The
Lived Experience as Leadership Development
Stephen
Kempster
Email:
s.kempster@lancaster.ac.uk
Ken
W. Parry
Centre
for Work Leisure and Community Research
Nathan,
Qld 4111
Stream: Leadership
anzkempss.doc
Abstract
This
paper explores the lived experience of leadership development within an
individual organisation as seen from the perspective of four directors of a
major organization. There is a dearth of research exploring the lived
experience of leadership at the level of the individual, particularly focused
at informal naturalistic development (Burgoyne & Hodgson, 1985). Further
there has been a call for qualitative research into leadership development
(Day, 2000; Lowe & Gardener, 2001) and it is towards such a methodology
that this research seeks to contribute. Qualitative research in the form of
in-depth purposive interviews have been undertaken with four directors of an
Multi-national Public Limited Company who were asked to explore how they have
learnt how to lead. Grounded theory (Parry, 1998) has been utilized to identify
key themes drawn from transcribed interviews.
The preliminary findings elude to previous
research in the extant literature where leadership development is significantly
influenced by notable people and problematic experiences (McCall 1998; Lombardo
et al 1988) and is an evolving phenomenon being continually shaped by enactive
learning (Bandura, 1986) most predominantly the influence of people as role
models – good and bad. However, themes
have emerged that are distinct to the case organisation and reflect particular
socialisation processes (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Sjostrand et al, 2001)
that shape managers perceptions of effective leadership within this
organisation. The similarity of leadership schema (Lord & Emrich, 2001)
drawn from idiosyncratic experiences, suggest that understanding of leadership
may be significantly shaped within an organization and such leadership learning
may be both stimulated and constrained by situated learning (Lave & Wegner,
1991) and the interplay between structures and agency (Archer, 1995; 2000).
INTRODUCTION
A
striking paradox exists in the world of leadership development. Organisations
perceive leadership as a key source of competitive advantage and have been, and
will continue to invest in developing both the human and the social capital
within their organisations (Conger, 1996; Moxley, 1998; Day, 2001) which is
estimated to be in excess of $60 billion (James, 2001).
However, during this period through the eighties and
nineties, researchers (McCall, 1998; McCall et al, 1988; Davies &
Easterby-Smith, 1984; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Marserick, 1988; McCauley et
al, 1989) identified that the predominant development arena was informal and
accidental learning in action; the key development areas of which were seen to
be stretching project assignments, notable people and hardships (McCall et al,
1988); yet formal development programmes continue to be the dominant focus for
leadership development practice.
Considerable learning is tacitly accumulated (Polyani, 1966)
through the milieu of experience shaped and identified through significant
incidents and episodes (Cope and Watts, 2000) set within particular contexts
and the notion of situated learning (Lave & Wegner 1991; Wegner, 1998; Fox
1997; Gherardi et al, 1998) is most relevant to appreciating how leaders may
learn how to lead. The notion of situated engagement (Wegner, 1998) through
relationships among persons and activities can be seen to provide pathways of
experience. Such experiences occur through varying occupied roles within
organizational contexts that provides access to learning opportunities (Lave
& Wegner, 1991) molded by an interaction of structure and agency where
managers, in organizational roles, are shaped and shape structural and cultural
dynamics (Archer, 1995; 2000; Giddens 1985).
Equally there is another paradox that while so much research
has been undertaken in understanding the phenomenon and characteristics of
leadership, there has been a relative dearth of explicit research into
leadership development (Day, 2001). Perhaps the paradox is in some way a consequence
of the equivocal ontological perspective of leadership exemplified as “How can we train leaders if we don’t know
what leadership is?” (Barker, 1997, p.343).
This paper seeks to focus attention
towards the informal processes of leadership development within the notion of
“lived experience” and explicitly within a single organization. Such a
localised perspective of leadership development reflects recent research debate
where there has been a call for greater in-depth empirical qualitative research
(Parry, 1998; Bryman, 1996) into an understanding of the lived experience of
leadership (Ibid; Day, 2,000) and a call for a process
perspective (Yukl, 1989, 1998) to build knowledge from an individualised view
of leadership development.
