The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm A leadership Benchmarking a leadership model for the model for the green economy green economy Daryl D. Green Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, and 445 Jack McCann Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, Tennessee, USAAbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine benchmarking leadership theories in order tobuild a new leadership model for the green economy.Design/methodology/approach – The collection and critical analysis of secondary data fromrelevant publications were used to evaluate the feasibility of a new leadership model in the greeneconomy. Analysis of organizational and leadership theories has been utilized in order to benchmarkfuture successful efforts.Findings – The paper found ﬁve key issues: there is little research in how the green economy willimpact contemporary organizations’ strategy, structure, and culture; new theories may need to bedeveloped to assist organizations in developing the right kind of leadership for the green economy; thecreation of green jobs may infuse organizations with more emphasis on values and leadershipcompetency; the over dependence on technology to create jobs and sustain society’s quality of lifecarries unintended consequences; and agrarian leadership may offer organizations a better ability tolead workers in the green economy.Research limitations/implications – The paper examines benchmarking applications that areexclusively relevant in both private and public organizations.Practical implications – There are several implications for researchers and practitioners related toimproving the personal and organizational success of leaders guiding their followers in a greeneconomy. Many countries hope that the green economy will be able to improve their ﬁnancial situation.Yet, organizations are struggling with the issues of ethical behavior by managers and how to motivatetheir employees toward greater performance. A new leadership based on agrarian values may be apositive step in addressing these matters.Originality/value – The paper is signiﬁcant because it presents a theoretical framework forinterpreting how agrarian values can work building the quality of life when applied in a green economy.Keywords Social values, Benchmarking, Leadership, Organizational performance, EcosystemsPaper type Conceptual paper1. IntroductionAmericans’ lives continue to unravel as individuals see their way of life disintegratebefore their eyes. Institutions are failing. Ethics and moral conduct continue to decline.Wall Street continues to prosper as “Main Street” bears the ﬁnancial hardship for ourcountry. No one can escape the carnage from the recent global ﬁnancial meltdown.Everyone has been impacted – from the executive to the factory worker. According toThe Conference Board (2010) Research Group, only 45 percent of Americans are satisﬁedwith their work. In order to be more competitive, organizations need to retool and inspire Benchmarking: An Internationalworkers to new levels of performance. Journal Vol. 18 No. 3, 2011 pp. 445-465 q Emerald Group Publishing LimitedThe authors want to express their gratitude to the reviewers. Without their thoughtful analysis 1463-5771and insight, this paper would not have been possible. DOI 10.1108/14635771111137804
BIJ With the emergence of the green economy, society has the opportunity for ﬁnancial18,3 growth and moral revival. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts’ 2009 study, passage of a federal clean energy and climate bill would create a signiﬁcant amount of jobs exponentially by spearheading new green technology innovations. In fact, the clean energy jobs in the USA have grown at more than twice the rate of the overall job market over the past decade (Ringo, 2010). Like the Industrial Revolution’s mark on society, it is446 hoped that the green economy will bring positive values to society such as innovation, family values, and strong work ethics. The new economy will be fueled by more environmentally friendly and socially conscious leaders. In fact, good leadership exempliﬁes positive virtues. Hackman and Johnson (2000) further suggested that exemplary leaders provide a model for their followers by seeing these virtues in their leader. Concerned leaders treat their followers as though they possess intelligence and creativity. Cultivating effective leadership development during an era of rapid change severely challenges current organizations as they consider succession planning for future managers. McCall and Hollenbeck (2002) maintained that experience is the primary vehicle for developing global leaders. However, globalization and the advancement of technologies provide a new set of problems for leadership and organizational theorists. The key elements of remodeling today’s are leadership, values, and culture (Figure 1). Benchmarking the concept of agrarian leadership will bring justiﬁcation for much needed improvements. Benchmarking can be a catalyst for assisting organizations to become more focused and competitive thus improving the national economy. In order to implement meaningful changes, executives, legislators, educators, and environmental advocacy groups must take a leading role in this reform. Yet, organizations need to implement the right kind of strategies. Gamble and Thompson (2009) maintained that a company’s business strategy strengthens its long-term competitive position. However, managers must be willing to adapt their strategies in response to unplanned occurrences in the market or their customers. This paper examines benchmarking leadership theories in order to build a new leadership model for the green economy. Through this process, three key areas will be reviewed: leadership, ethics, and values. 2. Research objectives and methodology The primary objectives of this paper are to explore benchmark applications associated with leading organizations during a green economy and increase depth of knowledge in this ﬁeld in order to make a relevant analysis of each theory. This investigation provides exploratory data by utilizing an extensive literary review of over 20 documents including scholarly opinions and practitioner discussions. The collection and critical Culture Leadership GreenFigure 1. economyThe key elements fortransforming leadershipin the green economy Values
analysis of secondary data from relevant publications were used to evaluate the results A leadershipof agrarian leadership in a green economy. Analysis of organizational theory has been model for theutilized in order to benchmark future successful efforts. The contributions made bywell-known researchers in the ﬁelds of leadership theories, such Bass and Yukl, were green economyinvestigated. Electronic databases such as ABI/INFORM Global, were searched usingkey words “agrarians,” “leadership,” “green economy,” “values,” “benchmarking,”and “organizational theories.” There was a signiﬁcant absence of literature related to 447agrarian leadership with benchmarking applications in scholarly research.Consequently, there is an opportunity to further enhance research. Benchmarking studies are a well-known commodity in private industry. Elmuti et al.(1997) noted there are four types of benchmarking: internal, competitive, functional,and generic. Although the four types of benchmarking are widely accepted in education,there are many deﬁnitions. The deﬁnitions are usually related to key themes: measurement,comparison, identiﬁcation of best practices, implementation, and improvement (Anand andKodali, 2008). In fact, benchmarking is an activity that looks outward to ﬁnd best practicesand high-performance solutions and then measures actual business operations againstthose goals (Kumar and Dhakar, 2006). Rigby (2009) further described benchmarking as atool that improves performance by identifying and applying best-demonstrated practicesto operations and sales. Managers compare the performance of their products or processesexternally with those of their competitors and those best-in-class companies. In addition,benchmarking is performed internally with operations within their own organizations thatperform similar activities. The objective of benchmarking is to improve performance,understand relative cost position, and gain a strategic advantage. Companies then improvetheir performance by tailoring and incorporating these best practices into their ownoperations not simply by imitating best practices, but by innovating. Camp (1995) determined four main areas for ﬁnding