1. Traditional Approaches to Leaders’ Impact on OrganizationsS

1. Traditional Approaches to Leaders’ Impact on Organizations
Scores of research studies are built on the assumption that
effective leadership is a key component essential for
organizational success. From the battlefield to the boardroom,
we are told, wins and losses are determined by decisions and
behaviors of those who lead. The plethora of leadership-training
programs may be an indicator that many perceive (or even
assume) that there is a direct relationship between leaders and
organization performance. In The Leadership Gap: Building
Capacity for Competitive Advantage, Weiss and Molinaro
(2005) established their premise by stating “leadership has
become the primary source of competitive advantage in
organizations around the world” (p. 4). These authors used case-
study methods to reinforce the ideas that organizations’ lack
of leadership capacity can be addressed through leadership
development.
But both in research and organizations, there are those who
challenge the “effective leadership = enhanced performance”
supposition (Dihn, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, & Hu, 2014;
Storey, 2010).
LePine, Zhang, Crawford, and Rich (2016) conducted a three-
part study to test relationships among charismatic leadership,
stress, and performance. Subjects were members of the United
States Marine Corps. Findings suggested that charismatic leader
behavior negated the negative effects of stressors on
performance according to assessments by the leaders or their
supervisors. And these authors found that high-level stressors
were more positively viewed when charismatic leader behaviors
were exhibited. However, the researchers discovered that
charismatic leader behavior did not influence how Marines
perceived stressors. An underlying assumption in LePine,
Zhang, Crawford, and Rich’s (2016) research was that leaders
do affect performance. The results, while not conclusive enough

to reject the assumption, did open avenues for new dialogue and
recommendations for further testing.
Dihn, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, and Hu (2014) suggested
that the preponderance of research on leadership behaviors and
traits may have led to assumptions about an overstated influence
of the individual. In Module 1 we examined the evolution of
leadership approaches from the early modern era to the
postmodern era. We know that context—such as environment,
capital, and goals—influences organizational design, structure,
and management/leadership practices. We learned that a stable
organization relies on controls to gain efficiency. Leader -
centric thinking was readily accepted in the modern
organization. And, research studies were designed around those
assumptions, perhaps even reinforcing those assumptions.
More recently, organizations shifted structures, philosophies,
and operating procedures to adapt to social, economic, political,
and technological pressures. Even so, leadership researchers
continued to outpace other scholars who investigated additional
variables that might impact organizational processes.
Researchers such as Castelli (2016) studied reflective leadership
and found that “recognition of diversity” influenced
organizational culture resulting in increased performance, sales,
and profits. Other variables that could have a bearing on
performance are the composition of followers or timed events
such as product launches.
Dihn Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, and Hu (2014) reflected on
the difficulty of integrating leadership theories and findings.
One reason, they explained, is that organizational systems are
always changing and evolving, making any leadership study
unique to the shifts in the environment. Additional impediments
to integrating leadership studies results are the lack or
inconsistency of the following:
1. Common explanation of culture
2. Organizational performance metrics
3. Standard definition of organization
More study is required to test the assumption of “effective

leadership = enhanced performance.” Critical inquiry begs the
question how much organizational success can be attributed to
leaders. That is, an overreliance on leader traits and behaviors
could be misleading. The idea that leaders are responsible for
organizations’ success is a simplistic notion eschewed by some
scholars and managers.
Prosperous organizations are often researched using case-study
methods as a way to identify critical success factors. From such
studies come theories and hypotheses that academics, managers,
and consultants put to the test in real-world scenarios. The
phrase Leadership, Legacy, and Luck (LLL) presents an
alternate way to think about performance (Leadership Insights,
2015; Storey, 2010).
Before going further in the module, review Figure
1: Contributions to Performance Capability and Organisational
Performance on the Leadership Insights website.
The model in Figure 1 shows how leadership, legacy, and luck
hypothetically impact performance levels. You see that the
distinction among leadership, legacy, and luck is illustrated,
with each of the concepts contributing to capability. Capability
impacts performance. Leadership in this context is described as
decisions and purposeful actions that are specific to the market
and an organization’s needs (Leadership insights, 2015; Storey,
2010).
Culture, product innovation, or technology, for example, are
influenced by leaders. As symbolized in Figure 1, linked above,
leadership is not individual-centric but rather is implied as
being present at all levels of an organization. To illustrate the
leadership symbols in the LLL model, we look to a company
that seems to exemplify the concept: Southwest Airlines
embraces decision making at all levels of the company,
demonstrating distributed leadership. The core of Southwest
Airlines is emphasis on the customer, an emphasis that has been
shown to achieve competitive advantage (Investor Relations,
2017).
Let’s now examine the other elements of the LLL model.

