover,
leaders are the only one to make decisions and employees are just employed for purpose
(ibid). In other words, there is no collaboration. The transactional leadership is said to be the
old traditional leadership approach of leadership (ibid, 2012).
Thus, we note that depending on organization types such style can be applied (ibid, 2012) e.g.
army and industries. Even more, in our modern organizations, a lot of departments keep
working on the transactional matter of leadership (ibid)(Laegaard, 2006)(McAuley, Duberley,
Johnson, 2007): Finance, accounting, administrative. Though, this use of leadership in those
structures is logical (ibid). In those departments, employees are not supposed to be creative
(ibid). Instead, there are hired to apply rational skills (ibid). Another reason of this use of
leadership in such department and organization is bureaucracy (ibid). Administrative,
accounting and manufacturing functions are hierarchized regarding employees competencies
(ibid).
Today one popular concept is franchising. Firms sell licenses to entrepreneurs for allowing
them to use firms brand e.g. MacDonalds, Dominos Pizza. Franchising is one of the most
relevant credits of persistence of transactional leadership. Indeed, when entrepreneur sign the
agreement with firms, they acknowledge they will stick to all firms policies e.g. franchising
agreement. In other words, they will not innovate in any ways. This means, they will buy the
exact same ingredients from the firm and make given original recipes only.


@9 ?12'"0 1":,0$A,#$106 B'"6*6 #",2$#$10,& 1":,0$A,#$106.

Organizational structures are the arrangement of functions and authority in organization
(Law, 2009). So, organizational structure determines roles, power and responsibilities (ibid).
More, it determines how information flows in the different organization levels (ibid). This
appears evident that organizational structures directly influence collaboration behaviors in
the organization (Ranson; Hinings and Greenwood, 1980). In this part of the project, we will
compare traditional organizational style to modern organizational style. Thanks to this
comparison, we will determine how much those organizational structures allow
collaboration.
A.Traditional organization style:
When first formal corporations appeared in the mid-19
th
century, organizational structures
were simplistic (McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007)(Laegaard, 2006). A leader was at the
top of organization and was in charge of making every decision and taking every
responsibility over employees: simple organizational structure (ibid). More organization
grows, more it requires a specialization of employees (ibid). To fix this issue, it appeared the
functional organizational model (ibid). It is important to notice that between those two
models, leaders were still at top and employees still at the bottom (ibid). Indeed, employees
function was to execute and leaders to give orders: Taylorism (1911).

FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE

This type of structures did not allow synergy and so collaboration (McAuley, Duberley,
Johnson, 2007). As Taylors approach (1911) was overwhelming presents in western
countries, Weber in 1922 features the ideal bureaucracy model (ibid)(Laegaard, 2006). This
model incorporated more social values but still emphasized leaders as jack-of-all-works and
decision (Weber, 1922).
From that 1950, theories regarding motivation, structures became more and more popular.
(Laegaard, 2006) Many researchers were trying to find the best organizational structure and
leadership approach combination (ibid). In the mid-20
th
century, Maslow (1954) and
McGregor (1960), emphasize for the first time employees needs and motivation factors
(Laegaard, 2006). Resulting those numerous studies, a lot of organizational structures popped
out (ibid): divisional organization, multidivisional structure
2
and matrix organization
3
.

2
LxlsLed from 1920 buL became popular ln 1960 (Chandler)
3
Appeared ln Lhe lasL decade of 20Lh cenLury (Laegaard, 2006)


MULTIDIVISIONAL STRUCTURE e.g. Virgin Group
A multidivisional organizational structure aligns a company according to individual divisions,
which are based on geographic locations, products or services on comparison to the divisional
model which involve an alignment of the structure according to product /service or
geographical areas (Laegaard, 2006). Those organizations help at focusing in results (ibid).
More, it slightly allows more collaboration. In this case, collaboration is into each division
(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007).
!