best practices in benchmarking.These areas were internal benchmarking (department to department, leader to leader,location to location); competitor benchmarking, functional benchmarking (yourorganization to an external one, your leader to an external leader); generic benchmarking(comparing our leaders or organizations to all industry groups). Benchmarking worksfrom a premise that a leader or organization somewhere is currently performing in aworld-class or best-in-class manner. Benchmarking is often used as a performance tool by managers and organizationsand is sustainable in its popularity (Francis and Holloway, 2007). Managers typicallyuse it as a tool to serve the interests of employers and shareholders to impact theﬁnancial bottom line. The value of benchmarking was assessed by Coopers and Lybrand(1994); they found that 75 percent of large organizations viewed benchmarking assuccessful because they set good targets, improved productivity, provided innovativeideas, gave early warning of competitive challenges, and motivated staff. Rigby andBilodeau (2009) found in their global research that benchmarking is the number one toolthat managers use and is effective. This survey had a database of nearly 10,000respondents. For inclusion in this research, the tools needed to be relevant to seniormanagement, topical, and measurable.3. Literature review of benchmarking effective leadershipLeadership and organizational behavior theories provide researchers an opportunity tounderstand leader-follower relationships in a green economy. With the continual
BIJ disruptive changes in societies, leadership theories may need to be retooled to deal with18,3 new emerging organizational issues. According to Drucker (2001), effective leaders differ widely in personalities, strengths, weaknesses, values, and beliefs, however, all have in common; the ability to get the right things done at the right time. Therefore, benchmarking leadership is a very difﬁcult task. Blake and Mouton (1985) stated that structure, plan, and concept are elemental to an organization’s effectiveness. However,448 the greatest single variable is that leaders must accomplish objectives through the ability to guide, motivate, and integrate the efforts of others through their actions as leaders. Benchmarking leadership is about determining what traits, behaviors, and actions make leaders successful. Kouzes and Posner (2007, p. xvi) stated: The most signiﬁcant contribution leaders make is not simply to today’s bottom line; it is to the long-term development of people and institutions so they can adapt, change, prosper, and grow. The benchmarking of best practices in leadership and management is critical in sharing and building knowledge in a global economy. Traditional leadership focus Contemporary leadership theories have a clear focus. According to Sayles (1979), the traditional emphasis on what good managers should achieve was based on: effectiveness in planning ahead, delegation, coordinating, stafﬁng, organization, and making their organization proﬁtable. A good manager therefore makes good decisions about plans and delegations that produce the desired results. Managers described their work as fragmented and unﬁnished. They also described it as action oriented, with contact with others required, and the development of relationships with others as requisite. Even more importantly, management was found to be a contingent activity. As routines breakdown, the manager must adjust and adapt with limited resources, such as time and information. Management roles were often found to be difﬁcult and complex. Contemporary leadership focus Sarros and Santora (2001) concluded from their exploration of today’s business executives is that leadership success in today’s global workplace requires leaders to inspire others to achieve through their hard work, commitment to people, and commitment to the organization. Leadership is about taking people in the desired direction and to lead by example. Leadership success is only as good as the “what” (leadership behaviors) and “why” (personal values) of how you lead. Therefore, leadership comes down to trust, respect, honesty, and integrity. To gain the sustainable respect and authority to lead over time, it is essential that leaders practice or model what the leader espouses. In addition to the ﬁve practices of exemplary leadership, Kouzes and Posner (2007) presented a list of these practices along with their accompanying commitments. This information is recreated in Table I. Furthermore, Kouzes and Posner (2007, p. 29) stated that these ﬁve practices paint only a partial picture. They found that across countries, cultures, ethnic groups, organizations, genders, education levels, and age groups the majority of people believe that the leader must have the following traits: . honest; . forward looking;
A leadershipPractices Commitment model for theModel the way 1. Clarifying values by ﬁnding your voice green economy 2. Set the example by aligning actionsInspire a shared 3. Envision the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilitiesvision 4. Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirationsChallenge the 5. Search for opportunities by seizing the initiative and by looking outward for 449process innovative ways to improve 6. Experiment and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning from experienceEnable others to act 7. Foster collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships 8. Strengthen others by increasing self-determination and developing competence Table I.Encourage the heart 9. Recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence The ﬁve practices 10. Celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit of community (p. 26) and ten commitmentsNote: Reproduced with permission from the authors of leadership . inspiring; and . competent.Krames (2003, pp. 23-4) further conducted a leadership research project with the aim ofidentifying common leadership threads between the leaders selected for the study.The CEOs were chosen based on the following three criteria: (1) Each CEO led company that was a market leader outperforming its peers. (2) Each of the CEOs leadership strategies stood the test of time. (3) Each of the CEOs contributed to the management body of knowledge.The leaders selected were: Michael Dell (Founder and CEO, Dell Computer); Jack Welch(former CEO, GE); Lou Gerstner (former CEO, IBM); Andy Grove (Cofounder and formerCEO, Intel); Bill Gates (Cofounder and former CEO, Microsoft); Herb Kelleher (Founderand former CEO, Southwest Airlines); Sam Walton (Founder and former CEO, Wal-Mart)(p. 11). The research determined six characteristics that connected these CEOs: (1) The best CEOs or most effective started with a vision of the market and worked back to create an organization focused on customer satisfaction. Michael Dell has led one of the most customer-centric organizations at Dell with products that are custom ordered and built to customer speciﬁcations. (2) Many CEOs have an evangelical leadership gene. Each of the CEOs had an inner ﬁre and charisma that was infectious and generated enthusiasm. Sam Walton was the best example of this characteristic. He was both charismatic and inspirational as the founder of Wal-Mart. (3) These effective business leaders understood the critical role of culture and how challenging it is to bring about effect meaningful cultural change. Lou Gerstner recognized that the key to transforming IBM from a complacent organization into a competitive success was through a cultural transformation. (4) These CEOs created or adapted next generation products, processes, or solutions, a trait that is related to vision. Sam Walton recognized the future
