"As firms develop the role of the founder needs to change" (Melts away 2007, p242). For the growth of a company as well as for the behavior of its entrepreneur-cum-leader, educational and business knowledge offers numerous simplistic models and frameworks. A key question isn't just whether these models from two different topics - growth model similarly and command model on the other hands - fit mutually, but whether a certain industry with certain entrepreneurs demonstrates behaviour dissimilar to theory.
In this project, the group will explore how different entrepreneurs with different management styles and personality can still be successful in taking their creation through different periods of business growth for the same product/ service and how they can continue to keep up with the differentiation. Inside the project, we will also test our findings (matching patterns and exceptions) using what we have researched in this module. Greiner's five phase expansion model and five stages of an business progress have been used (and sometime interchangeably) by us to test patterns from practice with theory for the low cost airlines (LCC - low solid carriers).
Project Methodology
First, we does a group discussion to familiarise with the topic of growth levels and leadership solutions based on materials of the MBA modules "Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management" and "Perspectives of Leadership". Section 2 gives a brief summary of the group's understanding of leadership methods from educational knowledge and experience to be associated with practical evaluation later.
As from the second step the focus was 'from practice to theory' which is covered in Section 3. We chose for the Low-Cost-Carrier Industry to be examined.
Third, we identified which LCC Airlines to be examined and in comparison to each other and which features would be evaluated. Second and third level of the task methodology is covered by Section 3. 1.
Fourth, we collected primary and supplementary data through powerful research in press, internet, articles, personal interviews, etc. and bundled them into a template (see Appendix 2).
Fifth, we examined and compared the accumulated data for analysing as end result (section 3. 3).
Sixth, the results were interpreted to derive key text messages and to test models (with what we have learnt in the MBA component on 'Entrepreneurship and Technology Management') (section 3. 4).
At previous, we felt in charge to utilize our conclusions for recommendations for the future of the LCC organisations and its internet marketers (Section 3. 5). A bottom line covers the job organizations' lessons learned based on this task (section 4).
2. Categories' Understanding and Theoretical Background
Academic research and general knowledge gives us frameworks to investigate practical examples of entrepreneurs concerning the development of their business and of themselves as leaders. Hence it is important to point out the type of understanding the group has in conditions of business progress models as well as entrepreneurial personality and leadership.
2. 1. Expansion Models
Our group's knowledge of business growth is definitely not that development is the shortest interconnection between the starting point and the current point of energy. Growth demonstrates phases of business increase as well by decrease, stability, crisis, and changes. One of the most used development models was developed by Greiner (1972) who pointed out alternating stages of advancement (creativity, direction, delegation, coordination, collaboration) and of revolution (authority, autonomy, control, red tape). "Each stage of expansion is followed by a crisis that necessitates an alteration in the way the founder manages the business if it is to go on and continue to grow" (Burns 2007, p210).
Churchill and Lewis (1983) developed a growth model covering five phases of existence, success, success, take-off, and maturity. Very close to this is the five-stage model suggested by Scott and Bruce (1987) embracing the periods of inception, success, growth, growth, and maturity with give attention to top management role, management style, and organizational framework. At least Melts away (1996) advised a four-stage model covering levels of existence, success, success and take-off and summarizing "the primary business imperatives as a company grows in conditions of the orientation of the organization ()" (Burns 2007, p218).
After an analysis of several models the task group made a decision to consider Greiner's five phase progress model and five periods of business expansion as the theoretical framework to compare our studies.
2. 2. Leadership
Our group knowledge of leadership is that it is a relationship by which one person influences the behaviour or activities of other folks. For our investigations on business people we are aware that there surely is a difference between leadership and management. The 7-S framework used in proper management provides a distinction that managers count on strategy, structure and systems whereas leaders are worried with the very soft Ss of style, personnel, skills and shared goals. An integral questions mentioned in this group was 'Is a business owner a director or a leader?' At least he's both in a single person. Hence it is valuable to consider both of a business owner his managerial role as well as his management approach.
