Jones (2012) defines organizational technology as “the combination of skills, knowledge, abilities, techniques, materials, machines, computers, tools, and other equipment that people use to convert or change raw materials, problems, and new ideas into valuable goods and services” (p. 240). In describing how technology impacts organizational design, discuss the theories of Joan Woodward, Charles Perrow, and James D. Thompson, each of whom offers a way of explaining how technology influences optimal structure of organizations.  Reference four sources and APA format. In a paper of at least 5 pages (excluding title and references pages), describe how technology can increase organizational efficiency. Compare and contrast the technology models and theories of Woodward, Perrow, and Thompson. Explain the concepts of technical complexity, task variability and analyzability, and task interdependence. Apply these concepts to the operations of:    a. a large life insurance company    b. a drive-through coffee house    c. a videogame production company    d. a solar technology company     Identify the type of organizational structure you would expect to find in each of these four types of organizations, and explain why. Leadership and Power Week 1-2 Introduction Evolution from monarchical systems and the old guard (i.e. political, economic, and social constructs)(Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Agho, 2009) Leadership includes relational factors among lower, middle and upper levels in the organization (Judge & Bono, 2000; Oshry, 2007) Leadership and management are made up of dynamic interchanges and depending on the scale of influence or organizational structure, both are responsible for the tangible and intangible goals and outcomes (Senge, 2006; Oshry, 2007, Meadows, 2008). Important to note Leadership contemporarily still has significant work to be done academically (Balthazard, Waldman & Warren, 2009). Data from onsite or day to day emergent leadership models is in its’ infancy (Agho, 2009). Research on employee development is mostly theoretical and not always situational (Judge & Bono, 2000) Increased awareness of the gaps pertaining to gender and culture have precipitated scholars and practitioners alike to reflect on their realities and in some ways, their practices (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010). Main Ideas The frameworks of transformational and transactional leadership can be aptly utilized to illuminate the elements of leadership and the constructs that exist within them such as: (Vicchio, 1979; Ayman, Korabik, & Morris, 2009; Conger & Lawler, 2009; Azman, Mohamad, Rafiuddin & Zhen, 2010) authority dyadic and group methods role culture or gender Power is defined as the ability to invoke positive or negative influence organizationally, within teams, and individuals (Lam, Huang, Snape, 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009 ). Includes elements decision making, incentivization, .

1. Jones (2012) defines organizational technology as “the
combination of skills, knowledge, abilities, techniques,
materials, machines, computers, tools, and other equipment that
people use to convert or change raw materials, problems, and
new ideas into valuable goods and services” (p. 240). In
describing how technology impacts organizational design,
discuss the theories of Joan Woodward, Charles Perrow, and
James D. Thompson, each of whom offers a way of explaining
how technology influences optimal structure of organizations.
Reference four sources and APA format. In a paper of at least 5
pages (excluding title and references pages), describe how
technology can increase organizational efficiency. Compare and
contrast the technology models and theories of Woodward,
Perrow, and Thompson. Explain the concepts of technical
complexity, task variability and analyzability, and task
interdependence. Apply these concepts to the operations of:
a. a large life insurance company
b. a drive-through coffee house
c. a videogame production company
d. a solar technology company
Identify the type of organizational structure you would expect
to find in each of these four types of organizations, and explain
why.
Leadership and Power
Week 1-2

2. Introduction
Evolution from monarchical systems and the old guard (i.e.
political, economic, and social constructs)(Avolio, Walumbwa,
& Weber, 2009; Agho, 2009)
Leadership includes relational factors among lower, middle and
upper levels in the organization (Judge & Bono, 2000; Oshry,
2007)
Leadership and management are made up of dynamic
interchanges and depending on the scale of influence or
organizational structure, both are responsible for the tangible
and intangible goals and outcomes (Senge, 2006; Oshry, 2007,
Meadows, 2008).
Important to note
Leadership contemporarily still has significant work to be done
academically (Balthazard, Waldman & Warren, 2009).
Data from onsite or day to day emergent leadership models is in
its’ infancy (Agho, 2009).
Research on employee development is mostly theoretical and
not always situational (Judge & Bono, 2000)
Increased awareness of the gaps pertaining to gender and
culture have precipitated scholars and practitioners alike to
reflect on their realities and in some ways, their practices
(Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009; Ayman & Korbik,
2010).