BIJ of retailing and this led him to change his already successful organization into18,3 that of a discount leader. (5) These leaders also implemented the best ideas. Jack Welch made this a centerpiece in the GE culture. He instituted formal processes to gather, analyze, and implement good ideas form employees or competitors. (6) These CEOs advanced the leadership body of knowledge in some way. Bill Gates450 coined the phrase, “digital nervous system.” Heb Kelleher taught managers that an organizations culture can be a great asset and that work is more than about numbers and punching a time clock (pp. 32-52). Lasting success Porras et al. (2007) interviewed over 200 people worldwide who have made a difference in their ﬁeld, profession, community, and who have lived a life they believed mattered. Builders are those that have deﬁned their own success and have achieved lasting impact in their ﬁeld for at least 20 years. Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos were just a few of the notables who participated in the research. The survey aspect of the research included 365 participants; 35 percent of whom identiﬁed themselves as successful professionally and personally. An additional 31 percent identiﬁed themselves as unsuccessful both professionally and personally. Another 23 percent identiﬁed themselves as only successful personally, while 11 percent identiﬁed themselves as only successful professionally. Regardless of whether the participants identiﬁed themselves as successful or unsuccessful either professionally or personally, all groups said that the traditional deﬁnition of success, fame, wealth, and power no longer described what success means to them. Participants preferred to deﬁne success as the ability to make a difference, create lasting impact, and to be engaged in a life that can be personally fulﬁlling (Porras et al., 2007). Porras et al. (2007, p. 233) identiﬁed attitudinal aspects of lasting success; meaning thought and action. Each individual participating in the survey tended to identify more closely with three dimensions as follows: (1) Meaning (44 percent of sample selected; deﬁned as making a difference, being meaningful). (2) Thought Style (29 percent of sample; deﬁned as allocating my time to my passions). (3) Action Style (27 percent of sample; deﬁned as being accomplished and loving work. These results were consistent regardless of demographics. Drucker (2001) believed that leadership is pointless conversation without understanding what success means. Common leadership threads What do organizations want from their leaders? Bennis and Goldsmith (2003) found that most organizations want a purpose or direction from their leaders. They want the ability to trust them, knowing trust is the social glue that brings commitment. They also want leaders who are optimistic and have a clear vision of the future. In addition, they want action and results from their leaders. According to Bennis (2009, pp. 33-4), the basic ingredients of leadership are as follows:
. Guiding vision-professionally and personally. The leader has a clear idea of what A leadership they want. model for the . The second ingredient is passion. The leader loves what they are doing and is green economy enthusiastic about it. . The next ingredient is integrity. The essential parts being: self-knowledge, candor, and maturity. 451These are basic ingredients, not traits that individuals may be born with and areunable to change. According to Bennis (2009, pp. 197-8), leaders are not born, but madeand often self-made, inventing themselves over time. The ingredients describedcan be learned. Bennis predicted that the next generation of leaders would have certainthings in common: . broad education; . boundless curiosity; . boundless enthusiasm; . contagious optimism; . belief in people and teamwork; . willingness to take risks; . devotion to long-term growth rather than short-term proﬁt; . commitment to excellence; . adaptive capacity; . authenticity; . integrity; and . vision.4. The green economyMany hope that the green economy will provide new prosperity for America’s future. Thecurrent economy is fueled exclusively by oil, natural gas, and coal. As these resourcescontinue to become scarce, the cost increases. Increased costs diminish the quality of lifefor the average person who must shift his disposable income to his basic needs.Furthermore, burning fossil fuels create greenhouse gases that are detrimental to theenvironment (Jones, 2008). On the contrary, the green economy is environment friendlyand provides an opportunity for more innovation. Many experts support the greeneconomy concept. Friedman (2006) suggested that the stage is set for a green economywith billions of people from China, India, and the former Soviet Union demanding theirshare of the energy treasure chest. There will be more energy demands to feed the world’smicrowaves, vehicles, and other power hungry technology. Friedman argued that thisglobal demand would create an environmental disaster. This reality could infuse a newdesire for renewable energies and environmental sustainable systems. For example,Michigan has created more than 11,000 renewable energy jobs in four years; these jobs arecompensated with sustaining a fair and equitable wage. Critics argue that some jobs willbe lost as more rigorous energy regulations are in place and companies are forced tomake energy transitions. However, Ringo (2010) maintained that these setbacks could beovercome by taking the proper steps. Therefore, the green economy could become
BIJ a positive driving force in the future. Ringo argued that green jobs could revive the18,3 US economy while resolving some of the worst environmental problems facing the world. He pointed to this fact based on several states implementing the green economy. Other individuals have their doubts about any ﬁnancial success from the green economy. Green maintained that the concept of spurning the economy with green jobs makes no sense. He builds his case by pointing out that governments do not create jobs.452 The private sector creates jobs. Green further explained that the government could only subsidize one industry while hurting another. Other opponents argue that green jobs hurt the economy. For example, the Obama administration uses Spain as a model for implementing a green economy. Yet, each job created in Spain through green jobs cost about $750,000 and only one in ten jobs are permanent (Green, 2010). Jones (2008) further suggested that several obstacles impede the innovative revolution of the green economy. First, the carbon industry receives trillions of dollars in government coal and oil subsidies that provide it with a clear market advantage. Second, the national electric grid is not set up to handle new kinds of power. Third, government red tape and a culture of bureaucracy impede innovators to act. Fourth, the federal and state governments do not have efﬁciency standards and long-term incentives for green buildings and machines. 5. Values Recently, many workers become cynical when their managers discuss the issues of ethics among workers. Yet, it appears that some managers operate with a different moral standard. During the massive economic downturn, many executives were rewarded for underperforming. For example, Fannie Mae’s CEO Michael Williams and Freed CEO Charles Haldeman Jr were slated to receive up to $6 million each for 2009 despite the companies’ poor performance. Yet, it cost the American taxpayers more than $100 million for these company bailouts. With the continual unethical behavior of several executives, American workers are more cynical about their leaders than ever. Friedman (2006) further predicted that globalization would impact future commerce as well as other parts of society such as ethics and values. In the new globalization wave, there will be more diverse – non-western, non-white-groups participating. More people will be able to plug into the world economy from across the globe. Therefore, ethics will be seen from a global perspective. Ethics becomes the linchpin for effective leadership. Ethics is deﬁned as the inner-guiding moral principles, values, and beliefs that people use to analyze or interpret a situation and then decide what is “right” or “wrong” in a situation ( Jones and George, 2009). Daft (1995) further explained that leaders at the highest management levels develop internal moral standards that can often allow them to break laws if necessary. For many organizations, it is the proverbial “doing as I say and not as I do” for many managers. Some managers can live with this philosophy. In fact, some managers are placed in ethical dilemmas where they have to decide if they should act in a way that might help others while going against their own self-interest. Workers are now looking for good leadership as businesses continue to falter and competition begins to bear down on the economy. Yet, it is virtually impossible to lead an organization if there are unethical leaders. Economic, social, and political inﬂuences have impacted the value system of today’s workforce (Wren, 2004). This new set of workers is driven by a new set of values and job expectations. Therefore, organizations need to take the issues of ethical behavior more seriously if they hope to get greater performance from their workers.