Mintzberg (1990) classifies the actions of organized sets of behavior associated with a posture based on formal expert and status. He highlights ten managerial tasks split into three groups which can be linked to the evaluations of this task in section 3. 4.
Regarding general methods to authority, we face in real business life, there is absolutely no common exclusiveness. Hence modern entrepreneurs may illustrate several leadership approaches in one person. For this project, main command models of ancient and modern day research were to be considered, such as 'control as a behavioral category', the 'styles of control way', the situational way of contingency ideas, the 'transformational control way' and inspirational or visionary authority.
3. From Practice to Theory
3. 1. Structure of Evaluation
We chose that to ensure valuable evaluation, the industry of preference should be a young industry and it will provide industry and market development in the last ten to thirty years, several start-ups associated with single entrepreneurial idea, plus some industry loan consolidation. To generate site knowledge, we talked about that the complete group should know about the industry either as customers or as managers employed in that industry. At last we chosen the Low-Cost-Carrier (LCC) Industry since we all are regular customers and one group member is in charge of a full service airline in a leading management position.
3. 1. 1. The Low Cost Carrier Industry
A low-cost carrier or low-cost flight (also known as a no-frills, discount or budget carrier or air travel) can be an flight that generally has lower fares when compared with full service airlines like English Airways, KLM, Air France, Lufthansa, American Airlines, etc. . To make up for the income lost in reduced ticket price, the flight may ask for for extras like food, priority boarding, seat allocation, baggage etc. . The key characteristics of LCCs are multiple frequencies on the brief/mid haul industries, quick turnaround, extra/tertiary airports, offerings in overall economy class only, usage of web/call centre based mostly reservation system rather than the GDS (Global Syndication systems), no food and almost never any loyalty programme. Low-cost carriers should not be confused with regional airlines that operate short flights without service, or with full-service airlines offering some reduced fares.
The reasons why LCC airlines came up used dates back to 1960s. Until past due 1960's, going by air was restricted to the higher classes of the population. Only from 1960's, it percolated to the upper middle class, as costs came down and the fuel costs were low. There is increased demand for the huge middle class to travel by air if the same became cheaper. This fundamental need was captured by the enterprisers by means of Low Cost Providers that was pioneered by Southwest Airlines in USA and was replicated in several ways all around the globe. The momentum collected steam with the increased globalization and integration from 1980's onward. The regulatory regime defined by contracts between countries or regional groupings became more liberal and the frequencies of plane tickets increased bringing the entire cost platform down. Further, the cost of the aircrafts and air travel came down due to the technological improvements leading to lower cost at higher volume.
The technical strides in ICT (information and communication technology) brought the reservation system of the airlines at the doorstep of the passenger. He could be resting in his environment, e book a ticket, choose his own seat and printing a boarding cards. This decrease in costs anticipated to technologies opened up an opportunity for LCC to establish its foothold by slicing on costs at different steps of its supply chain. Corresponding to Vesper (1990) the LCC industry shows execution of two business access strategies. Firstly, the technique to develop a better service or product which is suitable because of unsatisfied demand in conditions of cheap plane tickets providing no frills. The set up competitors on the carrier market such as Uk Airways, KLM, Lufthansa etc. reacted against these new entrants but more or less very late. Hence some LCC airlines already established their own procedures. Second, the strategy to meet source shortages, particularly on the short-haul market, there was a market parallel to the railway industry. Presently, regardless of demand and offer in balance, some LCC airlines maintain their competitive advantages and continue to drive the market.
Since there have been numerous LCC airlines working internationally (Appendix 1), concerns in deciding for LCC airlines to be investigated were to ensure variety over different geographical market segments to emphasise on a complete industry in terms of entrepreneurial behavior and option of information. We chosen 5 airlines as mentioned in desk 1. (Please make reference to Appendix 2 for data).