Thus the contribution of this research is towards an
exploration of lived experience as leadership development through in-depth
interviews of a small purposive sample; the associated research question is: How
have senior managers in a single organization learnt how to lead?
METHOD
Methodology
A group of notable
researchers (Kotter, 1988 Bennis & Nanus, 1985; McCall et al, 1988; McCall,
1998) have written extensively on the broad patterns of leadership development
using large samples. However there is a clearly identified dearth of specific
contextually based research (Day, 2000) and a call for a grounded qualitative
approach into the “how” issues of leader development within a discrete context
(Bryman, 1996; Parry, 1998). It is perhaps understandable why this question has
not been addressed, as a significant issue has been identifying a method for
eliciting tacit knowledge of “how” an individual has developed.
The methodological approach
is shaped by critical realism. Critical
realism encourages the use of appropriate methods in order to assist with the
illumination of causal processes relevant to a particular situation (Sayer,
1992; Ackroyd, 2002; Easton, 1998). Grounded theory is utilised (Parry, 1998;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967, Glaser & Corbin 1990) in order to generate
themes from the lived experiences of four directors. To understand the lived
experience of leadership development, a phenomenological analysis (Hycner 1985)
is undertaken for each individual from which inter-case comparisons are drawn
in order to outline themes and explanations (Bhaskar, 1978; 1989a) of lived
experience as leader development.
Data Collection
The above methodology was enacted within a multinational PLC,
through the interview of three directors operating at board level and the
fourth director reporting to the board. These people will hereafter be called
Les, Jo, Nic and Al (random names). All interviews took place at the
organization, lasted for 60–90 minutes and were taped. Interviewees were
advised of the research question at the outset and the interviews followed the
following stages:
Pre interview: Interviewee asked to prepare a
time line diagram (Kuhnert & Russell, 1990) of influences that have shaped
their learning how to lead from their earliest memories to the present day.
Stage One:
Interviewees asked to define and characterise their view of effective
leadership.
Stage Two:
Biographical information: from the earliest memory to the present date
Stage Three: Indicative rules of thumb
(heuristics) illustrating their approaches to leadership.
Stage Four:
Final reflections on the definition of leadership in light of the discussion
The
four stages of data collection are illustrated below in Figure One:
Figure One
This
structure has been utilised in all of the four interviews throughout data
collection in a desire to achieve triangulated respondent depth of reflection
as well as generating reliable data. Triangulation, through these four stages,
integrates the research design together as a holistic system of discussion from
different perspectives and focusing on four styles of discussion:
argumentation, narrative, description and reflection, echoing Denzin’s
triangulation of sources (Denzin, 1970).
Data
Analysis
Hycner’s (1985) method of
phenomenological analysis has been utilized in conjunction with Parry’s (1998)
framework for grounded theory development that reflects Bhsakars retroductive
argument for identifying causal powers shaping phenomena (Bhaskar, 1989a) and
is outlined in the following stages (Hycner’s
method is shown in brackets):
1.
Analytical chronology of the
individual case
2.
Diagnosis of the case (units of meaning and clusters
of meaning)
3.
Interpretive / theoretical outputs
(intra-case themes)
4.
5.
Explanation building (Yin, 1994)
FINDINGS
Antecedents
of leadership manifestation
Four antecedent conditions
have been identified that have shaped the manifestation of leadership to the
four senior managers. Such manifestation is encapsulated in their understanding
of effective leadership. This understanding varies in emphasis between each
person around issues of direction, vision, motivation and communication to
enhance performance. Even so, the
presence of belief in the role and effectiveness of leadership is ubiquitous.
Of most significance to all managers in their lived experience of leadership
development is the impact of notable people.
Antecedent Condition #1: Impact
of notable people and critical episodes on leadership conception
Although all four people
described critical incidents and episodes, the significance of which are rarely
described and reflected upon in isolation from an experience with other people.