Berry (2008) argued for a new movement resembling the agrarians. He supported his A leadershipposition by noting the new need to better manage natural resources, such as land and model for thewater. Jones and George (2009) further stated that neither laws or ethics are ﬁxedprinciples; they evolve as society evolves over time. Berry (2008) suggested that society green economyhad better adapt its desires, methods, and technologies in ways that support theenvironment. Failure to keep this agrarian mandate would result in negativeconsequences such as poverty and starvation. Across America, there is a growing 453movement that wants to focus on the earth and conserve its resources for futuregenerations. Individuals are attempting to preserve or restore the welfare of localcommunities, eco-systems, and watersheds; they are resisting the industrial powerssuch as big companies to own and control all of the natural resources and land. Brown(2001) promoted the concept of an eco-economy where the environment and economyco-exist. In modern society, it is difﬁcult to integrate ecology due to conﬂicting premises.For example, economists focus primarily on market activity while ecologists focus onthe earth’s natural capital. Brown (2001) envisioned a new economy where economistsand ecologists would work together to design and build an eco-economy that would besustainable over the long term, thereby reshaping society. With the agrarian movement, there are more prevalent values such as independence,hard work, family, trustworthiness, organic, natural, environment, conservation, localcommunity, and trust. The green strategy relates to how organizations will operate,what they do, sell, and how they interact with various people within and outside of theirorganizations (Makower, 2009).6. Organizational cultureToday’s organizations need a culture adjustment during these economic downturns.The recent scandals by both governmental and senior business managers have made theworkforce skeptical of today’s leadership. Uncertainty and pressure become a staple ofthe current workforce as employees devote more time to their jobs out of necessity. As aresult, organizational relationships are being damaged. According to Caudron (1996),management has lost credibility and trust of workers. She further cites that the primaryreason trust has degenerated is not because of the loss of job security, but is due tomanagers mishandling the workforce changes by treating employees inconsistently,thereby losing credibility in the process. The enormous demographic changes within thetwenty-ﬁrst century American workforce are creating organizational growth pains.Harding explains that a new generation of workers will produce signiﬁcant humanresource problems for traditional organizations (Hankin, 2005). Furthermore, McKibben (2007) argued for a different value system for futureeconomies. He maintains that economy growth may make individuals wealthier;wealthier may not make the individual happier. Additionally, Makower (2009)suggested that the green economy would focus on a different set of priorities, therebychanging the culture. It addresses the world’s environmental and social challenges whilecreating new opportunities. In the green economy, organizations will not sacriﬁce thewelfare of the environment for corporate gain. Conversely, companies will seize thesenew opportunities to create customer value while improving their operations and marketbrand. Makower suggested that customers are ready for the green economy. He notedthat several decades of research studies have consistently said that customers andmore businesses are willing to buy products that do not harm the environment.
BIJ McKibben (2007) further supported the concept of returning to agrarian values. In the18,3 past, farmers worked toward common goals and collaboration with others such as water management and labor sharing. 7. Discussion and analysis Agrarian leadership may offer organizations a better ability to lead postmodern workers454 in the green economy. Global trends are shaping contemporary thinking in America. Technology has made the hemispheres much closer. Terrorism is on the rise. Real-time electronic fund transfer systems accentuate the impact of economic changes and create a domino effect on others across the world. Furthermore, globalization has created peculiar international relationships. In order to improve leaders’ value systems, society needs to regain agrarian values. Earthjustice, the largest US public-interest environmental law ﬁrm, created the Ecological Roadmap that analyzes American viewpoints on ten distinct environmental viewpoints. Surveying over 1,900 participants, the organization tracked the national survey looking at 130 values such as ecological concern, civic engagement, and everyday rage (Makower, 2009). There is a core group of Americans, approximately 23 percent who strongly hold an ecological concern. Past initiatives for changing the leadership paradigm in corporate America have proven to be complicated. The review focuses on three leadership theories to consider in the green economy: bureaucratic, transactional, and agrarianal. Each theory has its own unique characteristics as shown in Table II. The leadership theories are bureaucratic theory, transactional leadership theory, and agrarian leadership theory. In the 1900s, Max Weber postulated that a manager’s authority in an organization should be based not on tradition or charisma but on the position held by managers in the organization hierarchy (Wren, 2004). Weber’s ideas formed the basis of what is known today as bureaucracy theory, which is based on ﬁve principles. These principles include: (1) a manager’s formal authority derives from the position he or she holds in the organization; (2) people should occupy positions because of their performance, not because of their social standing or personal contacts; (3) the extent of each position’s formal authority and task responsibilities, and its relationship to other positions in an organization, should be clearly speciﬁed; (4) authority can be exercised effectively in an organization when positions are arranged hierarchically, so employees know whom to report to and who reports to them; and (5) managers must create a well-deﬁned system of rules, standards, and norms so that they can effectively control behavior within an organization ( Jones and George, 2009). Through a bureaucratic structure, large organizations such as governments can control employees by providing leaders with legitimate power and standardizing work processes. Jones and George maintained that if bureaucracies are not managed properly, many problems can result. Some of these problems include cumbersome regulations, unable to adapt change quickly, slow decision making, inefﬁciencies, and being impersonal to employees.