Table 1: Companies and entrepreneurs to be investigated
3. 1. 2. Key Analysis Features
Burns (2007, p30) points out four different affects on owner-managers and entrepreneurs. Whereas 'culture of modern culture' and 'situational factors' aren't the focus of this project, 'personal persona features' and 'antecedent influences' were investigated to draw an image of the individual qualifications of the business owners. In addition we looked at 'individual leadership way'. In terms of organizational development and business progress we centered on five milestones (Stand 2).
Table 2: Key features to be examined on chosen entrepreneur and his LCC flight.
Derived from the collected data based on the key features referred to above, three main issues were looked into to ensure a solution on growth models and associated management methods in the LCC industry at least:
Why performed they succeed whereas so many after and before them failed?
Development of the culture in the business if any
Recommendations for the future
3. 2. Data
Please see Appendix 2 for the supplementary data which were collected through research on internet, press and mass media, newspapers, and tv.
3. 3. Results
The key question for explanation and interpretation of the results is 'Is there any structure or consistency over all evaluated LCC airlines or not?'
In terms of the investigated 'qualifications and authority of the founders' Burns up describes "antecedent affects on a business owner which are likely to lead to them effectively growing their business" (2007, p45):
Well-educated: Two (Air Berlin and Ryan Air) of five investigated business people do not have any academic graduation whereas the other three business owners have diverse certifications from Bachelor to Honorary PhDs. But all of them already got broad and in-depth managerial and professional experience at the idea of your time of idea era.
Starts business because of positive motivations. All business owners acquired positive motivations towards their own idea and were convinced highly that their business will achieve success and will expand.
Leaves managerial job to begin business: This is found to vary. Although all business owners experienced managerial experience before, their prevailing last step before becoming a business owner in LCC industry was different. One was unemployed (Air Berlin), two experienced their own business (Southwest and Easy Plane), one was administrator in the same LCC company (Ryan Air), and one (Air Asia) was manager in some other industry.
Middle-aged (or very young?): We found a range between 28-40 in age the enterprisers for the idea of energy of the businesses' starting place. They were 28 (Easy Jet), 30 (Ryan Air), 37 (AirAsia), 40 (Air Berlin), and 40 (Southwest) years of age. Obviously no-one entrepreneur was close to retirement and no-one was very young (begin of twenties or even more radiant).
Willing to talk about possession of business: All business people shared ownership from the very beginning but in different ways and it is not obvious if they had a general inclination to that or whether it was needed, e. g. to collect enough money for his or her start-up.
In conditions of 'personal identity traits' all the following were founded as high in every investigated businessperson:
Commitment, dedication and opportunity obsession.
Tolerance of risk, ambiguity and uncertainty.
Creativity, self reliance and potential to excel. A lot of the internet marketers pioneered the LCC model for their home market as first mover and developed LCC business models later.
Control and rewards. We noticed quite strong control by the entrepreneur in every investigated organizations mostly aiming to bring down costs.
In conditions of values, ethics, values and norms all the entrepreneurs worked very difficult ("Everything for the business") and expected an identical inclination from their employees. In daily business they appreciate each source and hence aim to be most efficient.
Concerning 'control' all enterprisers provided an autocratic and patriarchic style with strong control, centralized decision-making and high closeness to their employees. A eyesight is part of these leadership approach as well derived pretty much obviously using their company individual targets for their life. Honesty, consistency and action as an example are further aspects; each of them practice what they preach. This remains even through the progress of their businesses however the enterprisers developed different control styles. Some attempted to keep carefully the autocratic style whereas others tended to become more participative but all of them stored strong control. Matching to a major research study of the University or college of Michigan Institute for Public Research, the very best head provides four common characteristics: Delegation of authority and avoidance of close supervision; interest and concern in their subordinates as individuals; participative problem-solving; high benchmarks of performance. Except the ex - and the last mentioned we found all aspects in later stages of growth but not consistently rather than whilst the inception level.
Regarding the purpose for entrepreneurship, it is clear that there is consistency in the way of idea generation. In all of the five airlines, idea for LCC was produced by individuals. For Southwest and Ryan Air, there were more people involved with execution in addition to idea generator. Two of the promoters (Air Berlin and Air Asia) were compelled to choose entrepreneurship due to professional circumstances.
There is a appreciable variance in the length of time of the inception period/ start-up. For instance this phase in the case of Air Asia lasted for each year but for Air Berlin it had taken about ten years. But usually the other airlines exhibited a period of around five years. All organizations were run by the promoters except Ryan Air which acquired Michael Leary as its head due to the deficits at Ryan Air. Financials were pooled by the promoters themselves but there was a variance in the financial features - from deep pockets to just enough money to make operations run for per year. Two of the entrepreneurs (Easy Aircraft and Ryan Air) experienced strong financial backing.
In terms of environmental factors (PESTER) each airline got a different group of compelling factors. Due to the dismantling of the Berlin wall, airlines had a fresh segment opening up which was tapped by Air Berlin (politics). Low fares attract more customers; 'try to wean away customers from other methods of move' tapped by all the LCC's (economic). The mark consumer bottom for budget airlines was enormous: 500 million people live within three hours of Air Asia's hubs in Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok, more than Western Europe's entire populace (public). Ryan Air began when there is a partial de-regulation changing the way the airlines flew (legislation).
Consistency in every LCC airlines was assessed in conditions of delegation (highly centralized with all the current major decisions being created by the promoters/funders), coordination (there was a 'very high' degree of coordination in three airlines while 'high' coordination in two them), and control (in Air Berlin there was very high level of control, within the other airlines it ranged from medium to high).
For all the airlines the survival and growth level is a pretty long time aside from Air Asia which includes achieved tremendous expansion in the couple of years of its start-up.
In this stage the LCC airlines shown some small distinct action. The delegation level increased during this phase of the business enterprise except regarding Air Berlin which used low delegation. Coordination was medium in Easy Jet while was saturated in the rest of the four. Control was very high in Air Berlin, saturated in Southwest, Ryan Air and AirAsia, and was medium in Easy Jet.
In four of the airlines original creator and management team are in place. Really the only exception is simple Jet which possessed a CEO from its start-up in 1995. This could be because the founder of Easy Jet had been a company man before this start-up and understood well how to delegate and where you can focus.
Clear habits of consistency can be seen in that all the airlines travelled for IPO in this stage, thus exhibiting the willingness of entrepreneurs to talk about the progress of the organization. Furthermore, all LCC airlines required collateral stakes and formed alliances with other airlines. For instance Air Asia formed a relationship with Shin corporation in Thailand, Easy Jet purchased a 40% stake in Swiss charter flight TEA Basle. The reasons were two fold one to take care of certain regulatory issues in their market segments and secondly to help grow faster. Furthermore all airlines initiated cost lowering techniques to tackle your competition.
In the maturity stage the delegation level lowered for two of the airlines (Ryan Air and Southwest) in view of the precarious business design while continues low for Air Berlin. For Easy Jet and Air Asia the delegation level remains high.
On the other side coordination and control are on high level in all airlines. All of the founders maintain a very higher level of control on the entire strategy and functioning of the airlines.
The external environment factors like the financial meltdown, high essential oil prices, etc. have had the result on the management framework and control mechanisms for majority of the airlines. There also have been spin backs on the investment ideas. The promoters continue to hold electric power. Diversified equity basic in conditions of type of shareholders, further additional finances were raised through debt.
We perceive an obvious distinction in conditions of strategy and business models. Aside from Air Berlin and Air Asia that have a hub and spoke model, all the airlines offer a indicate point service. All LCC carriers have the same configuration of aeroplanes but Air Berlin varies upon this aspect too.
LCCs achieve breakeven at much lower level of fill factors (chair occupancy) than a Full Service Carrier. It's been observed that in all the LCC's, the principal focus is to obtain high load factor in order to make good earnings. All of the LCC's examined have a higher on-time performance, offering customer the service to produce a reservation through web and call centre. Many of them have no preceding seating arrangement and have additional charges for check-in baggage. Dishes on board are charged no refund does apply in case of a missed fights. All of the LCC's are deriving good income from ancillary service offerings like hotels, cars and other plans through their website.
All LCC's except Ryanair do worry about customer issues and responses. Ryanair has an awful name in terms of customer support and misleading claims to gain promotion. Commitment in their targeted segments is influenced by the overriding need for cheap travel, good timings, multiple frequencies and lower anticipations in terms of customer support. Few LCC's like Southwest Airlines, Air Berlin provide a rudimentary loyalty program in conditions of facilities and privileges to its users in comparison to a complete Service Carrier, but it will do for the targeted segment's expectation
We can summarize all the above LCC's over a continuum which depicts a genuine LCC on the remaining side and a complete Service Carrier on the extreme right.
Figure 1: Continuum of LCC Airlines
3. 4. Derivations
There is clear differentiation in the development of culture in the organization. Air Berlin exhibits an autocratic culture which is symbolized through its boss. Air Asia displays the culture of its boss too, available and cheerful. Southwest and Easy Plane exhibit a less hierarchical composition, full of flexibility to the employees while Ryanair exhibits a culture in between the variety. Ryanair is process driven firm with little liberty to employees for decision making. Important decisions are highly centralized. It is continuing to grow a whole lot that if he centralizes any more, the framework cannot maintain it.
Hence there is absolutely no consistent pattern among these airlines from cultural point of view. However, we can definitely say that culture in these organizations is a reflection of the authority behaviour of the founder entrepreneur.
Nevertheless all the assessed LCC airlines performed succeed so far whereas so many after and before them failed. Reasons for this can be seen in this task work. During inception stage there is uniformity in advanced of delegation, coordination and control. All entrepreneurs had been able to recognize also to deal with the most important and influencing environmental factors on their home markets. All of the airlines focused on cost authority as a competitive benefit and made concrete initiatives to mitigate the risks. Air Berlin made subsidiaries to do away with labor unions. Air Asia developed a JV in Thailand with the Thailand's Best Minster family business to keep carefully the political risk in balance. The usage of standard aircrafts to the degree possible and internet check-in as the style of bookings were part of the scheme to lessen costs.
Hence the examined LCC's can be depicted as follows on five phases of business growth. (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Five Phases of LCC Business Growth
With mention of amount 2, we can consider that LCC is something being sold by these airlines. There has been no 'basic' R&D on this product by any of these airlines. What they did is to do 'applied' research on the basic model of air travel travel, to draw out LCC. Southwest Airlines pioneered this in america followed by improved versions of the by other airlines in other geographies. The trend in the amount 2 shows that the progress of LCC has used five phases of business progress, with the matching time considered by them for each and every phase and how the efficiency has evolved. However, they are at different periods - for example - Southwest, Easy Jet and Ryan Air are in the expansion stages striking the maturity stage in the current model, while Air Asia and Air Berlin appear to be in Growth/ expansion phases. Now the LCC providers are facing competition from the entire service airlines. It is because, full services play airlines are planning certain percentage of their seating at low prices to compete with LCCs. Hence the efficiency of the LCC product sales for our test airlines has reached a plateau. Now enough time has come for the LCC service providers to apply 'development' R&D to give an 'S' curve to this trend to change the features of the merchandise LCC. Different LCC airlines are doing this in different ways, e. g. , Ryan airlines are slicing all possible costs, Easy Jet has targeted business people, Air Berlin wants to do everything easy for a good customer services, etc. This fits with the assertion of Schumpeter (1950), in that the technological improvement can be seen as a continuous process where capitalism constantly needs less expensive.
Figure 3: LCC Airlines in Greiner's Five-Stage Model of Growth (source: Greiner 1972)
When we make an effort to review (figure 3) the control and management styles within these five airlines vis- -vis, our finding is the fact that it largely shows the leadership style of the founder entrepreneur than the periods of Greiner's five phase expansion model. For instance, Easy Aircraft and Southwest illustrate collaboration in their management style, while Air Asia is in between the control and collaboration phases. Air Berlin and Ryan Air has high level of control and less delegation.