· Legacy
· Luck
Leadership and the impact on organizations is a concept highly
visible in the numbers of research studies that associate leaders
with organizational success. The findings of so many
researchers can’t be minimized. That said, the ability to
challenge assumptions is at the core of critical inquiry.
References
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership:
Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional
leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4) 746-771.
Bénit‐ Gbaffou, C., & Katsaura, O. (2014). Community
leadership and the construction of political legitimacy:
Unpacking Bourdieu's ‘political capital’ in post‐ apartheid
Johannesburg. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 38(5), 1807-1832
Boycott over North Carolina's LGBT 'bathroom law' may be
gaining traction as economic fallout grows (2016, April). ABC
News. Retrieved fromhttp://abcnews.go.com/Business/boycott-
north-carolinas-lgbt-bathroom-law-gaining-
traction/story?id=38367656
Castelli, P. A. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A
framework for improving organisational performance. The
Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236. Retrieved
from
https://csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://searc h.proquest.c
om.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/docview/1767544220?accountid=385
69
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden,
R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the
new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing
perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62
Energy efficiency improvement Act of 2015. Alliance to Save
Energy. Retrieved from https://www.ase.org/resources/energy-
efficiency-improvement-act-2015

Investor relations (2017). Southwest Airlines. Retrieved from
http://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/our-
company/company-overview
Leadership insights. (2015, January). Cranfield University
School of Management. Retrieved from
http://blog.som.cranfield.ac.uk/cgmdblog/luck-legacy-
leadership
LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L.
(2016). Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence
on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 59(3), 1036-1059.
Storey, J. (2016). Leadership in organizations: Current issues
and key trends. Ebook. London: Routledge Publishing.
Weiss, D. S., & Molinaro, V. (2005). The leadership gap:
Building leadership capacity for competitive advantage.
Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Multilayered Leadership
Asymmetrical Leadership
Thus far in ORG561 we have established the evolution of
leadership approaches from modern to postmodern
organizations. Additionally, Western (2013) [required
reading] established that contemporary organizations require
what is called asymmetric leadership. Western claims that
traditional thought related to individual, hierarchical, rational,
or symmetrical leadership approaches are no longer relevant.
Western described asymmetrical leadership as:

the multiplicity of actors, leadership and followership relations,
individual, group and mass interactions, and the emotional and
symbolic that are part of leadership processes and activity. (p.
66)
Most would agree that an organization’s environment is
constantly changing, and responsiveness and flexibility are
necessary to meet social, political, economic, and technological
challenges. Accepting the premise that organizations are
asymmetrical and that leaders must adapt to the environment,
Western suggests that understanding asymmetrical leadership is
a “key contemporary leadership challenge” (p. 29).
Multi-level Leadership
An assumption about asymmetrical leadership is that it engages
at different levels and functions within an organization.
Organizational research intensified around the time of the
pronouncement of multi-level management concepts, circa 2000;
leadership studies quickly followed course to determine the
nature of multi-level or multi-layered leadership.
Batistič, Černe, and Vogel (2017) [recommended reading]
seized on those emerging ideas to conduct an analysis of
leadership discourse over a 33-year period from 1980 to
2013. Relationship networking, which was introduced in
Module 1 as one of four critical frames, served as a
foundational element of the study. The authors established that
leadership, by its nature, is present at the individual, group, and
organizational levels. Additionally, the source of leadership in
an organization and the leadership outcomes both composed
another layer for analysis. The authors used bibliometric
analysis, which draws on data from scholarly publications.
Identifying relationships and interactions among topics and
scholars was accomplished by studying citations from published
works.
Further, Batistič, Černe, and Vogel (2017) identified through
co-citation analysis the fact that specific leadership topics were
clustered according to scholarly interests. Table 1 below
includes a summary of the clusters by decade as follows:

Table 1
Leadership field-cluster summary by decade
Leadership Field Clusters, 1980s
Transformational and transactional leadership
Transformational leadership
Agency and governance
Firm’s capabilities and knowledge
Emotions and emotional intelligence
Competitive advantage
Creativity
Authentic leadership
Processual and interactional justice
Rater agreement
Shared leadership
Self-management
Board composition and performance
Ethical leadership
Group effectiveness
Market orientation
Organizational justice
Social identity and categorization
Emotional intelligence
Complexity, context, and leadership
Rater agreement
Trust
Leader-member exchange
CSU-Global Campus; adapted from Batistič, Černe, & Vogel,
2017
In reference to Table 1, above, and to the study by Batistič,
Černe, and Vogel (2017), their results indicated that in the