MATRIX STRUCTURE
Matrix structures brings a lot of advantages at organization: increase cooperation and
communication, unlock resources and talent that are currently inaccessible to the rest of the
organization, improve motivation, better match with the demands needs, improve flexibly at
changes in markets and allow a sharper set of priorities (ibid)(Laegaard, 2006). Thus, this
organizational structure requires consideration of a major challenge (Bartlett; Ghoshal, 1990):
to have a shared image of task, progress and communication. Here comes why this
organizational structure is hard to implement (ibid). At long-range, all companies that set this
model had to switch back to more traditional model (ibid). Indeed, major issues encountered
with this organizational structure are (ibid): conflict of interest resulting from multiple
supervisors, a lack of clarity with priorities and so, difficulty at achieving main objectives
results.
We acknowledge that the traditional approach of organizational structure is about the simple,
functional and divisional model (Laegaard, 2006). The multidivisional and matrix model are
part of the modern approach of organizational structures (ibid).

B. Today organizations style: de-formalization of structures
Comparing to elder organizations, modern organizations are at a long-path away from them
(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007).
Nowadays today organizations are processed-driven (De Melo Santos; Bronzon; De Oliveira;
de Resende, 2014). Indeed, this is now the process, which determines organization structure
(ibid). We reckon three types of business process
4
in companies e.g. BPO, JIT and TQM
(Law, 2009). We acknowledge that those processes aim primarily at improving positioning of
companies in specified markets, while allowing companies to match the most with end-users
needs (ibid). Thus, it leads to a great impact on collaborative behaviors in organization
(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007) (Laegaard, 2006). Now, all required functions to make a
product or a service are grouped into one business unit -synergy of knowledge in
multidisciplinary team- (ibid). More to improve performance, organizational structure are
flatten downsizing
5
- (ibid). This allows blurring barriers
6
, optimizing tasks and the number
of employees, and improving decision-making (ibid). Plus, numerous reward systems take
place focusing more on team performances (ibid). Then, a premium place is set for leaders
and employees training -leadership management and technical skills- promoting collaborative
atmosphere (ibid). All stated above involves collaboration inter-organizational.



4
modern seL of pollcles ln buslness performance measured ln cosLs, Lurn over Llme, quallLy
and servlce by lmplemenLlng varlous Lechnlques.
3
ConslsLs ln reduclng Lhe number of employees (LermlnaLlon, earller reLlremenLs) or Lhe
number of organlzaLlonal unlLs or hlerarchlcal levels

6
Lmployees and managers worklng ln Landem.Lven more, Leams are closely connecLed Lo
suppllers and cusLomers
Today a continuous learning process characterizes organizations (Laegaard, 2006) (McAuley,
Duberley, Johnson, 2007). Indeed, organizations aim at capturing knowledge from every
situations and every companies -benchmarking
7
- in order to improve its own structure and its
own development (ibid). To meet this objective, we notice several use-trends in organization
(ibid): increase numbers of structureteam works, promoting of lateral relationships, increase
use of network organization, promoting shallow of organizational structure, promoting
employees participation, improvement attempts of information system, increase human
resource training combined with reward system, performance appraisal and promoting,
adoption and promoting of collaborative leadership and a strengthening of the organizations
culture that promote openness, creativity and experimenting e.g. Hewlett Packard.

-Fractal organization (Warnecke, 1992) or team-structured organization
Project-structured organizations in which work groups or teams hold a central place in
companies routine (Warnecke, 1992). Such organizations emphasize autonomy, flexibility,
synergy, and participation of employees in making them work in small business units (ibid).
Those business units hold clear goals and are specifics (ibid). Teams can be product, project
or market-oriented (ibid). In team organization, hierarchy is replaced by lateral (horizontal)

7
conslsL ln a Lransfer of experlences from oLher mosL successful companles ln order Lo
lmprove lL own performance. lL can be relaLlve Lo regular company e.g. MulLlnaLlonal
companles and proflL cenLers , or compeLlLors. More, lL can focus on funcLlons and process
of Lhe organlzaLlon
Ceneral process of benchmarklng: ldenLlflcaLlon of one's condlLlons, sLudy of oLhers,
learnlng from collecLed daLa and seL new sLraLegles