Figure 4: Key Source of information Factors in the Levels of Development for LCC
With mention of figure 4, we have reviewed the resource dependence on the five LCCs. All of the five airlines display that they had the source of information requirements (financial, business, system and personnel resources) for different phases of progress as shown in this amount. For example, air travel being an asset intensive business, they all possessed huge capital requirements at the start-up. They used a combination of models to meet their requirements - leasing aircrafts to purchasing them during start-up and survival phases. But in following stages, each of them implemented the same strategy - using aircrafts. To lessen on cost, Ryan Airlines had purchased old aircrafts also which was criticized by Easy Plane as cutting edges on safeness aspects that could hit the LCC industry in the event there were any problems to happen.
With regard to find 5, we see that there surely is a commonality between that which was practiced in various environments internationally and the typical 5 stage expansion model linked to leadership. Originally, in the start-up level, everything is centralized and business and personal goals are the same for business people which get decentralized, delegated and a formal framework coming in at the growth and maturity stages. The financing is done primarily through personal resources at first which later on is internally made and additionally through tapping of the stock marketplaces and taking on debt from finance institutions. Because so many have avenues for growth, they do not follow a dynamic dividend plan and compensation shareholders through capital appreciation
Figure 5: Key Management Factors in the Stages of Expansion for LCC
Derived from our analysis the entrepreneurship model on antecedent influences, personal character characteristics, and leadership methodology can be illustrated limited to the stage of idea technology and inception (see Shape 6).
Figure 6: Model of entrepreneurial antecedent influences, personal character traits and leadership strategy in the level of idea generation and inception for LCC
Most important is usually that the autocratic leadership approach (Tannenbaum and Schmidt 1973) is dominating which is at close relation to McGregor's supposition of Theory X (boss-centered authority) in contrast to Theory Y (subordinate-centered authority). The contingency model of control by Vroom and Yetton (1973) addresses the evaluated authority behavior as Autocratic I and II.
Bass (1985) points out four basic components of transformational management. First, idealized affect (leader charisma, value of fans), second, inspirational desire (display interpretation and task to the work of supporters), third, intellectual activation (new approaches for solutions, creative problem alternatives), and fourth, individualized concern (innovator listens and provide concern to needs and development of specific followers). Going back two points the autocratic style of LCC airlines appears to be a contraindication. Yukl (2006) formulates some guidelines for transformational management which cover the results of the investigations: Articulate a clear and appealing perspective, explain the way the eye-sight can be attained, work confident and positive, express self confidence in followers, use remarkable, symbolic activities to point out key ideals, and lead by example. That is very close to inspirational or visionary leadership. Here the concentrate is on leader's skills of motivating and inspiring people aiming to bring together goals and principles of the organization and specific needs and values.
Particularly in the stage of idea generation and in the inception level the entrepreneurs needed all ten managerial assignments which Mintzberg (1990) described.
The entrepreneurs had taken a figurehead role (the supervisor as a symbol who represents the business in terms of formality), a leader role (demonstrating responsibility for staffing, desire and assistance of subordinates) and a liaison role (with focus on horizontal connections between supervisor and individuals/organizations as well as the organizations' environment). In terms of informational functions we found the internet marketers in a monitor role (the manager receives formal/casual information from inside/external sources and develops a knowledge of the working of the business and its own environment) as well as in a disseminator role (the manager as centre of information who transmits exterior information through his liaison role (see above) to the business and inner information through his leader role amidst subordinates) and in a spokesperson role (the supervisor as a formal specialist communicating to unique stakeholders). And even in conditions of so called decisional functions all enterprisers were very energetic. Here we noticed the entrepreneurs within an entrepreneurial role (he is expected to initiate and plan controlled change by exploiting opportunities, fixing problems and taking action for improvement of a preexisting situation and he may play a significant part in aiming improvement and delegate duties to subordinates), in a disturbance handler role (the supervisor reacts on involuntary and unstable situations and he is expected to correct a situation in case of unexpected disruption), in a source of information allocator role (the manager makes choices about resources allocation) and least in a negotiator role (this role comes from manager's authority, reliability, access to information and responsibility for resources allocation and the supervisor participates positively in negotiation with stakeholders, e. g. works council).