1980s, transformational and transactional leadership studies
were already identifying outcomes at multi-levels. However, not
all clusters continued to evolve to study the magnitude of layers
and levels; two examples are social identity and self-
management.
By the 2000s, five of seven clusters were found to consider
multi-level thinking. However, there were indications that some
topics, such as transformation leadership, were stagnating.
Batistič, Černe, and Vogel (2017) concluded that multi-level
thinking in leadership research is quite young but progressing.
The authors suggested that some topics, such as shared
leadership, encourage multi-level approaches.
Mass leadership
Mass leadership, as described by Western (2013) [required
reading], reveals how “collective actors” serve a mission or a
cause in a way that is not often discussed in organizational
literature. Collective action, Western suggested, is a form of
leadership at a more macro-level, or in a more global sense. An
example of mass leadership was witnessed in the boycott of the
state of North Carolina as a protest against a law purported to
violate citizens’ civil liberties (“Boycott over North Carolina,”
2016).
Bénit‐ Gbaffou and Katsaura (2014) provided another look at
community leadership in the form of an ethnographic study in
post-apartheid Johannesburg, South Africa. These authors
offered that community actors served to influence local social
change. The purpose of the Bénit‐ Gbaffou and Katsaura study
was to develop tools—rather than developing typologies of
traits, characteristics, or behaviors—to understand the
complexity of community leadership.
In Module 1, we learned that the scope of ORG561 was limited
to formal organizations. But the study of mass movements has
relevance nonetheless. Lessons from studies may be tested in
other environments; replicating studies within new settings has
legitimacy in critical inquiry. The critical frame, Looking

Awry, was introduced in Module 1 as a way to “begin from a
different beginning” such as in the case of considering findings
ranging from mass leadership studies to more formal
organizational settings. This week’s discussion is designed to
help us benefit from Looking Awry.
Multi-layered Leadership
The phrases collective actors, mandate from the
bottom (or recognition from the top), individuals, groups and
organizations, and sources and outcomes suggest that leadership
does not reside in one place or within one individual. In this
course, the term multi-layered leadership serves as a descriptor
of the concepts and power and examining leadership from all
angles.
References
Research, 38(5), 1807-1832
from
https://csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.c
69

leadership
3. Corporate Culture and Transformational Leadership
For more than two decades, leadership studies have projected
the relationship between corporate culture and transformational
leaders. To take a closer look at their association, review the
following video. (As the video unfolds, make note of
assumptions that you might have about organizational culture
and leadership.)
What is Organizational Culture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cBN8xH-5Qw
Description: The Denison Organizational Culture Model focuses
on those aspects of organizational culture which have a proven
link to business performance such as Sales Growth, Return on
Equity (ROE), Return on Investment (ROI), Customer

Satisfaction, Innovation, Employee Satisfaction, Quality and
more. The model and organizational culture survey are based on
over 25 years of research and practice by Daniel R. Denison,
Ph.D. and William S. Neale, M.A., M.L.I.R.
In the modern organization prior to 1990, as defined in Module
1, terms such as charismatic, inspirational,
and motivational were attributed to transformational leaders
who were thought to have great power to “engineer” an
organizational culture (Antonakis & House, 2014) [required
reading]. This approach was differentiated from a transactional
approach more associated with structure and functions of
managers.
Hunt (2004) suggested that at the time, one-third to one-half of
scholarly research publications were specific to
transformational leadership (as cited in Antonakis &
House,2014, p. 6). A preponderance of literature dedicated to
one leadership approach may suggest a preeminence of that
approach that does or does not exist, however. Recall Batistič,
Černe, and Vogel’s (2017) research that revealed stagnation in
transformational-leadership thinking, as evidenced through co-
citation analysis.
Western (2013) [required reading] challenged assumptions held
by scholars such as Bass and Avolio who suggested that
transformational leaders portray vision and purpose to build
dynamic cultures. Instead, Western posited that organizational
cultures are merely subcultures, influenced by both internal and
external factors. Atonakis and House also suggested that
external and internal environmental factors are critical to
organizations and should be reflected in the leadership
approach. And finally, Western expressed concern that long-
held assumptions regarding the notion that
leaders build cultures may be outdated in the postmodern
organization.
Check Your Understanding
There are seven themes described in Chapter 3 of the textbook.
Review the seven and then try to prioritize them according to

what you most often observe in your real-world
experiences. There are no wrong answers!
Seven leadership approaches:
___Intellectual leadership
___Unconscious leadership
___Group leadership
___Distributed leadership
___Individual leadership
___Mass leadership
___Symbolic leadership
Congratulations!
You've reached the end of this module. If you'd like to review
any of the content, use the menu button on the left side of the
page.
Previous
References
Research, 38(5), 1807-1832
from
69

leadership
Team Pitch – Round 1 – V1
Task

Team Assignment
Present in class, and record & upload to bCourses a (maximum)
5 minute pitch as
a team, using a maximum of 5 slides.
The topic can be your project, intended project, project topic
area, or other technical
topic (but are recommended to use this as an opportunity to
practice presenting and
writing related to your Capstone project).
The purpose of this assignment, with very limited time and
slides, is to challenge
teams to prioritize key messages into succinct narratives, to
create maximum written
and verbal impact.
The goal is not perfection – it is to discover your team’s
strengths, and areas to
strengthen for the Team Pitch Round 2.
Framing
Your team has connected with a venture capital firm in Menlo
Park, and after following

up via email, have been invited to have a 10 minute call with a
partner. Your goal is to
introduce the ‘big ideas’ of the project and highlight the
potential value to the firm, to
secure support or buy-in.
Time with the firm’s partner is very limited, and competition is
intense - your team's
pitch must be professional, have a well-structured and succinct
message, with a
persuasive argument.
Requirements
You can choose any topic related to your project, intended
project, project subject
area, or technical topic of interest (but are recommended to use
this as an opportunity
to practice presenting and writing related to your Capstone
project).
Presentations must:
- if screen
sharing, ensure to
use the 'Side by Side' mode (eg in Zoom) so the speaker is still

visible.
Slides must include:
slides, reference lists
etc etc)
m member
names.
-reviewed sources of information
-text citations and reference list with Harvard APA
style
Presentation Tips
Presentation connection and professionalism

feel’s awkward!)
hung up behind you
to create a backdrop if you don’t have a suitable space).
– move a lamp to (ideally) in
front and above you,
and check beforehand for unflattering shadows.
‘smart casual’ or
‘business casual’. Above all, choose clothes and accessories
that make you feel
confident and empowered.
Taking the stage
- listen
back to your videos
to hone in on the right pace for you.
-prepare a ‘script’, but try not to read word-by-word (it
makes for unnatural
speech patterns). If you HAVE to follow a script, make tonal
marks and pause
marks to mimic natural speech and practice until it’s smooth.
l, volume, and

energy to a bit over
the top!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y_6y2AujEtZ0FMGpHVmBd7P
F1JfOeeKX/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y_6y2AujEtZ0FMGpHVmBd7P
F1JfOeeKX/view?usp=sharing
Bad examples
Parody showing common presentation pitfalls
Parody of a boring presentation
Parody of all buzz words / argument, and no facts or
explanation
Good examples
UC Berkeley Grand Slam
Animation and audio only

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JZD60eR6s
https://youtu.be/bhYIng0tHxA?t=4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia8OKMlqxLs
https://youtu.be/6VVppY-uUgE
https://www.ted.com/talks/rose_eveleth_the_science_of_spicine
ss?language=en
9/17/2020 Assignment 4: Project Pitch Round 1
https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/courses/1497075/assignments/814
5542 1/3
Assignment 4: Project Pitch Round 1
Due Oct 7 by 11:59pm Points 20 Submitting a media
recording or a file upload
File Types mp4 and mov
Submit Assignment
Task:
Record & upload to bCourses a (maximum) 5 minute pitch,
using a maximum of 5 slides.
The topic can be your project, intended project, project topic
area, or other technical topic (but are
highly recommended to use this as an opportunity to practice
presenting and writing related to your
Capstone project).
The purpose of this assignment, with very limited time and
slides, is to challenge teams to prioritize
key messages into succinct narratives, to create maximum

written and verbal impact. The goal is not
perfection – it is to discover your strengths, and areas to
strengthen for the Team Pitch Round 2.
Framing:
Your team has connected with a venture capital firm in Menlo
Park, and after following up via email,
have been invited to have a 10 minute call with a partner. Your
goal is to introduce the ‘big ideas’ of
the project and highlight the potential value to the firm, to
secure support or buy-in.
Time with the firm’s partner is very limited, and competition is
intense - your team's pitch must be
professional, have a well-structured and succinct message, with
a persuasive argument.
Requirements:
You can choose any topic related to your project, intended
project, project subject area, or technical
topic of interest (but are recommended to use this as an
opportunity to practice presenting and
writing related to your Capstone project).
- Submissions are uploaded to bCourses, and must be in .mp4 or
.mov format. You can use your
Zoom's Personal Meeting Room, and record to cloud or pc,
smartphone, or webcam and video
recording software. Video editing (eg cutting and editing) is not
allowed.
Pitches must:

Have video or screensharing on throughout - if screen sharing,
ensure to use the 'Side by Side'
mode (eg in Zoom (https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-
us/articles/115004802843-Side-by-side-Mode-
for-screen-
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115004802843-Side-
by-side-Mode-for-screen-
sharing#:~:text=While%20viewing%20a%20shared%20screen,w
ill%20appear%20on%20the%20right.
5542 2/3
Project Presentation Rubric
ill%20appear%20on%20the%20right.)
) so the speaker is still visible.
Introduce themselves
Slides must include:
A maximum of 5 slides (inclusive of ALL slides, such as title
slides, reference lists etc etc)
Project (or topic) title, presentation date, your name
Contact information for the team point of contact
Minimum 1 image, drawing, or other graphic
3 peer-reviewed sources of information
Correct in-text citations and reference list with Harvard APA
style

Assignment materials: Click here
(https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mqkQme3WhGdJWQrY
oZOhb9QyReHe1B5k?usp=sharing)
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P1WGUzFMRbfHgAU2LScue
Y9gseGWevqk/view?usp=sharing)
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115004802843-Side-
by-side-Mode-for-screen-
ill%20appear%20on%20the%20right.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mqkQme3WhGdJWQrY
oZOhb9QyReHe1B5k?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P1WGUzFMRbfHgAU2LScueY
9gseGWevqk/view?usp=sharing
5542 3/3
Total Points: 20.0
Criteria Ratings Pts
4.0 pts
4.0 pts
4.0 pts
4.0 pts

4.0 pts
Perfromance 4.0 to >2.0 pts
Good work
Good performance throughout -
Speech is natural sounding
throughout, introductions and technical
terms are slightly slower than the rest
of the speech pace, and speech is not
stilted from reading.
2.0 to >1.0 pts
Satisfactory
Mostly good
performance -
Some un-natural
speech in parts,
and/or obvious
glance at notes
1.0 to >0 pts
Good beginning
Missing self
introductions, and/or
speech is stilted from
reading, and/or
monotone, and/or eye
contant is not at the
webcam.
Slides 4.0 to >2.0 pts
Good work
Includes all slide
requirements
2.0 to >1.0 pts

Satisfactory
Missing any 1 slide
requirement
1.0 to >0 pts
Good beginning
More than 5 slides IN TOTAL, or, missing
>1 slide requirements.
Prepareness 4.0 to >2.0 pts
Full Marks
Smooth flow and
verbal/narrtative
connections and/or
transitions between
sections and/or slides.
2.0 to >1.0 pts
Satisfactory
Mostly smooth flow and
transitions/connections, and/or
any image text or text is too
small to read comfortably.
1.0 to >0 pts
Good beginning
More than 5 mins
long, and/or
reading the text on
the slide verbatim.
Spelling &
grammar
4.0 to >2.0 pts
Good work

Zero spelling or
grammar errors
2.0 to >1.0 pts
Satisfactory
1 spelling or grammar error
(including typos and verbal)
1.0 to >0 pts
Good beginning
More than 1 spelling or grammar
error (including typos and verbal)
Narrative
and focus
4.0 to >2.0 pts
Good work
Clear narrative, with
clear connections to the
explanations, and a
2.0 to >0.8 pts
Satisfactory
Clear narrative, but lacking
clear connections to the
explanation, and/or
0.8 to >0 pts
Good beginning
Largely fact-based
narritive, and/or, lacking
explanation, and/or lacking
a persuasive argument.

2
ENGIN295
Assignment#3 Op Ed
Hanzhi Wang (Abby)
‘Forecasting Demand of a New Product’ Science Opinion
Editorial
Have you thought about that your one-sentence review on online
marketplace will influence the launch of new product and bring
millions profit to the website by contributing the data to
demand prediction? Sound predictions are vital in managing
since executives have to forecast every time, they need to make
a decision to adapt to the dynamic demand, competition, strikes
and economic fluctuations (Tehrani & Ahrens, 2016). The more
managers use this prediction technique, the better they get
prepared to handle any situation that the unpredictable nature of
business presents. This project explains the capability of
forecasting techniques with the main emphasis on Palo Alto
products, and how new products can reach their full potential
using forecasting techniques. To deal with the increasing
variety and intricacy of administrative issues, many forecasting
tactics have been created recently, each with its specific use
(Schneider & Gupta, 2016), resulting in a need to create a
formula that helps in choosing the best forecasting technique.
Specifically, this is a proposal of using data and challenges
presented by a shopping website, www.JD.com which is the one
of the biggest B2C online retailers in China, to accurately
predict the trends of a new product. The entry points, success
strategies, and challenges can be used to determine the
anticipated challenges while the marketing team, on the other
hand, can assimilate the reference product’s strategies. The
success of this process can be measured by assessing the profit
margins, and the online popularity index on platforms e.g.
Google, consumer reviews, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

(Lei et al., 2019). After an accurate prediction, products are
more likely to achieve more sales that when placed into the
market blindly, resulting in more profit for the managers.
By using data to help managers become experts in selecting the
most appropriate technique, this project will create a small but
essential step towards revolutionizing the process of product
penetration. It will provide a multidisciplinary and long-term
solution to figuring out product predicted good-fortunes or flops
References
Lei, M., Li, S., & Yu, S. (2019). Demand Forecasting
Approaches Based on Associated Relationships for Multiple
Products. Entropy, 21(10), 974.
Schneider, M. J., & Gupta, S. (2016). Forecasting sales of new
and existing products using consumer reviews: A random
projections approach. International Journal of
Forecasting, 32(2), 243-256.
Tehrani, A. F., & Ahrens, D. (2016). Improved forecasting and
purchasing of fashion products based on the use of big data
techniques. In Supply management research (pp. 293-312).
Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
1. Traditional Approaches to Leaders’ Impact on Organizations
Scores of research studies are built on the assumption that
effective leadership is a key component essential for
organizational success. From the battlefield to the boardroom,
we are told, wins and losses are determined by decisions and
behaviors of those who lead. The plethora of leadership-training
programs may be an indicator that many perceive (or even
assume) that there is a direct relationship between leaders and
organization performance. In The Leadership Gap: Building
Capacity for Competitive Advantage, Weiss and Molinaro
(2005) established their premise by stating “leadership has
become the primary source of competitive advantage in
organizations around the world” (p. 4). These authors used case -

study methods to reinforce the ideas that organizations’ lack
of leadership capacity can be addressed through leadership
development.
But both in research and organizations, there are those who
challenge the “effective leadership = enhanced performance”
supposition (Dihn, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, & Hu, 2014;
Storey, 2010).
LePine, Zhang, Crawford, and Rich (2016) conducted a three-
part study to test relationships among charismatic leadership,
stress, and performance. Subjects were members of the United
States Marine Corps. Findings suggested that charismatic leader
behavior negated the negative effects of stressors on
performance according to assessments by the leaders or their
supervisors. And these authors found that high-level stressors
were more positively viewed when charismatic leader behaviors
were exhibited. However, the researchers discovered that
charismatic leader behavior did not influence how Marines
perceived stressors. An underlying assumption in LePine,
Zhang, Crawford, and Rich’s (2016) research was that leaders
do affect performance. The results, while not conclusive enough
to reject the assumption, did open avenues for new dialogue and
recommendations for further testing.
Dihn, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, and Hu (2014) suggested
that the preponderance of research on leadership behaviors and
traits may have led to assumptions about an overstated influence
of the individual. In Module 1 we examined the evolution of
leadership approaches from the early modern era to the
postmodern era. We know that context—such as environment,
capital, and goals—influences organizational design, structure,
and management/leadership practices. We learned that a stable
organization relies on controls to gain efficiency. Leader -
centric thinking was readily accepted in the modern
organization. And, research studies were designed around those
assumptions, perhaps even reinforcing those assumptions.
More recently, organizations shifted structures, philosophies,
and operating procedures to adapt to social, economic, political,

and technological pressures. Even so, leadership researchers
continued to outpace other scholars who investigated additional
variables that might impact organizational processes.
Researchers such as Castelli (2016) studied reflective leadership
and found that “recognition of diversity” influenced
organizational culture resulting in increased performance, sales,
and profits. Other variables that could have a bearing on
performance are the composition of followers or timed events
such as product launches.
Dihn Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, and Hu (2014) reflected on
the difficulty of integrating leadership theories and findings.
One reason, they explained, is that organizational systems are
always changing and evolving, making any leadership study
unique to the shifts in the environment. Additional impediments
to integrating leadership studies results are the lack or
inconsistency of the following:
1. Common explanation of culture
2. Organizational performance metrics
3. Standard definition of organization
More study is required to test the assumption of “effective
leadership = enhanced performance.” Critical inquiry begs the
question how much organizational success can be attributed to
leaders. That is, an overreliance on leader traits and behaviors
could be misleading. The idea that leaders are responsible for
organizations’ success is a simplistic notion eschewed by some
scholars and managers.
Prosperous organizations are often researched using case-study
methods as a way to identify critical success factors. From such
studies come theories and hypotheses that academics, managers,
and consultants put to the test in real-world scenarios. The
phrase Leadership, Legacy, and Luck (LLL) presents an
alternate way to think about performance (Leadership Insights,
2015; Storey, 2010).
Before going further in the module, review Figure
1: Contributions to Performance Capability and Organisational
Performance on the Leadership Insights website.

The model in Figure 1 shows how leadership, legacy, and luck
hypothetically impact performance levels. You see that the
distinction among leadership, legacy, and luck is illustrated,
with each of the concepts contributing to capability. Capability
impacts performance. Leadership in this context is described as
decisions and purposeful actions that are specific to the market
and an organization’s needs (Leadership insights, 2015; Storey,
2010).
Culture, product innovation, or technology, for example, are
influenced by leaders. As symbolized in Figure 1, linked above,
leadership is not individual-centric but rather is implied as
being present at all levels of an organization. To illustrate the
leadership symbols in the LLL model, we look to a company
that seems to exemplify the concept: Southwest Airlines
embraces decision making at all levels of the company,
demonstrating distributed leadership. The core of Southwest
Airlines is emphasis on the customer, an emphasis that has been
shown to achieve competitive advantage (Investor Relations,
2017).
Let’s now examine the other elements of the LLL model.
· Legacy
· Luck
Leadership and the impact on organizations is a concept highly
visible in the numbers of research studies that associate leaders
with organizational success. The findings of so many
researchers can’t be minimized. That said, the ability to
challenge assumptions is at the core of critical inquiry.
References

Research, 38(5), 1807-1832
from
69
leadership

2. Multilayered Leadership
Asymmetrical Leadership
Thus far in ORG561 we have established the evolution of
leadership approaches from modern to postmodern
organizations. Additionally, Western (2013) [required
reading] established that contemporary organizations require
what is called asymmetric leadership. Western claims that
traditional thought related to individual, hierarchical, rational,
or symmetrical leadership approaches are no longer relevant.
Western described asymmetrical leadership as:
the multiplicity of actors, leadership and followership relations,
individual, group and mass interactions, and the emotional and
symbolic that are part of leadership processes and activity. (p.
66)
Most would agree that an organization’s environment is
constantly changing, and responsiveness and flexibility are
necessary to meet social, political, economic, and technological
challenges. Accepting the premise that organizations are
asymmetrical and that leaders must adapt to the environment,
Western suggests that understanding asymmetrical leadership is
a “key contemporary leadership challenge” (p. 29).
Multi-level Leadership
An assumption about asymmetrical leadership is that it engages
at different levels and functions within an organization.
Organizational research intensified around the time of the
pronouncement of multi-level management concepts, circa 2000;

leadership studies quickly followed course to determine the
nature of multi-level or multi-layered leadership.
Batistič, Černe, and Vogel (2017) [recommended reading]
seized on those emerging ideas to conduct an analysis of
leadership discourse over a 33-year period from 1980 to
2013. Relationship networking, which was introduced in
Module 1 as one of four critical frames, served as a
foundational element of the study. The authors established that
leadership, by its nature, is present at the individual, group, and
organizational levels. Additionally, the source of leadership in
an organization and the leadership outcomes both composed
another layer for analysis. The authors used bibliometric
analysis, which draws on data from scholarly publications.
Identifying relationships and interactions among topics and
scholars was accomplished by studying citations from published
works.
Further, Batistič, Černe, and Vogel (2017) identified through
co-citation analysis the fact that specific leadership topics were
clustered according to scholarly interests. Table 1 below
includes a summary of the clusters by decade as follows:
Table 1
Leadership field-cluster summary by decade
Transformational leadership
Agency and governance
Firm’s capabilities and knowledge
Emotions and emotional intelligence
Competitive advantage
Creativity
Authentic leadership
Processual and interactional justice
Rater agreement

Shared leadership
Self-management
Board composition and performance
Ethical leadership
Group effectiveness
Market orientation
Organizational justice
Social identity and categorization
Emotional intelligence
Complexity, context, and leadership
Rater agreement
Trust
Leader-member exchange
CSU-Global Campus; adapted from Batistič, Černe, & Vogel,
2017
In reference to Table 1, above, and to the study by Batistič,
Černe, and Vogel (2017), their results indicated that in the
1980s, transformational and transactional leadership studies
were already identifying outcomes at multi-levels. However, not
all clusters continued to evolve to study the magnitude of layers
and levels; two examples are social identity and self-
management.
By the 2000s, five of seven clusters were found to consider
multi-level thinking. However, there were indications that some
topics, such as transformation leadership, were stagnating.
Batistič, Černe, and Vogel (2017) concluded that multi-level
thinking in leadership research is quite young but progressing.
The authors suggested that some topics, such as shared
leadership, encourage multi-level approaches.
Mass leadership
Mass leadership, as described by Western (2013) [required
reading], reveals how “collective actors” serve a mission or a

cause in a way that is not often discussed in organizational
literature. Collective action, Western suggested, is a form of
leadership at a more macro-level, or in a more global sense. An
example of mass leadership was witnessed in the boycott of the
state of North Carolina as a protest against a law purported to
violate citizens’ civil liberties (“Boycott over North Carolina,”
2016).
Bénit‐ Gbaffou and Katsaura (2014) provided another look at
community leadership in the form of an ethnographic study in
post-apartheid Johannesburg, South Africa. These authors
offered that community actors served to influence local social
change. The purpose of the Bénit‐ Gbaffou and Katsaura study
was to develop tools—rather than developing typologies of
traits, characteristics, or behaviors—to understand the
complexity of community leadership.
In Module 1, we learned that the scope of ORG561 was limited
to formal organizations. But the study of mass movements has
relevance nonetheless. Lessons from studies may be tested in
other environments; replicating studies within new settings has
legitimacy in critical inquiry. The critical frame, Looking
Awry, was introduced in Module 1 as a way to “begin from a
different beginning” such as in the case of considering findings
ranging from mass leadership studies to more formal
organizational settings. This week’s discussion is designed to
help us benefit from Looking Awry.
Multi-layered Leadership
The phrases collective actors, mandate from the
bottom (or recognition from the top), individuals, groups and
organizations, and sources and outcomes suggest that leadership
does not reside in one place or within one individual. In this
course, the term multi-layered leadership serves as a descriptor
of the concepts and power and examining leadership from all
angles.
References

Research, 38(5), 1807-1832
from
69
leadership
(2016). Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader i nfluence

3. Corporate Culture and Transformational Leadership
For more than two decades, leadership studies have projected
the relationship between corporate culture and transformational
leaders. To take a closer look at their association, review the
following video. (As the video unfolds, make note of
assumptions that you might have about organizational culture
and leadership.)
What is Organizational Culture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cBN8xH-5Qw
Description: The Denison Organizational Culture Model focuses
on those aspects of organizational culture which have a proven
link to business performance such as Sales Growth, Return on
Equity (ROE), Return on Investment (ROI), Customer
Satisfaction, Innovation, Employee Satisfaction, Quality and
more. The model and organizational culture survey are based on
over 25 years of research and practice by Daniel R. Denison,
Ph.D. and William S. Neale, M.A., M.L.I.R.
In the modern organization prior to 1990, as defined in Module
1, terms such as charismatic, inspirational,
and motivational were attributed to transformational leaders
who were thought to have great power to “engineer” an
organizational culture (Antonakis & House, 2014) [required
reading]. This approach was differentiated from a transactional
approach more associated with structure and functions of
managers.
Hunt (2004) suggested that at the time, one-third to one-half of
scholarly research publications were specific to
transformational leadership (as cited in Antonakis &
House,2014, p. 6). A preponderance of literature dedicated to

one leadership approach may suggest a preeminence of that
approach that does or does not exist, however. Recall Batistič,
Černe, and Vogel’s (2017) research that revealed stagnation in
transformational-leadership thinking, as evidenced through co-
citation analysis.
Western (2013) [required reading] challenged assumptions held
by scholars such as Bass and Avolio who suggested that
transformational leaders portray vision and purpose to build
dynamic cultures. Instead, Western posited that organizational
cultures are merely subcultures, influenced by both internal and
external factors. Atonakis and House also suggested that
external and internal environmental factors are critical to
organizations and should be reflected in the leadership
approach. And finally, Western expressed concern that long-
held assumptions regarding the notion that
leaders build cultures may be outdated in the postmodern
organization.
Check Your Understanding
There are seven themes described in Chapter 3 of the textbook.
Review the seven and then try to prioritize them according to
what you most often observe in your real-world
experiences. There are no wrong answers!
Seven leadership approaches:
___Intellectual leadership
___Unconscious leadership
___Group leadership
___Distributed leadership
___Individual leadership
___Mass leadership
___Symbolic leadership
Congratulations!
You've reached the end of this module. If you'd like to review
any of the content, use the menu button on the left side of the
page.
Previous
References

Research, 38(5), 1807-1832
from
69
leadership

1. Traditional Approaches to Leaders’ Impact on OrganizationsS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1. Traditional Approaches to Leaders’ Impact on OrganizationsS

Similar to 1. Traditional Approaches to Leaders’ Impact on OrganizationsS (20)

More from TatianaMajor22

More from TatianaMajor22 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1. Traditional Approaches to Leaders’ Impact on OrganizationsS