3. Main Ideas
The frameworks of transformational and transactional
leadership can be aptly utilized to illuminate the elements of
leadership and the constructs that exist within them such as:
(Vicchio, 1979; Ayman, Korabik, & Morris, 2009; Conger &
Lawler, 2009; Azman, Mohamad, Rafiuddin & Zhen, 2010)
authority
dyadic and group methods
role culture or gender
Power is defined as the ability to invoke positive or negative
influence organizationally, within teams, and individuals (Lam,
Huang, Snape, 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009
).
Includes elements decision making, incentivization, relational
differentials, as well as legitimacy due to positional standing or
expertise (Morgan, 2009; Agho, 2009; Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Main Ideas Cont’d
Emergent leadership includes transformational and transactional
leadership as well as builds in contingency as a result of the
nature of being adaptable, contextual, and interrelational (Judge
& Bono, 2000; Azman, 2010).
Multi-directional approaches which include dyadic and

4. individually based actions or interactions are part of the top
down, bottom up, inclusive leadership frameworks (Oshry,
2007; Bolman & Deal 2013).
Leader-member exchange is important to building capacity,
sharing and working within a common vision, attaining real
time data to inform decisions, supplant followership, and self
organizing group activities(Judge & Bono, 2000, Ayman &
Korabik, 2010)
Main Ideas Cont’d
Personality typologies are important but so are competencies
and acumen (i.e. fostering trust, workplace norms, shared
vision, androgyny) (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994; Senge,
2006)
A systems oriented approach which includes multiple feedback
loops fosters an iterative, adaptable, an emergent learning and
working environment (Meadows, 2006; Markham, Markham &
Smith, 2015)
Contemporary examples of emergent leadership and top down-
bottom approaches can include Google (built-in innovation
time), Blackberry (product design and production cycle), HCL
(inverted management pyramid) (Hamel, 2014)
Considerations
These elements are situational, contextual and on a continuum.

5. Nothing in this discussion is all or none.
The evolution of leadership-followership is still evolving due to
globalization, technological advancements, access to knowledge
and information, and the shifting business landscape
(Bathazard, Waldman, Warren, 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010)
Conclusion
Strong leadership encompasses the ability to harness followers
through various cognitive, behavioral, and psychological
methods to increase contribution, efficacy, and performance of
teams (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008).
Structures such as dyadic interchanges, knowing when to lead
from the front, middle or back situationally, and having a level
of wisdom that supports a, “me to we” dynamism is integral
contemporarily (Vicchio, 1979; Balthazard et al., 2009; Conger
& Lawler, 2009; Markham et al., 2015)
Provocations
Emergent leadership amalgamates past and contemporary
aspects of leadership theory and frameworks. Why in practice
has there been a lag in implementation? (Too easy to keep the
status quo? A Lack of data and trust to confirm this
methodology?)
Does androgyny in leadership support the dissolution of barriers
to equitable entrance (i.e. cultural or gender related)

6. Can capacity in teams be inherently built? What mechanisms
and leadership competencies need to be present?
How does leadership typologies compare in your own
professional context to that of research?
Do you believe that the best leaders have exceptional emotional
and cultural quotients?
References
Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on
effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 16(2), 159-166. Retrieved from the
SAGE Premier database.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009).
Leadership: Current theories, research, and future
directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and
culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157–170.
Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009).
Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in
virtual decision teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 651–663.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal. T. E. (2013). Making sense of
organizations. (5th ed.), Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2009). Sharing leadership on
corporate boards: A critical requirement for teamwork at the
top. Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 183-191. Retrieved from
the ScienceDirect database.
Hamel, G. (2014) Management Innovation eXchange. (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://www.managementexchange.com
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know

7. about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American
Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of
personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5), 751–765.
References cont’d
Markham, S. E., Markham, I. S., & Smith, J. W. (2015). At the
crux of dyadic leadership: Self–other agreement of leaders and
direct reports — Analyzing 360-degree feedback.Leadership
Quarterly, 26(6), 958-977. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.001
Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White
River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Oshry, B. (2007). Seeing systems: Unlocking the mysteries of
organizational life. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader-
member exchange: A closer look at relational
vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
15(2), 101-110. Retrieved from the SAGE Premier 2010
database.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of
the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Vecchio, R. T. (1979). A Dyadic Interpretation of the
Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Academy Of
Management Journal, 22(3), 590-600. doi:10.2307/255747

8. Leadership and Power: Where have we come from and how
should this look conceptually?
Nadia Delanoy
MGMT 8410
Student ID- A00558400
June 4, 2016

9. Introduction
Leadership including followership as constructs has evolved
throughout centuries of entrenched political, economic, and
social systems which reflected such practices as feudalism,
monarchism, which manifested into immense divisions within
the social echelons of these systems (Agho, 2009; Wilson, Sin,
& Conlon, 2010). As a result, power and leadership were crafted
out of the want for control, geopolitical advancement as well as
social distinction (Agho, 2009; Delanoy, 2016). One could
argue that the latter has not changed significantly but has
merely supplanted itself in a new face of corporate hierarchies,
para-military groups, and seemingly, the dissolution of the
middle class in developed nations (Hamel, 2014; Delanoy,
2016). Regardless of these potential realities, leadership
whether within a political or business landscape still
necessitates that individuals work with a broad array of people
and build capacity with and for their partners in the leadership
framework (Judge & Bono, 2000; Walumbwa & Weber, 2009;
Hamel, 2014). (i.e. middle management) Moreover, leadership
in the broader sense which includes the middles and uppers
should be equipped with the competencies to be visionary,
facilitate change, and ensure institutional resources are being
leveraged in a way that results in sustainable fiscal and social
advancement (Oshry, 2007; Meadows, 2008; Avolio et al.,

10. 2009). Followership then is a composite of leadership and
management in that within the greater systems context,
everyone has an opportunity at varying stages to lead from the
back, middle or front, depending on the circumstance, need, or
goals that are delineated (Senge, 2006; Oshry, 2007; Meadows,
2008; Agho, 2009).
Enigmatically, the evolution globally has influenced the
leadership structures of organizations, such as the technological
advancements, availability of knowledge and information, the
development of asynchronous team approaches (i.e. face to face
or virtual) and work, and an increased awareness of the gaps
pertaining to gender and culture have precipitated scholars and
practitioners alike to reflect on their realities and in some ways,
their practices (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009; Ayman
& Korbik, 2010). Although the research and practitioner
orientation is relatively infant in some of these areas, it is clear
that theoretical constancies in leadership and patterns of power
structures still exist (Balthazard et al., 2009; Ayman & Korbik,
2010). As such, the latter denotes the necessity for scholars and
practitioners, to understand what leadership, power, and the
current circumstances in these realms are and are not
(Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009; Ayman & Korbik,
2010). For example, studies show that while charisma as a
typology for leadership is important, in some cultures and
virtual environments, the latter may not translate in the same
way as it has been noted in the past (Judge & Bono, 2000;
Balthazard et al., 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010).
Leadership and Power- Frameworks and Theoretical Discussion
Leadership can be analyzed and subsequently defined through
many a lens from disciplines such as social sciences,
psychology, business, and political science (Hogan, Curphy &
Hogan, 1994; Kotter, 2001). The frameworks of
transformational and transactional leadership can be aptly
utilized to illuminate the elements of leadership and the
constructs that exist within them as well as consider other

11. elements such as authority, dyadic and group methods as well as
the role culture or gender may play (Vicchio, 1979; Ayman,
Korabik, & Morris, 2009; Conger & Lawler, 2009; Azman,
Mohamad, Rafiuddin & Zhen, 2010).
It is important to note that throughout this paper, transactional
and transformational leadership which includes process and
product orientation is evident from hierarchical traditional
practices to more emergent frameworks (Ayman et al., 2009;
Conger & Lawler, 2009; Azman, et al., 2010). Additionally, to
allay the misconceptions that leadership and management are
inherently different, consideration that both dimensions
intersect depending on scale of influence and organizational
structure is important in this context (Avolio et al, 2009;
Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). Moreover, the argument that the
upper echelons of leadership are solely responsible to
shareholders and in a fiscal context is misguided as in the
fallout of the 2008 subprime mortgage debacle and currently
within the oil and gas industry in Alberta, Canada, corporations
reactions directly impact those that hold positions designated as
managerial in nature (Morgan, 2006; Bolman & Deal, 2013;
Delanoy, 2016).
In consideration of this discussion, the idea of power must be
fleshed out in order to contextualize the position and purpose of
this paper. Even though the medium of this paper is persuasive
in nature, the dominant theme will be the continual
interrelationship of leadership constructs as well as a continuum
based argument which emphasizes the relative importance of
context (i.e. institutional, societal, cultural etc…) (Tangirala,
Green & Ramanujam, 2007; Avolio et al., 2009). This does not
preclude but rather underscores the necessity for emergent
leadership in the context of the current institutional practices
that are slowly adjusting; the more pseudo traditional aspects of
hierarchical leadership (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge & Bono, 200;
Avolio et al., 2009) As such, the concept of power refers to the
ability to invoke positive or negative influence organizationally,
within teams, and individuals (Lam, Huang, Snape, 2007;

12. Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009 ). The latter includes
elements such as decision making, incentivization, relational
differentials, as well as legitimacy due to positional standing or
expertise (Morgan, 2009; Agho, 2009; Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Therefore, depending on the context, if power is not solely top
down or relational in nature, concepts such as distributive and
procedural justice have their place within the greater context of
leadership and followership (Azman, Mohamad, Rafiuddin, &
Zhen, 2010). For example, in the context of a municipal
government, laws (i.e. by-laws) are written with the expectation
of limited variation in its interpretation. One of the reasons for
this is to ensure that the government looks after the interests of
the whole, that being the community (Scarpino, 2016). Citizens
see power being used in ways that support the common good
and as the parameters are narrowed, the perception of equality
and stability is supplanted (Azman, et al., 2010). This
collectivist view can be at times diametrically opposed in a
corporate setting whereby monetary gain can result in greater
applications of distributive justice in that leadership may
leverage cognitive-behavioral mechanisms to incentivize
performance (i.e. days in lieu, bonuses etc…) (Azman et al.,
2010). The latter is not wholly individualist but equity is clearly
more prevalent in these applications and normative in nature as
this model of leadership and followship is more akin to an
economic as well as relational framework that optimizes
competition, individual efficacy, behavioral aspects of reward
that materializes as a collective goal (Azman et al., 2010).
Comprehensively, if these elements are taken into account,
transformative leadership which consists of developing
relationships with teams, facilitating and harnessing a common
vision, as well as conveying a level of expertise and legitimacy
are essential for success (Agho, 2009; Ayman et al., 2009;
Azman et al., 2010). Furthermore, transactional leadership, has
a role to play as well in advancement through task completion,
competency and process orientation, as well as an underlying
rewards framework (Agho, 2009; Ayman et al., 2009; Azman et

13. al., 2010). With these mediums of leadership being leveraged,
emergent leadership which by nature reflects a high level of
adaptability will be more suitable in an economic environment
that is ever changing and potentially wrought with a level of
volatility and uncertainty inherent in contemporary time
(Bennett & Lemoine, 2010). The latter theoretical and pragmatic
framework dynamically engages relational, procedural, and
contextual leadership applications as the situation deems (Judge
& Bono, 2000; Azman et al., 2010). This is not to say that the
acknowledgement of most industries being framed in a
traditional bureaucratic sense is not recognized but a hybrid
framework that strikes a balance between interpersonal and
knowledge or skill based competencies as well as what teams
and/or individuals can bring to the table so to speak are
necessary for the current state of economic and political affairs
(Judge & Bono, 2000; Azman et al., 2010).
Within a highly aligned system (i.e. vision, mission,
subsystems), dynamism and multidirectional approaches to
leadership such as dyadic interactions actively engage and
empower followers (Bolman & Deal, 2013). These facets foster
adaptability and sustainability through positive redundancy,
supporting a top down/bottom up inclusive leadership
framework and a means that champion’s individual
competencies towards collective goals (Oshry, 2007; Bolman &
Deal, 2013). Additionally, an emergent leadership framework
posits that traditional barriers to success which may include
gender and culture could be mitigated as traditional leader-
member exchange (LMX) is not skewed by the biases and is
inherently multifaceted (Judge & Bono, 2000; Ayman &
Korabik, 2010). Moreover, the negative perceptions of leaders
may be less of an impediment because dynamic and
multidimensional interactions allow subsystems and self-
organizing groups to thrive as active and moving parts of the
transformational and transactional realms. (Hogan et al., 1994;
Morgan, 2006; Markham, Markham & Smith, 2015).
Conclusion

14. The overlapping themes in the studies of leadership reaffirms
that the traditional hierarchical and subsequent bureaucratic
approaches while still apparent in industry, are being outgrown
by contemporary and global elements such as subsidiary offices,
virtual teams, and the necessity of deconstructing the glass
ceiling in leadership (i.e. openness and entry regardless of
gender and ethnicity) (Balthazard et al., 2009; Ayman &
Korbik, 2010). Additionally, the evolutionary nature of the
human condition in the workplace reflects increased
empowerment, efficacy, and a shift that encompasses both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge &
Bono, 2000; Tangirala et al., 2007; Avolio et al., 2009). By
virtue of the latter, emergent leaders need to convey a level of
resilience, business, cultural and emotional acumen, and
relational competencies such as integrity, trustworthiness,
supportiveness, openness and extraversion in order to positively
engage all levels of the system (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge &
Bono, 2000; Tangirala et al., 2007; Avolio et al., 2009; Hamel,
2014).
Within this context, leadership development should mirror real
time workplace opportunities for capacity building through self-
organizing groups, followership competency development in a
leadership frame (i.e. growing leaders), and a continual iterative
process that harnesses feedback loops within and throughout the
various subsystems that are in place in organizations (Lam et
al., 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009). This
theoretical and pragmatic approach exists contemporarily in
organizations that have harnessed what worked from the past
and innovated to encompass elements that optimize human and
structural resources in a dynamic way (Lam et al., 2007;
Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009; Hamel, 2014). For
example, Google’s innovation time that is built into the work
day, Blackberry’s six month product introduction cycle
regardless of its’ current stock standing, as well as HCL
Industry’s inverted pyramid that focuses on innovation,
collaboration, and systems feedback loops (i.e. me to we

15. approach) all have a level of emergent leadership (Lam et al.,
2007; Hamel, 2014).
In summation, strong leadership encompasses the ability to
harness followers through various cognitive, behavioral, and
psychological methods to increase contribution, efficacy, and
performance of teams (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008). At times,
the dynamic nature of the latter engages individuals, teams,
managers and leaders alike in a common purpose and direction
(Hogan et al., 1994; Kotter, 2001; Wilson, Sin & Conlon, 2010).
To reiterate, this necessitates competencies that are personal,
relational, and actionable of and from leaders. Furthermore,
structures such as dyadic interchanges, knowing when to lead
from the front, middle or back situationally, and having a level
of wisdom that supports a, “me to we” dynamism is integral
contemporarily (Vicchio, 1979; Balthazard et al., 2009; Conger
& Lawler, 2009; Markham et al., 2015).
References
Abu Bakar, H., & McCann, R. M. (2016). The Mediating Effect
of Leader–Member Dyadic Communication Style Agreement on
the Relationship Between Servant Leadership and Group-Level
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Management
Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 32-58.
doi:10.1177/0893318915601162
Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on
effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership &

16. Organizational Studies, 16(2), 159-166.
Retrieved from the SAGE Premier database.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009).
Leadership: Current theories, research, and future
directions. Annual Review ofPsychology, 60, 421-449.
Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and
culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157–170.
Ayman, R., Korabik, K., & Morris, S. (2009). Is
transformational leadership always perceived as effective? Male
subordinates’ devaluation of female transformational
leaders. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 39(4), 852–879.
Azman, I., Mohamad, M. H., Rafiuddin, N. M., & Zhen, K. W.
P. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership styles
as a predictor of individual outcomes. Theoretical and
AppliedEconomics, 17(6), 89–104.
Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009).
Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in
virtual decision teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 651–663.
Bennett, B., and Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA Really Means
for You. Harvard Business Review, January 2014 Issue.
Retrieved from:https://hbr.org/2014/01/what-vuca-really-means-
for-you
Bolman, L. G. & Deal. T. E. (2013). Making sense of
organizations. (5th ed.), Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2009). Sharing leadership on
corporate boards: A critical requirement for teamwork at the
top.Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 183-191.
Retrieved from the ScienceDirect database.
Delanoy, N. (2016). Application #1 for week #1 of Leadership
and Power. Unpublished manuscript, Walden University.
Delanoy, N. (2016). Management 8035 Week 10 Final
Project. Unpublished manuscript, Walden University.
Gilpin-Jackson, Y., & Bushe, G. R. (2007). Leadership
development training transfer: A case study of post-training
determinants. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 26(10),

17. 980–1004.
Hamel, G. (2014) Management Innovation eXchange. (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://www.managementexchange.com
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know
about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American
Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of
personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5), 751–765.
Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business
Review, 79(11), 85-96.
Retrieved from the Business Source Complete database.
Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking
behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed
motives matter? Academy of ManagementJournal, 50(2), 348-
363.Retrieved from the Business Source Complete database.
Markham, S. E., Markham, I. S., & Smith, J. W. (2015). At the
crux of dyadic leadership: Self–other agreement of leaders and
direct reports — Analyzing 360-degree feedback.Leadership
Quarterly, 26(6), 958-977. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.001
Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White
River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Oshry, B. (2007). Seeing systems:Unlocking the mysteries of
organizational life. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader-
member exchange: A closer look at relational
vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
15(2), 101-110.
Retrieved from the SAGE Premier 2010 database.
Scarpino, V. (2016), Municipal condominium board bylaw
discussion. Unpublished transcript, Mount Royal University.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of
the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Tangirala, S., Green, S. G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the

18. shadow of the boss's boss: Effects of supervisors' upward
exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(2), 309-320. Retrieved from the Business
Source Complete database.
Vecchio, R. T. (1979). A Dyadic Interpretation of the
Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Academy Of
Management Journal, 22(3), 590-600. doi:10.2307/255747
Wilson, K. S., Sin, H., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the
leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource
exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of
Management Review, 35(5), 358-372. Retrieved from the
Business Source Complete database.