Bureaucratic leadership Transactional leadership Agrarian leadershipAdvantagesFormalized Feedback to employees IndependenceChain of command Rewards employees for performance Hard workDivision of labor Communication exchange Family-focusedLegitimate leaders Adherence and maintenance of existing goals and norms TrustworthinessFixed compensations Transactional leadership is described as the motivation of followers EthicalDuties of leaders and employees clear through contingent-reward-based exchanges (Burns, 1978). The Organic primary focus of this leadership style is on setting goals, clarifying Natural the link between performance and rewards, and providing positive Environmentalist feedback to followers toward goal attainment. Bass (1985) stated Conservationist that transactional leadership is contingent reinforcement and that Promotion of local communities the leader and follower agree on what result will be rewarded or Sustainability is a primary goal punished Trust Transactional leaders clarify the role and tasks of subordinates in Ethical foundation order to achieve successful outcomes and give subordinates More in line with the full range of leadership model of bass conﬁdence to put forth the necessary effort (Bass, 1985) The full range model of leadership was developed to broaden the range of leadership styles investigated in the leadership ﬁeld (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Leadership is conceptualized within the domains of behavior that vary from transformational leadership based upon attributed and behavioral charisma to laissez faire or nonleadership, to transactional leadership (Bass, 1985). According to Bass and Avolio (1991), effective organizations move in the direction of a transformational culture but they also maintain a healthy level of transactional qualities, as well. Research determined that successful organizations and leaders use both leadership techniques. The use of transformational leadership techniques that articulate the vision of the organization and stimulate employees along with transactional leadership techniques that exchange rewards for performance were found to be more successful across organizational and industry boundaries when used in combination versus by themselves (Bass and Avolio, 1991)DisadvantagesImpersonal External locus of control Limit or no research on topicRigid Only inﬂuential when in the best interest of subordinates Not clearly understood by leaders and followersRed-tape Mutual agreement by partakers Differentiation between transformational leadership and agrarian orDifﬁcult with market changes Top-down approach of governance similaritiesInﬂexible Limits or discourages “out of box” thinking by subordinates May be too time consuming to implement in organizationsPre-determined employee rewards system Incomplete without transformational leadership Uncertainty of outcomes for organizations focused on risk reduction Does not require a fully engaged employeeSources: Jones and George (2009); Yukl (2002); Hackman and Johnson (2000); Bass (1985, 1990, 1999); Northouse (2004); McKibben (2007) Comparison A leadership green economy model for the of leadership models 455 Table II.
BIJ Many effective managers still utilize transactional leadership theory in order to obtain18,3 organizational objectives. Transactional leadership focuses on the exchange that occurs between a leader and his followers. In fact, transactional leaders exchange things of value such as promotions or raises with subordinates in order to advance their personal causes (Northouse, 2004). Bass (1999) further suggested that this leadership approach involves the trading of beneﬁts. The leader provides followers with their desired456 outcomes. The followers provide the leader with status, privilege of authority, inﬂuence, prestige, or other desired beneﬁts. Given this reality, transactional leaders gain inﬂuence because it is in the best interest of the subordinate to do what the leader requests. Therefore, the leader-follower relationship is submerged in self-interest. The followers enjoy the beneﬁt of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards while the leader obtains status, the privileges of authority, inﬂuence, prestige, or other management beneﬁts (Bass, 1990). Critics argue that transactional leaders are most concerned with satisfying the physical needs of the employees and do not want to disrupt the status quo (Hackman and Johnson, 2000). Transactional leadership also depends upon management by exception and negative feedback; it is an advantage as long as the employee is a rational and economic being (McAulay, 2003). Therefore, these values do not align themselves well to the needs of postmodern employees who are searching for a meaningful existence. Avolio and Bass (1991) further found that the most common form of effective leadership in organizations is transactional. The transactional leader knows what is expected of them by their upper-level leaders in order to ensure goal attainment and set goals with followers. The transactional leader also knows the strengths and weaknesses of their followers including their needs and desires. Avolio et al. (1991) stated that the transactional leader must have good communication skills in order to determine and disseminate information about the responsibilities, goals, and needs of their subordinates. The transactional leader operates within an existing culture by attempting to satisfy follower needs by focusing on exchanges and reward behavior (Jung and Avolio, 1999). He or she pays close attention to deviations in these exchanges and makes adjustments when variations occur in order to regulate him or her (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Bass (1990) stated that effective leadership develops an understanding and agreement about the role of the leader and the employee in this relationship. Bass (1990, pp. 326-7) proposed that the transactional leader contributes to this relationship by: . clarifying the expectations of employees’ performance; . making clear how to meet the expectations; . setting the criteria of effective performance; . providing feedback individual and group progress reports; and . providing rewards contingent on goal attainment. In transactional leadership, an exchange of materials, social, and psychological beneﬁts occur (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). In this process, leaders and followers reinforce each other’s behavior with reward or punishment but as an effective leadership method, contingent reward has limitations (Bass, 1990). Rewards for performance and disciplinary actions for failures may not have the desired effects because of limitations by the timeliness, accuracy, attractiveness, and perceptions of employees about their feedback (Bass, 1990). Additional moderating effects by many factors in this leader employee
relationship may create unexpected consequences (Bass, 1990). In a transactional A leadershipenvironment, employees work as independently as possible from their colleagues and model for thecooperation is dependent on negotiations not problem solving (Bass and Avolio, 1993).Everything in this environment or culture is thought of in terms of explicit and implicit green economycontractual relationships (Jung and Avolio, 1999). In a transactional culture, jobassignments are given out based on terms of employment, conditions, disciplinary codes,and beneﬁt structures (Blackwell, 2004). There is a price on everything and everyone has a 457price for his or her motivation to work in this culture. Leaders are negotiators and resourceallocators and individuals ﬁnd little to identify within the organization thus resulting inlittle innovation and risk taking in this culture (Bass and Avolio, 1993). The primary focus of the transactional leader is setting goals, clarifying the linkbetween performance and rewards, and providing feedback that is constructive in orderto enable followers to stay on task (Bass, 1985). The characteristics of the transactionalleader are contingent reward, management by exception (active), management byexception (passive), and laissez-faire leadership (Bass, 1990). These characteristics aredeﬁned by Bass (1990, p. 22): . Contingent Reward. contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises rewards for good performances, recognizes accomplishments. . Management by Exception (active). watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards, takes corrective action. . Management by Exception (passive). intervenes only if standards are not met. . Laissez-Faire. abdicates responsibilities, avoids making decisions.The transactional leader is focused on the lower order physical and security needs oftheir followers (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1995). Contingent reward leadership ishighly correlated in research studies to transformational leadership (Avolio et al.,1999). Contingent