relationships (ibid). Though, it does not substitute the formal organizational structure
(functional or divisional) (ibid). In fact, higher hierarchy sets their goals (ibid). E.g.
AMOEBA Model by Kyocera (Inamori, 2006) adopted by Kyocera itself, KDDI, Japan
Airlines, Disco Corporation, Comany Inc. and Capcom. Another variation of fractal
organization features a matrix-project functioning (Laegaard, 2006). It aims at the same
purpose and organization is the same (ibid). The only difference is that in this organization
experts comes from different functional areas and are assigned to work together for the
project (ibid). After completion of the project, members of the team move back in their
respective function and department until new assignation on a next project (ibid).
-Network org anization structure (virtual, modular)
It involves connecting separated organizations in order to ensure task interaction (ibid). This
means, subtracting core business functions like production, distribution and even marketing
and communication among subsidiaries or independent companies (ibid). Even if it involves
collaboration in another kind, this model still aims at drawing talent (ibid). More, at making
interact respective expertizes of organizations in order to bring full benefits to one
organization (ibid). Such organization is applied in product companies e.g. Apple Computers,
Benetton, H&M, Imperial Chemicall ; construction, entertainment and public sector.
Through those studies, it appears evident that today organizations are much more complex
than it was before. Though, even if traditional models like function organizational structure
and Taylors approach (1911) in organization can still be seen depending on the type of
organization (ibid). Indeed, Taylors model (1911) is still used as a guideline for technical
procedures in industrial and service sector (ibid). We understand that the changes experienced
today are not based on structures itself but on strategies (ibid)(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson ,
2007). More the collaborative climate of today organizations are direct consequences of those
strategies (ibid).






C10%&*6$10.

Through our studies, we have found out how different was business paradigm from the 19th
century to now. Indeed, since 1950 a lot of theories have come out (Laegaard, 2006). Among
the cloud of theories, we perceived theories, which pointed out social behavior and its
required changes to improve business performance e.g. theory X and Y (McGregor, 1960),
Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954), (Herzberg, 1966). This type of theories led to major
changes in our organizations (Nelson,). Indeed, today employees satisfaction at work and
collaborative behaviors resulted from the integration of social values in the management
process (McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007). So, it appears evident that before 1950, themes
like collaboration were not present in organizations (Nelson, 1992). A contrario, business
performance and management paradigm aimed at productivity only despite social values and
conditions (Nelson, 1992). Anyhow, it does not mean that productivity has left the frame.
Leadership and organization approaches still primarily aim at increase profit and productivity
(McAuley; Duberley; Johnson, 2007). Though, contemporary researchers set that for
achieving this goal, we need empathy towards employees (ibid). In fact, unmotivated and
unsatisfied employees are less productive that satisficed and motivated employees
(McClelland; Atkinson, 1953). Even more, unmotivated and unsatisfied employees do not feel
any concern in companies and so organizations growth is highly compromised (ibid) (Gill,
2012). In order to sort out employees commitment and motivation, we need to empower
employees (Gill, 2012). Those reflections are the premises of new modern leadership and
organizational structure theories (laegaard, 2006).
Modern structures and leadership highly promote collaboration behaviors e.g. matrix
organizational structure, fractal organization, flatten hierarchy, process-oriented organization
behavior, virtual organization, transformational (collaborative) leadership (Gill,
2012)(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007). Despite this, we could wonder if behaviors and
organizational structures have so much changed that the traditional approaches have
disappeared. Astonishingly, the answer is NO. Today used organizational structures are just
traditional structures (functional or divisional) with modern strategic approaches implemented
(Newstrom; Davis, 1993)(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007). Modern leadership approach
consists in the traditional model with more social concerns implemented (Bolden, 2011).
Indeed, some of our work pointed out that traditional leadership approach was still used today
and not necessary questioned (Laegaard, 2006). On the contrary, this is seen as logical and
regular (ibid).
So yes, today leaders are more aware and concerned about collaboration than they used to be
before. Education of leaders has changes (NCES). And so, their approach of leadership has
changed as well. Though, traditional approaches cannot be totally eradicated but things
change and disappear as generations change and disappear (Bolden, 2011).
D3'1"'#$%,& E$6%*66$10.

The aim of our work was to answer the research question: Are leaders more collaborative
now than they used to be in the past?. In order to give it an answer, we have worked on three
axes: Social; Leadership and organizational structure approaches. In this part, we will discuss
over our researches, findings, probable answers and upcoming questions, according our topic.
We found out that nowadays leaders are more educated than they used to be in the early 19
th

Century (NCES). And so, today leaders fit in a common mold(Murray, 1983). Despite this,
our studies also unveiled that leadership approach is different from a company to another
(Bolden, 2011). Thanks to our studies, we can carry out the possible answer. Two companies
that belong to the same territories can be different because of the gap between generations
(McGregor, 1960). According McGregor (1960), today generations correspond to the Y
theory: soul-searching, autonomous, motivated by success and ambitious. On the contrary,
older generations correspond to the X theory: avoiding responsibility, preference at executing,
motivated by rewards only (ibid). Though, in today organization, both generations have to
cohabitate. On the top of that, more than two-third of senior managers and CEO are part of
the X generation
In parallel, we found out that today organizational structures and leadership approaches are
melting pot between traditional paradigm and modern paradigm (Gill, 2012)( (Newstrom;
Davis, 1993)(McAuley, Duberley, Johnson, 2007).. Indeed, most of today organizations have
a functional or divisional organizational structure and transformational leadership is a mix of
several leadership approaches, traditional one included (transactional leadership) (McAuley,
Duberley, Johnson, 2007). We could wonder if both are not linked and how.
Regarding McGregor (1960), there is a huge gap between the generation X and the generation
Y. Though, today leading class features a great part of people from the generation X. And so,
this sounds complicated to make completely applied collaborative leaders by generations,
which are totally apart from the new one. Nevertheless, according to Bartlett and Ghoshal s
(1990) work, if we refer to the failure of the matrix model. The gap in generations might not
be the only reason of why collaborative leadership is not fully instituted. Indeed, the
complexity of environment and the divergences of each individual objective are the last one
(ibid).


5';'"'0%'6
" Grant A.M. (2011) End users energize your workforce far better than your managers
can. Harvard Business Review
" Gill R. (2012) Theory and Practice of Leadership.London: Sage Publication
" Law J. (2009) Dictionary of Business and Management. Oxford University Press
" Bartlett C.A.; Ghoshal S. (1990) Matrix Management: not a structure, a frame of
mind. Harvard business review
" De Melo Santos N.; Bronzon M.; De Oliveira M. P. V.; de Resende P. T. V. (2014)
Organizational culture, organizational structure and human resource management as
bases for business process orientation and their impacts on organizational
performance. Brazilian Business review
" Skelton D. (2011) Where have all the working-class leaders gone? The Guardian
" Gurdjian P.; Halbeisen T.; and Lane K. (2014) Why leadership-development programs
fail. McKinsey Quarterly
" McGregor D.M. (1957-1960) The Human Side of Entreprise. Management Review
" Smith A. (1937) The Wealth of Nations. Scotland: The Modern Library
" Taylor F.W (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper &
Brothers Publishers
" Newstrom J. & Davis, K. (1993) Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
" Bateson P. (2001) Where does our behaviors come from?. Journal of biosciences
" Nelson D. (1992) A Mental Revolution: Scientific Management since Taylor: Ohio
University Press
" Watson S. T.; Scribner J. P. (2007) Beyond Distributed Leadership: Collaboration,
Interaction, and Emergent Reciprocal Influence: Journal of School Leadership
" Ranson S.; Hinings B. and Greenwood R. (1980) The Structuring of Organizational
Structures: Administrative Science Quarterly
" Inamori K. (2006) Amoeba Management: The Dynamic Management System for
Rapid Market Response.Tokyo: Nikkei Publishing Inc.
" Bolden R. (2011) Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and
Research: International Journal of Management Reviews
" Warnecke H. J. (1993) Fractal Company: A Revolution in Corporate Culture.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
" Keynes J. M. (1936) The general theory of employment, interest and money. London:
Palgrave Macmillan
" McClelland, D. C.; Atkinson, J. W.; Clark, R. A.; Lowell, E. L. (1953) The
achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts
" Laegaard J.; Bindslev M. (2006) Organization Theory. Ventus Publishing
" McAuley J.; Duberley J.; Johnson P. (2007) Organization Theory: Challenges and
perspectives. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited
" Herzberg F. (1966). Work and The Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing
" NCES.gov. 120 Years of Literacy