For example Al emphasised a leadership episode that was ‘the worst six weeks
of my life’. He recalled being angry at the way other people were treated. He
wrote a list of things people had said to him that ‘paints a picture of what it’s like to work at “x” and I went
through this and they laughed like buggery but it’s real tragic because you
have people that are living in this type of environment’. He asked his role model
leader for support to ‘do whatever I have to do to sort this out, and in
sorting it out, a lot of your managers over there are going to get pissed off’. He recalled, that to the credit of his
leadership role model, ‘Ron and his team to a man said you’ve got our total
support to do whatever you have to do’.
The association between
people and incidents in learning leadership appears to be significantly
associated with social identity and a movement away from professional
identities towards a leader identity.
Antecedent
Condition #2: Identity development of self as leader
Within all four case studies
is the recognition both explicitly and implicitly of identity as a general
manager and an aspirational identity as a leader. However there is a contrast
in the recognition of identity as a general manager between Nic and the other
three managers. The professional identity of Nic as an Accountant remained with
him for a significant part of his biography and the influence of roles and
notable people associated with these roles appears to have re-enforced both a
professional identity and the centrality of task achievement. Referring to a
CEO who had influenced his development, Nic emphasizes that “he’s not one of your charismatic leaders” and describes an orientation “around logic, results and driven by
shareholder value”. However it is interesting, and perhaps significant, to
note on becoming a CEO Nic identified more with the role of leadership than
towards his professional origins.
In contrast, the other three
managers had strong identification as a general manager at a very earlier stage
in their careers; throughout the interviews they expressed strong salience with
the notion of leadership and the role of the leader in “motivating people to achieve enhanced performance” (Al). On
numerous occasions salience of and identification with leadership was
illustrated through examples of role models; Les commented about a previous CEO
whose “performance in fronting, taking
the brunt of the outside world, and at the same time allow people inside the
business to actually start the rebuilding process”. He energetically concluded
that it was “A tremendous thing. Display of leadership” and illustrates a further key theme that of
teams by illustrating how such leadership “instilled belief in the team was I think a tremendous display of
leadership”.
Identification of leadership with teams was a common theme of
all case managers, particularly emphasized at increasingly senior levels. Jo commented: “A leader is somebody who recognises that he needs the very best people
working with him”. He concluded that
“having identified those individuals you really need to ensure that the team as
a whole is connected”
A common view of the value
of senior teams appears to be associated with judgment and problem solving of
increasingly complex issues that are beyond functional experience. This was
particularly noticeable with Nic and his development orientation towards the
significance of constructing effective teams rather than relying on his
professional experience as an accountant.
Antecedent #3: Social interaction of structure and agency
Leadership conceptions illustrate antecedent
interactions of the organizations structure and culture embodied in the
manager’s common interpretation. However such structure–culture-agency
interaction also illuminates an evolving and emergent theme of generational
perspectives of leadership identified with a shift in societal and
organizational values, illustrated through a common example and rejection of
bullying.
Appearing within the comments of all four
managers was the explicit reference to the value of people and the abuse of
power. Often this abuse of power was associated with autocratic style and the
use of organisational authority. Al commented explicitly on the inappropriate
way in which people were being treated in a particular episode of his career
(described earlier, p.7). Jo commented that he had worked with some one who “was a very hard task master. He explained how this manager “used to
reduce half the staff, and particularly his secretary, into shivering wrecks” and
Jo had seen his role as sensitizing communications and there impacts: “I often found myself in a position of
translating what he meant into something slightly more palatable…he just had a
very hard view on life and was very driven. Not surprisingly he was a project
director by achieving goals and milestones”
In a similar
way Les commented on a particular manager who had been successful yet his style
was very autocratic and unacceptable to him as despite being very committed “he
had very little room for other people’s opinions and because of that he
ended up appearing to be quite, quite a bully in the sense he ignored people
and just drove on regardless.
Commenting on this leader he illustrated a change in style outside of
work where “he was a very personable individual but at work he struggled to
listen to people and take on board their views”.
Although the “bully”
approach was recognised as being successful in particular roles in the past,
there appears to be a shift in value orientation away from a task focus, and
towards individuals and their
motivations. It may be that within this organization the predominant managerial
style had been autocratic and overwhelmingly performance driven, but this no
longer valued by the four directors. Rather, humanistic qualities of being
inclusive, approachable and team oriented are the espoused views of effective
leadership that perhaps reflects broader contemporary societal norms of a
social perspective against autocratic style and a humanist shift towards people
centric perspectives, or a greater balance between task and consideration.