reward leadership relates positively to subordinate outcomes, suchas satisfaction and performance but the strength of association is of a lower level thantransformational leadership (Lowe et al., 1996) At the core of many leadership theoriesis the concerned transactional leader (Robbins, 2003). The Ohio State studies (Halpinand Winier, 1957), Fiedler’s model (Fiedler, 1967), path-goal theory (House, 1971), andthe leader-participation model (Vroom and Jago, 1988) are examples of leadershiptheories in which the leader practices transactional leadership. These modelsemphasize that the transactional leader guides and directs the established goals byclarifying role and task requirement (Robbins, 2003). Consequently, agrarian leadership represents a new contextual method for dealingwith leadership in a green economy. Agrarian leadership is deﬁned as a contextualinﬂuence that has an impact on subordinates’ attitudes and performance by leaders whoare both value and results driven. Agrarian leaders view their followers as critical partsof the socio-technical system. Therefore, technology does not drive the value system ofsociety. Before the Industrial Revolution, life was centered on land and labor. Life wassimple for the leader in agrarian society. Rural living revolved around the land;owning it was equivalent to self-sufﬁciency and liberty. Although Americans lived in atribal structure prior to the Agrarian Era (1650-1849), farming communitiesoperated in a decentralized economy (Design Share, 2006). Agrarians exercised astrong spirituality and a deep respect for the environment. There was a genuine concern
BIJ for neighbors and co-workers. Being a leader was a major responsibility. In fact,18,3 farmers were viewed as heroes because of their hard work, contributions to society, independence, and moral standards. A man’s word meant something. With the transition from an agrarian to industrial society, untainted leadership was lost. The Industrial Revolution meant major changes to the American way of life. Before that period, over 90 percent of Americans lived rurally. Farmers inﬂuenced society. Between458 1870 and 1900, rural areas doubled and urban areas tripled. Farmers were cautious about these societal changes (Dandom, 1995). Industrial managers faced challenges such as generating new efﬁciencies while expanding operations. Chaos theory was in effect because those managers could not control these organizational changes, which happens both inside and outside of the organization (Daft, 1995). Factory managers lacked a process to motivate the unskilled (former agrarian) workforce. This era created new advances and new problems. The Industrial Revolution forever changed agrarian society, primarily due to market economy and technology. In fact, the integration of the market economy, technology, and the introduction of corporation had severe consequences for rural living. During the course of the next 100 years, rural life was changed due to vast technology and signiﬁcant economic changes catapulted farmers into an industrial society with different values. This resulted in a disorientation, bewilderment, and loss of conﬁdence and security of the agrarians. Agrarians were less self-sufﬁcient and became “economic market” slaves. This created conﬂict because farmers and industrial society ultimately having different values. Farming became more productive, but fewer workers were needed (Hayter, 1968). As a result of these technological advances, agrarians lost their independence, family focus, and societal inﬂuence on moral conduct. This example does not match the previous statement. It seems you are bouncing back and forth between farmer and manager. For example, some managers found factory workers breaking equipment (Wren, 2004). Consequently, managers tried to institute positive and negative rewards; these managers used conventional wisdom: “the hungriest man makes the best worker.” Once again mankind was moving away from his calling – the land. Therefore, advances in technology do not always equate to a better society. Many techno advocates would argue that technology has provided superior virtues. This may not be the case. First, technology does not automatically improve society. In over 50 years, America has gone from rural to city and from national to international markets. Critchﬁeld (1991) argued that these advancements have weakened our core values such as family tradition and work ethic. Second, the disintegration of the agrarian code has destroyed our moral stability. Davidson (1990) further suggested that technology and the economic prestige of the agricultural system brought a host of social ills such as poverty, depopulation, and soil erosion. Finally, some people may consider agrarian lifestyle primitive. However, agrarian values should not be overlooked as good leadership attributes. In restructuring any complex organization, several key components are necessary to ensure success. Prewitt (2004) argued that the current leadership theories are based on modernist assumptions and are out of date with leading today’s postmodern organizations. Given this dilemma, there needs to be a different kind of twenty-ﬁrst century leadership. America continues to advance technology rapidly while the values of society continue to disintegrate with each innovation. In society, many leaders exhibit unethical conduct, pursuing wealth. Throughout American history, society has seen the consequences.
8. Strategic implication: lesson learned for today’s organizations A leadershipAgrarian leadership can be a signiﬁcant factor for organizational success in the green model for theeconomy. Therefore, establishing good benchmarking processes become critical.Hyatt (2001) argued the merits of benchmarking as a continuous process of identifying, green economylearning, and implementing best practices to optimize opportunities to gain competitiveadvantage. In fact, a strategic benchmark approach may provide promise in identifyingupstream and changing domain measure (Sarkis, 2001). Furthermore, Jutras (2009) 459discovered that sustainability brings together strategies to make sure that topperformance related to the business, the environment, and society occurs. His researchalso showed that organizations who have strong sustainability programs were able toreduce expenses while making signiﬁcant improvements in customer service. In addition,an increasing number of companies are required to provide veriﬁable evidence ofsocial and environmental impact while at the same time being able to demonstratereal business beneﬁts. Matching those environmental and social stewardshiprequirements is helping organizations make clear, actionable, and measurableimprovements to their bottom lines, which in turn helps ensure the sustainability oftheir organization. This new challenge for today’s organizational leaders is to successfully guide theirorganizations through volatile economic times and deal with the topic of sustainability(Fable et al., 2005). This has become an increasingly complex task for organizationalleadership and many more organizational failures await those not prepared. Accordingto McCann and Holt (2010), the need to examine and deﬁne the concept of sustainableleadership expands in importance. It appears that leaders in today’s organizations areutilizing the concept of sustainability as a competitive advantage and a method tocontinually improve overall performance. The concept of environmental sustainability is not a new one, but the recent increasein focus is important to leadership and business (Leuenberger, 2007). The welfare ofthe environment has been receiving increased attention because of public andprivate concern for environmental health and limited resources considerations.Many believe that eco-sensitive leadership, which operates in conjunction with thenatural environment should be at the center of organizational decision making andpractices, is in contrast to the conventional leadership model that focuses on theconventional goals of pure proﬁt, business growth, and stakeholder expectations.Hanson and Middleton (2000, p. 96) boiled their deﬁnition of eco-sensitive sustainabilityto requirements for: . adopting a long-term-frame (at least generational, well beyond usual business or political scales); . sensitivity to the complexity of the natural world; . the adoption of basically non-anthropocentric viewpoints (Fox, 1990; Hanson, 1997); . awareness of environmental risk; and . the use of non-economic valuation techniques.In addition, the eco-sensitive leader will need to focus the on becoming organizationallyeco-sensitive above the conventional goals of proﬁt. The eco-sensitive organizationmust learn and use new information and theory about the natural world and revise its