3. 5. Advice for the Future
We clearly see that future growth in LCC's will be through collaboration with other LCC's and full service carrier. In other words, Southwest will grow collaborating with full service companies like United, American, and Lufthansa and vice versa. Though the early stages of growth were in various segments, having proven in their own marketplaces, both LCC's and full service providers are moving towards the middle of the continuum and we will see increased cooperation between them in future. Also the majority of the airlines are deliberating stepping into the long term portion; Air Asia has used the plunge through an equity investment into Air Asia X. The access into the long-haul segment has to be considered.
One main point developing is a succession control team is not in place in most. Aside from one flight (Easy Jet) the rest of the airlines are still being run by the veterans. Therefore we believe that a succession plan should be produced.
4. Conclusion
Evaluation and comparison of five LCC airlines is obviously not representative for the whole industry atlanta divorce attorneys detail. It obviously provides interesting insights in terms of patterns and individualized behavior. Greiner's five phase expansion model and 5 stages of business development provided a good construction to us to compare the progress of the airlines after start-up and create a connection between practice to theory and vice-a-versa. We identifies high steadiness among successful LCC airlines in conditions of growth stages, though there were few exceptions. Culture and management style within an organization depends essentially on the creator member and succeeding leaders as opposed to the geography or the culture they participate in. Concerning personal persona traits and leadership approaches of entrepreneurs, we can validate Burns who explained that the "problem of linking the type traits of a person to the success of a small business - picking winners - needs to be approached with caution" (2007, p31). Nevertheless, particularly for the time of idea generation and inception level there seem to be a framework that claims business success.
5. References
Bass, B. M. , Command and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, 1985.
Bryman, A. , 'Leadership in Organisations', in Clegg, S. , Hardy, C. and Nord, W. (eds), Controlling Organisations: Current Issues, 1999.
Burns, J. M. , Command, Harper & Row, 1978.
Burns, P. , 'Development', in Burns up, P. and Dewhurst, J. (eds), SMALL COMPANY and Entrepreneurship, Palgrave MacMillan, 1996.
Burns, P. , Entrepreneurship and SMALLER BUSINESSES, 2nd ed. , Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Churchill, N. C. and Lewis, V. L. , 'The Five Periods of Small Business Progress', Harvard Business Review, May-June 1983.
Fiedler, F. E. , A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Greiner, L. E. , 'Progression and Revolution as Organisations Grow', Harvard Business Review, July-August 1972.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. , Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, Prentice-Hall, 1993.
House, R. J. and Dessler, G. , 'The Path-Goal Theory of Command', in Hunt, J. G. and Larson, L. L. (eds), Contingency Approaches to Leadership, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974.
'Leadership for Development', Advanced Institute of Management Research, 2005.
Levine, S. R. , 'The Value-Based Edu-Leader', in Chowdhury, S. Management 21 C, Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2000.
Likert, R. , New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, 1961.
Mintzberg, H. , 'The Manager's Job: Folklore and Simple fact', Harvard Business Review Basic, March-April 1990, pp. 163-176.
Scott, M. and Bruce, R. , 'Five Periods of Grwoth in Small Businesses', Long Range Planning, 20(3), 1987.
Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. H. , 'How to select a Leadership Style', Harvard Business Review, May-June 1973, pp. 162-180.
Vesper, K. H. , New Project Strategies, Prentice Hall, 1990.
Vroom, V. H. and Yetton, P. W. , Authority and Decision-Making, University or college of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.
Yukl, G. , Command in Organizations, Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2006.
Zaleznik, A. , 'Professionals andLeaders: Are They Different?', Harvard Business Review, May - June 1977, pp. 67-78.