The
interviews provided a voice for the managers to explain their views on
leadership. This illustrates not only how they had been developed, notably via
role models and incidents, but importantly gives a glimpse of how, as
significant Directors privileged with power to influence and acting as
corporate agents, they may be shaping or sustaining on going leadership
development in the organization of the next generation of leaders.
Antecedent
#4: Situated learning and corporate agency
In each interview it was most apparent that the
learning opportunities offered by the roles they enacted, placed them in
participation with notable people and, through their participation, can be seen
to be shaping meaning and social identity in this organisation. Al commented
that “it’s just the nature of the
function and you move into a more general management where you are dealing with
a whole host of individual, so you get a different perspective”.
Different perspectives of leadership have been
generated through pathways of experience within the organization that has
offered similar situated learning opportunities and interrelationship of
participation and shared meaning generation (Lave and Wegner, 1991; Wegner,
1998). There is no mention of learning to lead through formal interventions,
rather the similarity of embedded understanding and approaches to leading quintessentially
reflects situated learning theory that encompasses “mind and
lived in world” (Fox; 1997 p.731) creating knowledge and learning
simultaneously in interaction with the situation (Ibid).
Summary
These four directors have provided biographical detail
of their careers that despite being idiosyncratic, have created a broad
consensual perspective of leadership that reflects both the antecedents of the
organization, and structural and cultural antecedents of a broader societal
environment. Such antecedents have shaped the lived experience of leadership
development within this organisation and this learning, embodied in the
individual directors, continues to be ever present creating the lived
experience for the next generation of leaders.
LIVED EXPERIENCE AS LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
The findings and previous
explanations are drawn together into a conceptualization of lived experience as
leadership development. Figure two illustrates an emerging conception of
leadership learning that draws upon the experiential learning cycle (Kolb,
1984) where reflection on action (Schon, 1983) makes sense of an experience
from which conceptualization follows, that in turn is operationalized for
subsequent application in further and similar experiences:
Figure Two
The
above cycle of leadership learning is suggested to integrate together the key
antecedents of lived experience identified in the case organization through the
four interviews. The centrality of the situation and situated learning
(antecedent four) is significant as it both shapes and is shaped by the agency
actions of the actors in the situation (antecedent three). This suggests an
evolving structure – agency dynamic that is continually creating and sustaining
leadership development. The influence of identity and the salience of
leadership (antecedent two) influence the emergence of leadership and
particularly the emergence of the leader as both corporate agent and actor
(Archer, 1995: 2000). The case interviews have illustrated the significant
impact of observational learning from notable others (antecedent one) on both
how leaders conceive the process of leadership, and their approach to leading.
Again this re-confirms the structure-agency perspective on lived experience
(antecedent three) where notable people both sustain and innovative the
emerging and on going lived experience of leadership development.
The highest-order category,
which integrates the preceding four antecedent themes, is the primacy of the
lived experience in explaining leadership development. The lived experience
subsumes formal training and development and cognitive interventions (although
the importance in shaping conceptions of leadership was severely limited). As such, they are elements of the lived
experience, not in competition with the lived experience.
One notable contrast between
the emergent themes and the extant theory is the striking dominance of notable
people. This dominance differs from the
extant literature which argues that experience in the form of assignments in a
variety of contexts dominate leadership learning (McCall, 1988). However the
present research illuminates a different perspective to the learning process
that interconnects the role of observational learning (Bandura, 1986) and
identification with structural social theory of morphogenesis (Archer, 1995;
2000) and situated learning (Lave and Wegner, 1991).
Of note to the development
of all four managers is the similarity of development influences within the
organization of common identities, attributes, values and behaviours of notable
people and subsequently of themselves related to leadership. The nature of
seemingly common antecedent themes despite idiosyncratic biographies suggests
the significance of structural processes shaping organizational leadership. The
limited scope of divergence also reflects past patterns of development on
previous generations of notable people as well as an evolving morphogenesis
(Archer 1995), of leadership attributes being shaped by both organizational and
societal changes, and reshaping through their own corporate agency actions. In
essence, and echoing Margaret Archer’s argument of the dualism between agency
and structure notable people are both shaped by pre-existing social structures
and culture and subsequently elaborate structures and culture that in turn
shapes future leadership development - the rejection of bullies is a clear
example of such morphogenesis (Ibid).
The importance of identity to
the four case managers may be most significant in the leader development process
and in particular interconnected with the impact of notable people. The impact
of notable people to enable a corporate leader to symbolize the aspirational
leadership identity (Gergen, 1971; 1989) for themselves of effective leadership
and associate with that identity, may be a powerful learning mechanism
(Bandura, 1986).
Associated with learning to become an identity and being able
to conceptualise the phenomenon related to an identity, is the role of salience
of identities Gergen (1971) catalyzed by a combination of personal association
and value of the identity, linked to the situation in which the identity is
valued and associated. In essence the salience of leadership as a social
identity may become part of personal identity as a result of intense belonging
and identification through engagement. Such engagement is associated with roles
provided through legitimate participation in a particular situation (Lave &
Wegner, 1991). Hence a cycle of learning driven from an interrelationship with
the organizational situation offers a learning pathway of roles that enable
managers to come in contact with notable others that formatively shapes their
identity and learning to lead in a particular situation.
CONCLUSION
The main contribution of the
present methodology is in illuminating the importance of lived experience to
leadership development. The present research identifies a learning cycle that
interconnects the role of observational learning (Bandura, 1986) and
identification with structural social theory of morphogenesis (Archer, 1995;
2000) and situated learning (Lave and Wegner, 1991). The notion of leadership
learnt through socialisation and emergent apprenticeship offered in career
pathways of participation (Lave and Wegner, 1991) and entwined within a dualist
inter-relationship of agency and structure (Archer, 1995; 2000) may suggest
significant issues for leader development intervention.
It is perhaps not surprising that there is a dearth of
evaluation on the efficacy of leadership development interventions (Conger
1993) when the process of leadership development appears to be a phenomenon
that is complex, long term, emergent and invisible. The informal process of
lived experience as leadership development reflects elements that may be highly
problematic to replicate in an effective and efficient manner through formal
interventions. Perhaps, as Conger emphasizes, the key issue for formal
interventions in leadership development should incorporate the opportunity for
managers to reflect upon their personal experiences (Conger, 1993).
The authors acknowledge that the research findings and
interpretations are limited to the context of a single organization and
generalization is thus particularly limited and substantive only to the case
organization. However the lived experience leadership development cycle and the
associated antecedent influences could be a fruitful area for future research
on leadership development in other organizational contexts that through
comparison can help deepen understanding of informal leadership development.
Day (2000) comments that there is considerable interest among
leadership development practitioners but surprisingly little scholarly interest
in the topic (Day, 2000) and the Leadership Quarterly Ten Year Review (Lowe
&Gardner, 2001) encourages greater research into the process of leadership
development particular through qualitative approaches. It is hoped that this
paper extends the debate and focus on informal leadership development.
REFERENCES
Ackroyd,
S (2002) Methodology for Management and Oraganisation Studies: Some
implications of critical realism. In S Fleetwood and S Ackroyd (eds.) Realism in Action in Management and
Organisation Studies. London: Routledge Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. New
Jersey: Prentice–Hall Inc.
Archer,
M (1995) Realist Social Theory: The
Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Archer,
M (2000) Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Bandura,
A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought
and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey
Barker,
R.A (2001) The nature of leadership.
Human Relations, 54 (4), pp 469-494
Bhaskar,
R (1978) A realist theory of science.
New York: Harvester Press
Bhaskar,
R (1989a) Reclaiming Reality: A critical
Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London: Verso
Bennis
W. (1989) On becoming a leader.
Reading, Mass.: Addison – Wesley
Bennis
W & Nanus, B (1985) Leaders: The
strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row
Berger,
PL & Luckmann, T (1966) The social
construction of reality. Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Bryman,
AS (1996) The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), pp353-370
Burgoyne, JG & Hodgson, VE (1988) An experiential approach to understanding
managerial action. In J.G. Hunt, D.M. Hosking, C.A. Schriesheim, & R.
Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and
managers: An international perspective
on managerial behaviour and leadership (pp.163-178). New York: Pergamon
Press.
Conger, JA (1993) The brave new world of leadership
training. Organisational Dynamics,
Winter, pp 46-58
Cope,
J and Watts, G (2000) ‘Learning by Doing: an exploration of experience,
critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, vol. 6, issue 3, pp 104-124.
Davies,
J & Easterby-Smith, M (1984) Learning and developing from managerial work
experience. Journal of Management Studies,
21 (2), pp 169-183
Day,
D (2000) Leadership development in the context of on-going work. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4)
Denzin,
N.K. (1970) The research Act.
Chicago: Aldine
Drath,
WH & Palus, CJ (1994). Making common
sense. Leadership as meaning making in a community of practice. Greensboro,
N.C. Center for Creative Leadership
Easton,
G (2000) “Case research as a method for industrial networks: A realist
apologia” in Ackroyd, S & Fleetwood, S (2000) Realist Perspectives on Management and Organisations. London:
Routledge
Fox, S (1997a) Situated learning theory versus
traditional learning theory: why management education should not ignore
management learning. Systems Practice,
10 (6), pp 727-747
Gergen,
KJ (1971) The concept of self. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc
Gergen, KJ (1989) Social Psychology and the Wrong
Revolution. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 19, pp 463-484
Gherardi, S, Nicolini, D & Odella, F (1998) Toward
a Social Understanding of How People Learn in Organisations: The notion of
saturated curriculum. Management
Learning, 29 (3), pp 273-297
Giddens, A (1984) The
constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity
Glaser, BG & Strauss, AL (1967) The discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago: Adeline Press
Hycner, R. (1985) Some guidelines for the
phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8, pp 279-303
Kolb, D (1984) Experiential
Learning. London: Prentice Hall
Kotter, JP (1988) The
leadership factor. New York: The Free Press
Kuhnert, KW & Russell, CJ (1990) Using constructive
developmental theory and biodata to bridge the gap between personnel selection
and leadership. Journal of Management,
16 (3), pp 595-607
Lave, J& Wenger, E (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lord, RG & Emrich, CG (2001) Thinking outside the
box by looking inside the box: extending the
cognitive revolution in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), pp
551-579.
Lowe, KB & Gardner, W (2001) Ten years of the
leadership Quarterly; contributions and challenges for the future. Leadership Quarterly 11(4) pp 459-514
McCall, M.W (1998) High
Flyers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders, Boston: Harvard Business
School
McCall, MW, Lombardo, MM& Morrison, A (1988) The Lessons of Experience, Lexington,
MA: Lexington
McCauley, CD, Lombardo, MM& Usher, CL (1989)
Diagnosing management development needs: An instrument based on how managers
develop. Journal of Management, 15
(3), pp 389-403
Marserick, VJ (1988) ‘Learning in the Workplace: The
case for reflectivity and critical reflectivity’, Adult Education Quarterly, 38 (4), pp 187-198
Moxley, R S (1998) “Hardships” in McCauley, C, Moxley, RS, & Van Velsor E, (eds.) Handbook of Leadership Development.
San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers
Parry,
KW (1998) Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership
research. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (1)
pp 85-105
Polyani,
M (1966) The tacit dimension. London,
Routledge & Keegan
Sayer,
A. (1992) Method in Social Science; a realist approach. London:
Routledge
Schon,
D (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books
Sjostrand,
S, Sandberg, J & Tyrstrup, M (2001) Invisible
Management: The Social Construction of Leadership. London: Thompson
Learning
Strauss AL & Corbin, J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
James, K. (2001) Leadership and management excellence:
Corporate development strategies. CEML
(awaiting publication)
Wenger, E (2002) Communities
of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: University Press.
Yin, R (1994) Case
Study Research: design and methods (2nd. edn.), London: Sage
Yukl, G (1998) Leadership
in Organisations, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall