Mullins L.J. Management and organisational behaviour, Seventh edition
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
CHAPTER 8 THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP
325
6A While not in a formal classroom sense, I believe that a significant part
of my leadership is that of a teacher. ––––––––––
BI believe that a significant part of my leadership is that of a facilitator. ––––––––––
7A As leader I must engage with followers at an equal level of morality. ––––––––––
BAs leader I must represent a higher morality. ––––––––––
8A I enjoy stimulating followers to want to do more. ––––––––––
BI enjoy rewarding followers for a job well done. ––––––––––
9A Leadership should be practical. ––––––––––
B Leadership should be inspirational. ––––––––––
10 A What power I have to influence others comes primarily from my ability
to get people to identify with me and my ideas. ––––––––––
B What power I have to influence others comes primarily from my status
and position. ––––––––––
b Details of scoring and interpretation will be provided by your tutor
326
PART 3 THE ROLE OF THE MANAGER
OBJECTIVES
Completing this exercise should help you to enhance the following skills:
Influence colleagues about the nature and various dimensions of leadership.
Work with technical equipment and feel comfortable being recorded.
Manage time constraints.
Develop your presentation and arguing abilities.
EXERCISE
Working in small self-selecting groups, you are required to:
1 Design and record a ten-minute video with the title ‘The essence of leadership’.
2 Present your completed video to the rest of the class and lead a discussion at the end of
the programme.
DISCUSSION
■ To what extent did the title of the video cause difficulties?
■ What would you consider the most important attribute of an effective leader?
■ What other problems did you have in managing and undertaking this exercise?
■ How effective are video presentations as a teaching and learning aid?
Visit our website www.booksites.net/mullins for further questions, annotated weblinks,
case material and Internet research material.
PERSONAL AWARENESS AND SKILLS EXERCISE
CHAPTER 8 THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP
‘In Amsterdam they party, in The Hague they talk
and in Rotterdam we work’ is a frequently heard
expression that sums up the quintessential differ-
ence between Rotterdam and the rest of Holland.
Rotterdamers are justifiably proud of their city
which had to be completely rebuilt after the Second
World War and is now home to the largest port in
the world. It is, however, a city of contrasts: named
European City of Culture in 2001, it also has a
greater percentage of unsolved crime than anywhere
else in the Netherlands; it is home to the biggest
‘house scene’, has more festivals and Michelin 3*
restaurants than anywhere else in Holland but it is
also home to the greatest number of unemployed
and foreign illegal workers. Because of its maritime
history Rotterdam has always been a multi-cultural
melting pot – indeed some estimates suggest that
there are more non-Dutch than native Dutch living
in the city. However, true to the Dutch concepts of
tolerance and equality, it appeared, outwardly at
least, that everything in the bulb fields was coming
up tulips – until, that is, the emergence in 2002 of a
little-known sociology professor turned politician:
Pim Fortuyn.
Fifty-three years old, ‘Professor Pim’, as he pre-
ferred to be known, brought a breath of fresh air to
the previously bland Dutch political scene where
every government for decades was a coalition and
where every view, as long as it was broadly demo-
cratic, was taken into account. Elections had
become slightly meaningless: whoever won, what-
ever slight rejuggling there might be of the coalition
partners, Dutch politics bobbed along in its cosy
centrist way with no one aware of a growing com-
placency and no one aware of the anxieties which
were beginning to surface on the fringes of society,
particularly in Rotterdam – no one, that is, until
Professor Pim promised to address them.
Pim Fortuyn was a flamboyant, openly gay, blunt,
outspoken and charismatic man with a penchant for
lap dogs, luxury and Cuban cigars; well dressed in
custom-made Italian suits he was often to be seen in
his chauffeur-driven Daimler with blacked~out win-
dows and champagne leather upholstery.
Charismatic, confrontational and telegenic, he pos-
sessed a frank, sarcastic sense of humour, providing
outrageous soundbites that were a gift for the Dutch
media and wiping the floor with establishment
politicians in televised debates.
Fortuyn had only recently entered the Dutch
political arena; previously he had held several jobs
in education and research, living up to what became
known as ‘Fortuyn’s Law’: wherever he worked he
left in controversy and acrinwny. The former
Marxist became an opinionated right-wing maga-
zine columnist and had started his own local
political party, Leefbaar Rotterdam (Liveable
Rotterdam), in order to contest the forthcoming
local elections when, in November 2001, he was
invited to become leader of the small and suppos-
edly radical national party, Leefbaar Netherland.
89
He guided the party towards the right, criticising
bureaucracy in Dutch public services and challeng-
ing long-established Dutch political norms.
However, ‘Fortuyn’s Law’ was once again re-enacted
when, three months later, he was thrown out for
suggesting that Article One of the Dutch
Constitution, which banned discrimination, should
be changed (this despite the fact that, on his
appointment, he had promised not to raise this as
an issue) and for publicly criticising Muslim leaders
and their stance on homosexuals. Still head of the
local Leefbaar Rotterdam, and two days after his
public dismissal from Leefbaar Netherland, this
indomitable character had bounced back to form his
own party, Lijst Pim Fortuyn (Pim Fortuyn's List),
comprising a disparate group of hand-picked, like-
minded people who were in complete agreement
with his policies and who were rich enough to be
able to finance him but who did not necessarily
have any political training or background.
Fortuyn's particular brand of politics was as para-
doxical as the man himself. Branded right-wing, he
was frequently (and to his increasing anger) com-
pared with France's Jean-Marie Le Pen or Austria's
Jorg Haider. In fact he supported gay rights, legalised
drugs and prostitution – the very hallmarks of
Holland’s pemissive society – and he succeeded in
blending liberal and reactionary populist policies
which included a drastic reduction in bureaucracy, a
clampdown on crime and a return of much of the
Netherlands contribution to the EU (proportion-
327
CASE STUDY 8.1
The paradox of Pim Fortuyn: a study in charismatic leadership
PART 3 THE ROLE OF THE MANAGER
ately the largest of any member state). However, the
fly in this apparent ointment of liberalism was his
stance on immigration; his policies on race included
zero Muslim immigration, a cut in the overall
annual number of immigrants from 40 000 to 10 000
and better integration of the two million immi-
grants already on Dutch soil. He was famously
quoted as saying, ‘Enough is enough, The
Netherlands is a small country ... we are already
overcrowded, there’s no more room and we must
shut the borders’. However, Fortuyn argued that his
apparent far right-wing stance on immigration was,
in fact, just the opposite because he believed that
Islam undermined the ultra-liberal permissive soci-
ety which he cherished. He argued that Islam was a
backward culture, saying, ‘In Holland, homosexual-
ity is treated the same way as heterosexuality. In
what lslamic country does that happen?’ and ‘How
can you respect a culture if the woman has to walk
several steps behind her husband, has to stay in the
kitchen and keep her mouth shut?’ He sought to
strengthen this liberal view by arguing that he was
not against immigrants per se, but he questioned
their ability to assimilate into a liberal and radically
tolerant culture: ‘My policies are multi-ethnic and
certainly not racist … I want to stop the influx of
new immigrants … [and] give those who are already
here the opportunity to fully integrate into our soci-
ety.’ Added weight was given to his argument by the
appointment of several ethnic candidates including
Jo Varela from the Cape Verde Islands and
Philomena Bylhout, a television presenter of
Surinamese origin.
Although both the press and the opposition par-
ties had a field day, arguing that his policies were
long on rhetoric, short on substance and did not
stand up to detailed costing, Fortuyn struck a chord
with people in this the most densely populated
country in Europe. ‘He says what we’ve all been
thinking ... he says what other politicians won’t ...
he understands the concerns of ordinary people’
were frequently heard comments, especially when it
came to the issue of increasing street crime: Fortuyn
was quoted often: ‘I’m not anti-Muslim. I’m not
anti-immigrant. I’m saying we’ve got big problems
in our cities ... It’s not very smart to make the prob-
lems bigger by letting in millions more immigrants
from rural Muslim cultures that don’t assimilate.’ He
claimed that Islam was a ‘backward culture’ and that
Muslims allowed into the Netherlands looked down
on the Dutch: ‘Moroccan boys never steal from
Moroccans. Have you noticed that?’ Critics argued
that Fortuyn’s only appeal was to voters’ inherent
fear of outsiders and of crime and their feelings of
increasing alienation from the old political elites;
whether this was true or not, in April 2002 his
Leefbaar Rotterdam party came from nowhere to
win 17 out of 45 seats in the Rotterdam City
Council elections, ending overnight the ruling
Labour party’s post-war dominance.
Following his success in Rotterdam, Professor Pim
began his campaign for the national elections the
following month, heading his own Lijst Pim
Fortuyn (LPF) Party. At this stage he was involved
with two main parties, the LPF and the original
Leefbaar Rotterdam; however, it is doubtful if more
than a small percentage of Dutch voters actually
realised this: to them Pim was the party. Always out-
rageous, this man, whose soundbites and
extravagant lifestyle had always made good media
copy, now became even more so as the press outside
the Netherlands began to take notice: headlines
such as ‘Dutch fall gay Mr Right’ and ‘The twisty
politics of a far right showman’ appeared in the
British broadsheets. Appearing to bask in the light of
this publicity, Fortuyn became even more dogmatic,
opinionated, provocative and illogical, refusing to
elucidate on what were, at best, embryonic policies,
and, when pressed about his party’s apparent lack of
a clear manifesto, exhorted people to read his many
books where, it appeared, all was made clear. He
began to hold ‘audiences’ with the foreign press in
his elegant house in Rotterdam where, amidst
modern art and antiques, his butler would serve tea
in bone china cups and interviewers were treated to
Pim’s own particular brand of invective. When
pressed to provide answers, or when compared to
other European far right leaders he would resort to
angry ranting, banging his fist on the table and
threaten to leave the interview (which, of course, he
never did because this man, of all men, knew the
power of publicity). In one famous interview with a
Dutch female journalist who continued to press him
for a clear answer to her question, he shouted that
she would be better off leaving her job and ‘going
back to cooking’ – an ironic twist given his previous
comments regarding the lot of Muslim women who
were ‘forced to stay in the kitchen’ ….
Although the world’s press seemed to be turning
against him, the controversy, if anything, enhanced
his reputation and, as Pim’s own particular brand of
populist politics continued to gain momentum, par-
ticularly amongst the young, his party appeared
poised to take an unprecedented number of parlia-
mentary seats – estimates gave the LPF at least 28
per cent despite the fact that voters had never heard
Case study 8.1 continued
328
CHAPTER 8 THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP
of the candidates and when they did hear about
them it was usually in the form of some sort of scan-
dal;
90
they did not appear to care as long as
Fortuyn’s name headed the list. As a result, the elec-
tion campaign was far more vivid and exciting than
had been seen in Holland for decades, and, when
death threats began to be made against him, an
observer could be forgiven for thinking that this was
happening in the United States rather than in the
politically bland Netherlands. Speaking of the death
threats, Pim was his usual arrogant self, saying
‘there are always death threats against me’, adding ‘I
asked the Prime Minister for protection but he
won’t pay. If I die, it is on his head.’ Despite the fact
that he said he could not afford the cost of round-
the-clock protection, this did not prevent him,
however, from using private bodyguards from time
to time.
The country was on tenterhooks over the forth-
coming result, when, on 6 May, just nine days
before the election, Volkert van der Graaf, who saw
Fortuyn as a ‘power-hungry danger to society’ shot
him dead leaving a television studio in Hilversum.
That the murderer was a self-styled environmental-
ist who had previously said that he objected to
fishing with worms because it was both cruel to the
worm and the fish, rather than someone from the
Islamic community whom Fortuyn had publicly vili-
fied, was yet another ironic twist in this man’s
larger-than-life existence. The murderer was filmed
by a television crew who happened to be outside
and the following day pictures on TV and in the
newspapers of a bloodied and dying Pim lying pros-
trate on the ground would, no doubt, have appealed
to the politician whose death, mourning and subse-
quent funeral was as public and over the top as his
life. Indeed, if accounts are to be believed, it was as
orchestrated as his life, since Pim had planned and
made arrangements for both the public lying in
state of his body and the funeral, complete with
white hearse and his dogs. Even Pim, however,
would probably have been amazed at the public out-
pouring of grief where, in scenes reminiscent of the
death of the late Princess of Wales, his Rotterdam
house became a shrine for flowers and candles and
Rotterdammers, whether they supported him or not,
took part in all-night vigils to register their anger
and disgust at Holland's sudden fall from a land of
consensus and tranquillity into one they did not
recognise.
The assassination left the Netherlands in a state of
shock – such an event had never, in living history,
happened in this tolerant country. LPF, although now
leaderless, gained a massive sympathy vote in the
election, taking 26 of the 150 seats in parliament and
entered into yet another coalition with the Christian-
Democrat CDA and the conservative VVD parties.
Although every candidate had been hand-picked by
Fortuyn to ensure complete agreement with his poli-
cies, not one of them had anything like his stature
(who could?) and the outcome of the election
resulted in a hard-right party, led by novices who
lacked experience and a common political vision,
holding the balance of power – not exactly a recipe
for success. Without their charismatic leader to keep
them in check and provide direction, LPF resorted to
very public squabbling over their struggles to main-
tain any leadership and, after just 87 days, the
government was dissolved and new elections called
for January 2003 – elections in which, without the
charismatic Professor Pim, LPF lost two thirds of its
seats, effectively relegating it permanently to the
political wildemess.
In the days following Pim’s death political pun-
dits forecast that his charisma and style had
bequeathed a legacy which would change the face
of Dutch politics forever. But had it? Although the
CDA and VVD once again took the majority of votes
in January 2003, they still needed a third party to
form yet another coalition; there then followed
another five months of political discussion and
argument with the various minor parties until a new
government was finally sworn in in May 2003.
YOUR TASKS
(a) Using appropriate theoretical concepts to justify
your answer, do you consider that Pim Fortuyn
was a charismatic leader?
(b) Compare and contrast LPF with other ‘one-
person’ organisations (e.g. Body Shop, Virgin,
Microsoft). If these organisations were to lose their
figurehead, do you think that they would be able
to continue? Why or why not?
329
330
PART 3 THE ROLE OF THE MANAGER
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Taffinder, P. The New Leaders: Achieving Corporate
Transformation Through Dynamic Leadership, Kogan Page
(1995).
2. Handy, C. B. Understanding Organizations, Fourth edi-
tion, Penguin (1993), p. 97.
3. Crainer, S. ‘Have the Corporate Superheroes had their
Day?’, Professional Manager, March 1995, pp. 8–12.
4. Parker, P. ‘The Shape of Leaders to Come’, Management
Today, July 1994, p. 5.
5. Useem, M. ‘How to Groom Leaders of the Future’ in
Pickford, J. (ed.) Financial Times Mastering Management
2.0, Financial Times Prentice Hall (2001), p. 297.
6. Mann, S. ‘Top Guru’, Professional Manager, September
2002, p. 17.
7. Adair, J. The Inspirational Leader: How to Motivate,
Encourage and Achieve Success, Kogan Page (2003).
8. Levine, S. R. ‘The Value-Based Edu-Leader’, in
Chowdhury, S. Management 21C, Financial Times
Prentice Hall (2000), p. 90.
9. Judge, Sir Paul, ‘Standard-bearer’, Professional Manager,
vol. 12, no.1, January 2003, p. 19.
10. Crow, S. M. and Hartman, S. J. ‘Can’t Get No
Satisfaction’, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, 1995, pp. 34–8.
11. Sieff, M. (Lord Sieff of Brimpton), Management the
Marks & Spencer Way, Fontana Collins (1991), p. 133.
12. Tustin, T. ‘Follow My Leader’, Management Today,
December 1989, p. 5.
13.
See, for example: Gretton, I. ‘Taking the Lead in
Leadership’, Professional Manager, January 1995, pp. 20–2.
14. Lucas, E. ‘And the Winner Is … Everyone’, Professional
Manager, January 2001, p. 10.
15. Hooper, A. and Potter, J. ‘Take it from the TOP’, People
Management, 19 August 1999, p. 46.
16. Fullan, M. Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Bass
(2001).
17. Vecchio, R. P. Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts,
Fourth edition, Dryden Press (2000), p. 149.
18. Charlesworth, K., Cook, P. and Crozier, G. Leading
Change in the Public Sector: Making the Difference,
Chartered Management Institute, May 2003.
19. See, for example: Levine, S. and Crom, M. The Leader in
You, Simon and Schuster (1994).
20. Taffinder, P. The New Leaders: Achieving Corporate
Transformation Through Dynamic Leadership, Kogan Page
(1995), p. 37.
21. Belbin, R. M. Changing the Way We Work, Butterworth-
Heinemann (1997), p. 98.
22. Zaleznik, A. ‘Managers and Leaders: Are They
Different?’ Harvard Business Review, May–June 1977,
pp. 67–78.
23. Watson, C. M. ‘Leadership, Management and the Seven
Keys’, Business Horizons, March–April 1983, pp. 8–13.
24. Hollingsworth, M. J. (Squadron Leader), ‘Purpose and
values’, The British Journal of Administrative Management,
January/February 1999, pp. 22–3. See also, Bennis, W. G.
On Becoming a Leader, Addison Wesley (1989).
25. Robinson, G. ‘Leadership vs Management’, The British
Journal of Administrative Management, January/February
1999, pp. 20–1.
26. Miller, D. S., Catt, S. E. and Carlson, J. R. Fundamentals
of Management: A Framework for Excellence, West
Publishing (1996), p. 249.
27. ‘The Leadership and Management Model’, Investors in
People UK, 2003.
28. Fullan, M. Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Bass
(2001), p. 2.
29. Dearlove, D. ‘Reinventing Leadership’ in Crainer, S.
and Dearlove, D. (eds) Financial Times Handbook of
Management, Second edition, Financial Times Prentice
Hall (2001), p. 538.
30. Mann, S. in interview with Coppin, A. ‘Palace
Supremo’, Professional Manager, November 2002, p. 18.
31. Drucker, P. F. The Practice of Management, Heinemann
Professional (1989), p. 156.
32. See for example Ghiselli, E. E. ‘Management Talent’,
American Psychologist, vol. 18, October 1963, pp. 631–42.
33. Hamilton, K. ‘The Women Who Move Britain’,
Management Today, March 1999, pp. 39–44.
34. Kotter, J. P. ‘What Leaders Really Do’, Harvard Business
Review, May–June 1990, p. 103.
35. Whitehead, M. ‘Everyone’s a Leader Now’, Supply
Management, 25 April 2002, pp. 22–4.
36. Adair, J. Action-Centred Leadership, Gower (1979). See
also: Adair, J. The Skills of Leadership, Gower (1984).
37. Fleishman, E. A. ‘Leadership Climate, Human Relations
Training and Supervisory Behavior’, in Fleishman, E. A.
and Bass, A. R. Studies in Personnel and Industrial
Psychology, Third edition, Dorsey (1974).
38. Likert, R. New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill
(1961).
39. Belbin, R. M. Team Roles at Work, Butterworth-
Heinemann (1993).
40. Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. H. ‘How to Choose a
Leadership Pattern’, Harvard Business Review, May–June
1973, pp. 162–75, 178–80.
41. Follett, M. P. ‘The Giving of Orders’, in Metcalf, H. C.
and Urwick, L. (eds) Dynamic Administration, Harper
(1941). Reprinted in Pugh, D. S. (ed.) Organization
Theory, Penguin (1971), pp. 154–5.
42. Fiedler, F. E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness,
McGraw-Hill (1967).
43. See, for example: Filley, A. C., House, R. J. and Kerr, S.
Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior, Second
edition, Scott, Foresman (1976). They refer to the
uncertainty of the interpretation of LPC and what
aspects of leadership behaviour it actually represents.
44. Vroom, V. H. and Yetton, P. W. Leadership and Decision-
Making, University of Pittsburgh Press (1973).
45. Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G. The New Leadership:
Managing Participation in Organizations, Prentice-Hall
(1988).
46. House, R. J. ‘A Path–Goal Theory of Leadership
Effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 16,
September 1971, pp. 321–38.
CHAPTER 8 THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP
331
47. House, R. J. and Dessler, G. ‘The Path–Goal Theory of
Leadership’, in Hunt, J. G. and Larson, L. L. (eds)
Contingency Approaches to Leadership, Southern Illinois
University Press (1974).
48. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. Management of
Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, Sixth
edition, Prentice-Hall (1993).
49. Ibid., p. 192.
50. Burns, J. M. Leadership, Harper & Row (1978).
51. Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. and Buelens, M. Organizational
Behaviour, First European edition, McGraw-Hill (1999),
p. 487.
52. Hunt, J. W. Managing People at Work, Third edition,
McGraw-Hill (1992), p. 255.
53. See, for example: Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. A.
Behavior in Organizations, Seventh edition, Prentice-Hall
(2000).
54. Bass, B. M. Leadership and Performance Beyond
Expectations, Free Press (1985).
55. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. Improving Organizational
Performance Through Transformational Leadership, Sage
Publications (1994).
56. Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations, Fourth edition,
Prentice-Hall International (1998).
57. Taffinder, P. The New Leaders: Achieving Corporate
Transformation Through Dynamic Leadership, Kogan Page
(1995), p. 138.
58. Whitehead, M. ‘Everyone’s a Leader Now’, Supply
Management, 25 April 2002, pp 22–4.
59. Adair, J. The Inspirational Leader: How to Motivate,
Encourage and Achieve Success, Kogan Page (2003).
60. Horne, M. and Jones, D. S. Leadership: the Challenge for
All?, Chartered Management Institute, December 2001.
61. Conger, J. ‘Charisma and How to Grow It’, Management
Today, December 1999, pp. 78–81.
62. Conger, J. ‘Danger of Delusion. The qualities that make
leaders great can also cause their downfall. Success and
self-confidence often breed narcissism and a sense of
infallibility’, Financial Times, 29 November 2002.
63. Dearlove, D. ‘Reinventing Leadership’ in Crainer, S.
and Dearlove, D. (eds) Financial Times Handbook of
Management, Second edition, Financial Times Prentice
Hall (2001), p. 538.
64. Bloomfield, S. ‘Charismatic Leaders are Passe’,
Professional Manager, vol. 12, no. 1, January 2003, p. 37.
65. French, J. R. P. and Raven, B. ‘The Bases of Social
Power’, in Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. F. (eds) Group
Dynamics: Research and Theory, Third edition, Harper
and Row (1968).
66. Finlay, P. Strategic Management: An Introduction to
Business and Corporate Strategy, Financial Times Prentice
Hall (2000), p. 103.
67. Roddick, A. Body and Soul, Ebury Press (1991), p. 214.
68. Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations, Fourth Edition,
Prentice-Hall International (1998).
69. McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise, Penguin
(1987), p. 182.
70. Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. ‘The Janusian Leader’, in
Chowdhury, S. Management 21C, Financial Times
Prentice Hall (2000), p. 18.
71. Lucas, E. ‘And the Winner Is … Everyone’, Professional
Manager, January 2001, pp. 10–12.
72. Fullan, M. Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Bass
(2001), p. 5.
73. Clarke, C. and Pratt, S. ‘Leadership’s Four-Part
Progress’, Management Today, March 1985, pp. 84–6.
74. Rodrigues, C. A. ‘Identifying the Right Leader for the
Right Situation’, Personnel, September 1988, pp. 43–6.
75. Rajan, A. ‘Meaning of Leadership in 2002’, Professional
Manager, March 2002, p. 33.
76. Stern, S. ‘If You Think You’re Hard Enough’,
Management Today, March 2003, pp. 46–51.
77. McGregor, D, The Human Side of Enterprise, Penguin
(1987).
78. Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. H. ‘How to Choose a
Leadership Pattern’, Harvard Business Review, May–June
1973, pp. 162–75, 178–80.
79. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage (1981).
80. Kreitner, R. Management, Eighth edition, Houghton
Mifflin (2001).
81. Goleman, D. ‘Leadership That Gets Results’, Harvard
Business Review, vol. 78, no. 2, March–April 2000,
pp. 78–90.
82. Fullan, M. Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Bass
(2001).
83. See, for example: Pulley, M. L., Sessa, V. and Malloy, M.
‘E-leadership: A two-pronged idea’, Training and
Development, vol. 56, no. 3, March 2002, pp. 34–47.
84.
Bernthal, P. R., Rioux, S. M. and Wellins, R. ‘The
Leadership Forecast: A Benchmarking Study’, Executive
Summary, Development Dimensions International, 1999.
85. The Leadership and Management Model, Investors in
People UK, 2003, p. 3.
86. Charlesworth, K., Cook, P. and Crozier, G. Leading
Change in the Public Sector: Making the Difference,
Chartered Management Institute, May 2003.
87. Gratton, L. Living Strategy: Putting People at the Heart of
Corporate Purpose, Financial Times Prentice Hall (2000).
88. Bennis, W. ‘The New Leadership’, in Crainer, S. and
Dearlove, D. (eds) Financial Times Handbook of
Management, Second edition, Financial Times Prentice
Hall (2001), pp. 546–50.
89. In The Netherlands national political parties cannot
contest local elections; Leefbaar Roterdam was a local
party and was not affiliated to Leefbaar Netherland.
90. Fortuyn had to sack one candidate almost immediately
because he was facing an investigation for sexual
harassment at the national police academy where he
taught and another candidate was barred from the
campaign after in-fighting with a colleague over a third
candidate, Irena Pantelic – Miss Netherlands 2001.
FT
Use the Financial Times to enhance your understanding of the context and practice of management and
organisational behaviour. Refer to articles 8, 9 and 28 in the BUSINESS PRESS section at the end of the book
for relevant reports on the issues explored in this chapter.
THE INDIVIDUAL
Part 4
Part 2
THE
ORGANISATIONAL
SETTING
Part 3
THE ROLE OF
THE MANAGER
Part 6
ORGANISATIONAL
STRUCTURES
Part 7
MANAGEMENT
OF HUMAN
RESOURCES
Part 8
IMPROVING
ORGANISATIONAL
PERFORMANCE
Part 5
GROUPS AND
TEAMWORK
Part 1
MANAGEMENT AND
ORGANISATIONAL
BEHAVIOUR
Part 4
THE
INDIVIDUAL
Performance and productivity