BIJ organizational and world-view in consideration of this knowledge and paradigm18,3 change (Hanson and Middleton, 2000). Modern management theory has disassociated business organizations from the rest of nature. Therefore, organizations have been encouraged to behave in ways that destroy their natural and life-support systems (Gladwin et al., 2005). Reintegration is required where management scholars consider the social and environmental systems460 and how organizations exist in the complete external environment. The paradigms are shifting in management theory from the notion of organizational science and a constricted view of assumptions to that of system interconnectedness or a more cosmopolitan outlook in terms of the concept of sustainable development. The foundation of agrarian society was the family. In the nineteenth century, the family was the main welfare institution, providing moral standards, education of children, and assistance to neighbors. Everyone in the family assisted in this working environment, wife, children, and extended families. Neighborhoods played a key role by providing common ethnic heritage and supporting moral, community standards (Dandom, 1995). Work and home life were intermingled. The family was both multi-generational and extended. A return to agrarian values will foster new belief systems rather than the status quo. Jones (2008) maintained that a shift in America’s energy strategy would provide a new chapter for human civilization. He further suggested moving to move inﬁnite and eternal power sources such as solar energy. According to the National Renewable Energy Lab, the major hurdle for adapting green technology is not legal, ﬁnancial, technical, or ideological. Green economy-driven companies cannot ﬁnd enough green-collar qualiﬁed employees. The green economy promotes a different value set than the previous technology boom. Currently, there is a constant beating of the economic drum for more growth and opportunity. Therefore, people push for newer opportunities to faster growth by technology such as microtechnology and nanotechnology. McKibben (2007) further suggested that this aggressive pursue for economic growth has led to faulty decision making by leaders. In fact, McKibben argued the transition in the modern era from individualism to hyper-individualism where it is all about the individual and his family, not the community. Therefore, hyper-individualism could promote the inequality of others and contribute to the decay of American society. Jones (2008) further declared that the present economy provides socio-economic inequality. He explained about fewer opportunities for working people, growing disparities between the races, and the hording of immerse wealth and privileges by the elite. Yet, the green economy could provide new products, services, and technologies to jump start society’s standard of living. This could create new green jobs. This new economy would improve community health and provide opportunities to build sustainable wealth. Additionally, green collar workers have the following values: . higher respect for the environment than blue collar workers; . family supporting; and . career track oriented (Jones, 2008). This situation will foster inclusiveness and outreach to all. Given this framework, ordinary workers will be empowered to become inventors of their own futures. Therefore, shared prosperity is a major value in the green economy (Table III).
A leadershipFindings Recommendations model for the1. There is little research in how the green Further studies on the green economy need to be green economy economy will impact the strategy, structure, conducted on the triad areas of strategy, structure, and culture of today’s organizations and culture2. New leadership theories may need to be Further studies in green organizations should be developed to assist organizations in developing considered to determine the type of leadership 461 the right kind of leadership for the green present based on employee and management economy perceptions3. The creation of green jobs may infuse Further studies in a qualitative and quantitative organizations with more emphasis on ethics, manner need to be conducted for green values, and leadership competency organizations4. The overly dependence on new technologies to Researchers and practitioners should determine if create jobs and sustain society’s quality of lifeagrarian leadership fall on the continuum of the carries unintended consequences full range of leadership model (see continuum Bass and Avolio (1993))5. Agrarian leadership may offer organizations a Further reﬁnement and identiﬁcation of the better ability to lead postmodern workers in the characteristics of agrarian leadership and green economy development of a survey instrument needs to be Table III. explored in order to study this leadership style. Agrarian leadership Perhaps, analyzing if training in agrarian values ﬁndings and can improve organizational performance recommendations9. ConclusionIn order to better combat future uncertainties in the marketplace, contemporaryorganizations need a different leadership model. This new economic revolution willstart with a fresh, positive outlook from a new kind of engaging leadership.Benchmarking the concept of agrarian leadership will bring justiﬁcation for muchneeded improvements. Benchmarking can be a catalyst for assisting organizations tobecome more focused and competitive thus improving the national economy. In orderto implement meaningful changes, executives, legislators, educators, andenvironmental advocacy groups must take a leading role in this reform. This paperdemonstrated that benchmarking leadership theories in order to build a new leadershipmodel for the green economy will be beneﬁcial to both practitioners and researchers.Through this process, the triad variables of leadership, values, and culture wereanalyzed. The paper found the following key issues: . there is little research in how the green economy will impact the strategy, structure, and culture of today’s organizations; . new leadership theories may need to be developed to assist organizations in developing the right kind of leadership for the green economy; . the creation of green jobs may infuse organizations with more emphasis on ethics, values, and leadership competency; . the overly dependence on new technologies to create jobs and sustain society’s quality of life carries unintended consequences; and . agrarian leadership may offer organizations a better ability to lead postmodern workers in the green economy.
BIJ From the research, there are several implications for researchers and practitioners18,3 related to improving the personal and organizational success of leaders guiding their followers in a green economy. Many countries hope that the green economy will be able to improve their ﬁnancial situation. Yet, organizations are struggling with the issues of ethical behavior by managers and how to motivate their employees toward greater performance. A new leadership based on agrarian values may be a positive step in462 addressing these matters. Finally, this study is signiﬁcant because it presents a theoretical framework for interpreting how agrarian values can work in building the quality of life when applied in a green economy. References Anand, B. and Kodali, R. (2008), “Benchmarking the benchmarking models”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 257-91. Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1991), The Full Range Leadership Development Programs: Basic and Advanced Manuals, Avolio & Associates, Binghamton, NY. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 441-62. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1991), “Assessing leadership across the full-range”, paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Miami, FL. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership and organizational culture”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 112-25. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), “Multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Mind Garden, available at: www.mindgarden.com/ (accessed 19 April 2010). Bennis, W. (2009), On Becoming a Leader, Basic Books, Philadelphia, PA. Bennis, W. and Goldsmith, J. (2003), Learning to Lead: A Workbook on Becoming a Leader, Perseus Books Group, New York, NY. Berry, W. (2008), Citizenship Papers, Shoemaker & Hoard, Washington, DC. Blackwell, S.L. (2004), “Using role theory to examine determinants of transformational and transactional leader behavior”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 41-51. Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1985), The Managerial Grid III: The Key to Leadership Excellence, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX. Brown, L. (2001), Eco-economy, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY. Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Camp, R.C. (1995), Business Process Benchmarking: Finding and Implementing Best Practices, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WS.
Caudron, S. (1996), “Rebuilding employee trust”, Training & Development, Vol. 50, pp. 18-21. A leadershipCoopers and Lybrand (1994), Survey of Benchmarking in the UK, Coopers and Lybrand, London. model for theCritchﬁeld, R. (1991), Trees, Why Do You Wait, Island Press, Washington, DC. green economyDaft, R. (1995), Organization Theory and Design, West Publishing Company, St Paul, MN.Dandom, D. (1995), Born in the Country, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Davidson, O. (1990), Broken Heartland: The Rise of Americas Rural Ghetto, The Free Press, 463 New York, NY.Design Share (2006), “Changing patterns in educational facilities: agricultural society (1650-1849)”, available at: www.designshare.com/Research/ChangingPatterns/ ChangingPatterns2.htm (accessed 19 April 2010).Drucker, P. (2001), The Essential Drucker: The Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker’s Essential Writings on Management, HarperCollins, New York, NY.Elmuti, D., Kathawala, Y. and Lloyed, S. (1997), “The benchmarking process: assessing its value and limitations”, Industrial Management, July/August, pp. 12-19.Fable, N., Jorna, R. and Van Engelen, J. (2005), “The sustainability of sustainability: a study into the conceptual foundations of the notion of the notion of sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-33.Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Francis, G.A. and Holloway, J.A. (2007), “What have we learned? Themes from the literature on best-practice benchmarking”, International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 30, pp. 171-89.Friedman, T. (2006), The War is Flat, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY.Gamble, J. and Thompson, A. Jr (2009), Essentials of Strategic Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T. (2005), “Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 874-907.Green, K. (2010), “Market meddling will not work”, US News & World Report, March, p. 8.Hackman, M. and Johnson, C. (2000), Leadership: A Communication Perspective, Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL.Halpin, A.W. and Winier, B.J. (1957), “A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions”, in Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, OH.Hankin, H. (2005), “Can we recognize our future employees”, Workspan, Vol. 48 No. 9, pp. 12-13.Hanson, D. and Middleton, S. (2000), “The challenges of eco-leadership”, Greener Management International, Vol. 29, Spring, pp. 95-107.Hayter, E. (1968), The Troubled Farmer, North Illinois University Press, Chicago, IL.House, R.J. (1971), “A path goal theory of leader effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 321-38.Hyatt, L. (2001), “Benchmarking: how does you organization measure up”, Business Strategies, May, pp. 12-14.Jones, V. (2008), The Green Collar Economy, HarperOne, New York, NY.Jones, G. and George, J. (2009), Contemporary Management, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
BIJ Jung, D.I. and Avolio, B.J. (1999), “Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions”, Academy of Management18,3 Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 208-18. Jutras, C. (2009), “The ROI of sustainability: making the business case”, available at: www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/5908-RA-sustainability-environmental- stewardship.asp (accessed 29 August 2009).464 Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2007), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Krames, J.A. (2003), What the Best CEOs Know: 7 Exceptional Leaders and Their Lessons for Transforming Any Business, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Kumar, A. and Dhakar, T. (2006), “Integrating quality function deployment and benchmarking to achieve greater proﬁtability”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 290-310. Leuenberger, D.Z. (2007), “Symposium-sustainability and public administration”, Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 370-4. Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 385-426. McAulay, L. (2003), “Transformational leadership: a response to limitations in conventional information systems evaluation”, Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-8. McCall, M. and Hollenbeck, G. (2002), Developing Global Executives, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. McCann, J. and Holt, R. (2010), “Deﬁning sustainable leadership”, International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 204-10. McKibben, B. (2007), Deep Economy, Holt Paperbacks, New York, NY. Makower, J. (2009), Strategies for the Green Economy, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Northouse, P. (2004), Leadership Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Porras, J., Thompson, M. and Emery, S. (2007), Success Built to Last: Creating a Life that Matters, Plume, New York, NY. Prewitt, V. (2004), “Integral leadership for the 21st century”, World Futures, Vol. 60, pp. 327-33. Rigby, D. (2009), “Management tools-benchmarking”, available at: www.bain.com/management_ tools/tools_Benchmarking.asp?groupCode¼2 (accessed 19 April 2010). Rigby, D. and Bilodeau, B. (2009), “Management tools and trends 2009”, available at: www.bain. com/bainweb/PDFs/cms/Public/Management_Tools_2009.pdf (accessed 19 April 2010). Ringo, J. (2010), “Clean energy already paying off”, US News & World Report, March, p. 8. Robbins, S.P. (2003), Organizational Behavior, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Sarkis, J. (2001), “Benchmarking for agility”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 88-107. Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C. (2001), “The transformational-transactional leadership model in practice”, Leadership & Organization Development, Vol. 22 Nos 7/8, pp. 383-94. Sayles, L.R. (1979), What Effective Managers Really Do and How They Do It, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY. The Conference Board (2010), US Job Satisfaction at Lowest Level in Two Decades, press release, Vol. 21, 5 January, available at: www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDetail. cfm?press_ID¼3820 (accessed 21 April 2010).
Vroom, V. and Jago, A. (1988), The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations, A leadership Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ.Wren, D. (2004), The Evolution of Management Thought, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. model for theYukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, Pearson Education, Delhi. green economyFurther readingThe American Productivity and Quality Center (2010), “Benchmarking”, available at: www. 465 apqc.org/portal/apqc/ksn/Glossary%20of%20Benchmarking%20Terms.pdf?paf_gear_ id¼contentgearhome&paf_dm¼full&pageselect¼contentitem&docid¼119519 (accessed 19 April 2010).Zairi, M. (1996), Effective Benchmarking: Learning from the Best, Chapman & Hall, London.Corresponding authorDaryl D. Green can be contacted at: Daryl.Green@lmunet.eduTo purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: email@example.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints