Part ll – Analytical tools and frameworks;

can be used to audit the sustainable practices that together influence five
perfortnance outcomes: brand and reprutatior-r, custorner satisfactiorr, finarrcial
performance, Iong-term shareholder returns and stakeholder value.
The four leaclership paradigms were used to link manv of the other approaches
including levels of leadership, leader and follower theories and sustainablc
leadcrship.
The purpose of introducing such a u,icle ral’rge of approaches and fi’ameu,orks in
Part II is to provide basic tools for analvsing leadership situations fi’orn clift:err.nt
perspectives. Many other theories and models could have been chosen from the
hundreds of approaches available. However, we believe that the selected
framcn’orks provide a tool kit for dealing r.tith marry practical lcadership issucs.
Sheets containing blank forms for the key framelvorks and tables are provided in
the Appendix for your use.
Applying the tools and frameworks
This section illustrates how some of the framew,orks can be used to unc’lerstand
leadership in the Virgin Group. First, the Virgin Group is described b;rsecl on
publicly available information, then the case is viewed through relevant theories
and tools to highlight Ieadership issues irr this organisation.
Case 2: The Virgin Groupa2
Among the most recognised brands in thc world, the Virgin Groupr consists of
more than 200 branded companies ir-rvolved in planes, trains, finance, soft
drinks, music, mobile phones, holidays, cars, wines, publishir-rg, hot air
ballooning, gaming and formerly bridal lt ear. The group operates worldwicle,
employing about 50,000 people in 30 coulrtries. Reported global revellues
exceeded US$17 billion in 2008.
At the heart of the Virgin brancl are the entreprerreurial instincts and stratergic
vision of the founder, Sir Rrchard Branson, who is non, chairman of the board.
Born in 1950, Branson was educated at Stowe School. His first entrepreneurial
venture was setting up a student magazine when he was 16. In the 1970s hc.
founded Virgin, starting as a mail order record retailer, followed by openirlg a
record store in Oxford Street, London. The rest is historv. Branson is rrerv
accessible througl’r his online blogs, frequently alrpears in the meclia ar-rcl is well
known for his publicity stunts. For example, at the launch of Virgin Bride,
Branson shaved off his beard ancl wore a lvedding dress.
‘l.he group’s mission is to make the inclustries it goes ir-rto better for custonrcrs.
Although the companies in the Virgin Group span rnalry verv different
industries, entering a new business is far from haphazard. All ventures are
carefully analysed beforehand. The group looks for opportunities that offc.r
improvements for, or otherwise add value to, customers, particularly whcrc
the competition is complacent. Talented people from throughout the group are
then often seconded to steer new l,entures, thereby bringing new perspectives
DiagnosinB Leadership in Global Organisations
and sharing knowledge and experience. People at Virgin claim to be passionate
about creativity, taking an innovative approach to business alld not being
dictated to by convention.
According to the group’s r,r’ebsite, once a Virgin conlPanY exists, various
factors contribute to its success, including tl’re power of both the Virgin nante
ancl Richard Branson’s personal reputation. This is supported by the gfoup’s
network of friends, contacts and partners and the way talented people from
within the group are empowered and supported. In adclition, Virgin has its
own management style: minimal layers of management, no bureaucracv, a tiuy
board and no large expensive global headquarters. The group aims to deliver a
quality service bv empowering emplovees and continually improving the
customer’s experience through inuovation ancl feedback.
For over 40 years, Virgin’s values remained constant: value for money, qualitv,
innovation, fun ancl a seltse of competitive challenge. ln recent years/ two ntore
values har.e been added: the wellness and happiness of all stakeholders plus
sustainability of the planet. Employees are expected to share these values ancl
act accordingly. Management believes that this clear set of corporatc- values has
the advantage of needing fewer managemclrt controls. However, employees
are still held accountable for their performance.
The companies regard themselves as part of a family rather than as part of a
hierarchical conglomerate. The companies manage their own affairs,
collaborate with other errtities in the group arrd share ideas, values, interests
and goals. The group headquarters takes a prirnarily advisorY role. For
example, to help manage the growth and det,elopment of tl-re 9rouP, teatns
Iook after different sectors of the business, such as aviation,
telecommunications, financial services and health and wellness. A managing
partner runs each sector team.
Employeg5 are attractecl by Virgin’s strong culture, vision and values. The fun
culture is eviclent in the folksy wording used on the website. Here is the
opening sentence on the 2010 careers portal: ‘Expansive global enterprise, wiclu’
ranging iuterests, ofterr maverick but llever reckless, seeks passionate
professionals, from all walks of life, for challerrging adventures…”
Various kincls of financial reward systems also help keep individuals
committed including stock optiolrs, bonuses and profit sharing.
Entrenreneurial opportunities for advancement and promotion abound within
the group.
It is difficult to find information about the privately held Virgin enterprises as a
whole, especially because Branson reportedly has a love-hate relationsl-rip with
the firrancial markets. After listing on the stock exchange, he then le-privatised
some of his companies. He said this was because the short-termism of the
markets went counter to his philosoph,v of building businesses for the longterm
and bearing losses along the way. Aftel briefly rururing the Virgin Group
as a public companv, Branson took the formcr holding comPany prir,,atc,
Ieaving only otre of the companies, Virgin Exprcss, publicly tradcc-l at the tirnc.
Part ll – Analytical tools and frameworks
He often floats a company and then r,vithdran,s it again, as he did with Virgirt
I{ecords in the late 1980s, or threatens to do so, as he did with Virgin lvlobilc in
2000. Reportedly, manv of the Virgin companies do not make a profit. For
example, Virgin Atlantic, the airline regarclecl as a Virgin cash cow, lost US$90
million in 200L-2, and Virgin Brides had to close in 2007 because it was
unprofitable.
The Virgin Group supports a number of philanthropic activities including
Virgin Earth Challenge, which offers a $25 million prize to encouraE;e a viable
technology to remove atmospheric greenhouse gases. The Carbon War Roon.:
p;ets entrepreneurs together to create market-driven solutions to climate
change. The Elders is a g;roup of prominent leaders, including Branson and
Nelson Mandela, who contribute their wisdotn, independent leaclership and
integrity to tackle some of the world’s toughest problems. A non-profit
foundation, Virgin Unite, focuses on entrepreneurial approaches to social and
environmental issues.
Virgin’s first Corporate Respot’tsibility and Sustainable Development Report
was released in 201 0, although senior executives claim that they harve beet’t
concerned about sustainability for some time. According to the report, the
corporate vision for sustainability is to ‘make a credible contribution towards
sustainable lifestyles while meeting or exceeding the expectations of our staff,
customers and stakeholders’. What this means in practice for the l’atious
corrlrpanies in the group cliffers. For Virgir-r Gaming, social responsibilitv means
helping to prevent gambling addictiorr, for Virgir-r Wirres it means cnsuring a
fair price to producers and pron-roting responsible drinking and for Virgirr
Money, responsibility refers to responsible lending. Finally, the Virgin Group
acknowledges the high environmental impact of its aviation businesses aud
savs that it is working on wavs of makir-rg flving more sustairrable.
Analysing the case usinB the frameworks
In analysing leadership within the Virgin Group, the following framew’orks and
tools are systematically applied to the case:
. leadership paradigms
‘ levels of leadership
. Bergsteiner’s levels and ]eadership paracligms matrix
. selected leadership theories arrd approaches
. follower theories
r power and politics
. substitutes for leadership and management
. sustainableleadershippractices.
Ar-ralvsing the Virgin case yourself bcfore rc’ading on will test your
understanding.
Diagnosing Leadership in Global Organisations
Leadership paradigms
Based on the information provicled ir-r the casc, it appears that the domin.rnt
Ieadership paradigms operating within the Virgin Group are visionar), ancl
organic. Richard Bransorl’s entrepreneurial vision underlies the entire business,
but he can only achieve this vision in such a largc, diverse enterprise by
empowering and inspiring his enrplovees. This hc docs with a clearly statcd
vision and set of values that people are expected to buy into from the time they
join. Teamwork arrd collaboration are highly valued in the group’s culture.
To the extent that employees within the various businesses are able to make
decisions, take on leadersl-rip roles and establisl-r new businesses, olle could sav
that elements of organic leadership exist at Vilgin. However, there is insufficient
evidence for widespread organic leadership in tl-re case study, despite the few
lavers of management, entrepreneurial opportunities and r,r,idelv shared visior-t
and values. The Virgin Group appears to display strong and consistent visior-rary
lea dership characteristics.
Levels of leadership
Looking at the Virgin case by leadership level reveals:
. Societnl-letel lentlersltip. The company operates in about 30 countries,
requiring considerable intercultural management. The corporate culture
appears strong enough to operate irr rnany national contexts. For
example, even ir-r cultures whcre classical leadership is traditional,
Virgin’s entrepreneurial culture attracts self-starters.
. Mocro-Let,el lendersltlp. The Virgin Group has a clear strategy, visiotr and
set of values. The firm is concerned aboui a range of stakeholders, lr’ith a
particular emphasis on customers and staff. Talent is attractecl aucl used
in creative \{rays. Teamwork operates throughout the enterprise. Witl’r
few layers of management, bureaucracy is minin-dsecl. Systems and
processes are in place for managing trranv functions. HR plavs ar-r
advisory role. Staff developmerrt is enabled and promotiou fron’r within
encouraged, Sustainability is an increasirrgly stror-rg focus, including
corporate social responsibilitv.
. Meso-lcttal lendership. Like the boarcl, the top team is kept very small and
provides autonorny to the indiviclual businesses. Members of the top
team are expected to support the visionary leadership paladigm
operating throughout the group. Similarly, the CEOs of the subsidiaries
and the relatit,elv few middle managers are expected to operate within
the firm’s vision, values and managemellt philosophy. For its
management philosophy to work, the Virgin Group requires special
kinds of follow,ers – those who are willing to accept responsibilitv and
accountability via empow,errnent, share the values and vision aucl bring
the ability to think outside the box. Followers can expcct opportunitics
for plomotion and eutrepreneurial ‘adventures’. Agreements in place
44
Part !l – Analytical tools and frameworks
across all meso-level groups of employees include financial incentives,
stock, bonuses and profit sharir-rg.
. Micro-leuel lendershlp. Little information is provided about what kirrds of
issues arise at the micro level in this organisation and how they are dealt
with.
Bergsteiner’s leadership levels and paradigms matrix
Bergsteiner’s matrix combines the previously mer-rtioned levels of leadership with
the four leadership paradigms. The analysis of the Virgin Group using these
combined frameworks is summarised in Table 2.8.
Table
Croup
2.8 Bergsteiner’s leadership levels and paradigms matrix applied to the Virgirr
1
itevels of leadership
Leadership paradigms
r* : vi”9iete”Iy”
Societal Ievel Prevailing iTh” cr:mpony is operating in several
culture : different leadership cultures.
lrn’^ a^-dl-ld:tsir;i,<.^ -in t+o/\ s!y/.rs/\tre11n. ts, ,v,ii,-si,i.o,- n a.^-nl d .v,-a1,l,u^.e s a1rrde
Organisational or divisional : , -.-.-:’-:l ^ -r^ l : . responsibility is inrportant, multiple
systems, processes, traits, life i I ,.r”ffi,rr.r.rs c<;nsiderec.l and staff
cycle’ size, economic i ‘l i”rpo*”rrnunt is widespread. Bureaucracy is
models’ strategy 1 t iririirir”.ranclemployees are empowered.
i Executive i ln small top team sets the vision but does not
iTeam i ‘ ; appear to control operations’ ;* –
i I i1 Il KReelalattlivveellyy fleeww rmllliududllee tInIldanlldaEgeErIs) eExAirs)lt,, ubtut Meso’ iother 1 t, i roles exist for sector team managers and
orgarisation”! ii”ua”rr I I : CEos of subsidiaries. strong autonomy is Ievels t, ‘, , iaccorded to these mnnugeri.
Classe. of
o*
people . ;The company desires self-managing
Forowers
1 !
l::1″ffiiil,:”,’J:::J5::::;:’.varues’
t ; ientrepreneurial and enioy furr and
innc.rval itln
Micro-organisational level i ‘ This ts unclear from the case.
* C=Classical, T=Transformational, O=Organic paradigms.
Diagnosing leadership in Global Organisations
The matrix shows that the Virgin Group operates under a visionary leaclersl-rip
paradigm and is aligned across all levels in the visionary column. Unfortunatelv,
insufficient information was available in the case to be able to contment oll solne
cells in Table 2.8, particularly at the micro level ancl about other leaders, the board
a1ld members of the top team (apart from Richard Branson)’
Selected leadership theories and approaches
Which theories and approachcs can be drawn on to understar-rd Ieadership in the
Virgin Group as describecl in the case? Table 2.9 summarises the analysis using
the leadership theories presented above. Evider-rce for the relevance of only four
approaches was missing from the case-LMX theory, Fiedler’s model, leamin15
ancl teaching organisation and the use of situational leadership. Of these missing
elements, onlv LMX theory and being a teaching organisatiotr are theorics
expectecl to applv specifically to the visionary paradigm. This does trot meatr that
the missing theories cannot apPl-Y to tl-ris enterprise, just that thev were not
evident in the case.
Table 2.9 Linking theories and approaches to the Virgin Croup
Theory Does the theory offer insights into the Virgin Group case?
Behaviours Yes, many visionary behaviours are eviclent.
Great men Yes, Branson is a self-nracle great nran, not born into leaclership or lve’alth.
Other leaders clo not appear as indivlduals in the case.
Traits Yes, all six of Kirkpatrick and Locke’s traits appear presenI in Branson.
Others in the organisatiorr are expected to possess most of these traits as
lvell, espccially clrive, inrcgrity, sclf-conficlcrrcc and intclligcnt–e.
KnoivlecJge of the business can be acquirecl.
Charisma Yes, Bransurr is consiclerecl charisrn.rlic. Other individuals are not
specified in the case.
Authentic Yes, Branscln seenrs Io’lvalk the talk’arrcl er-]courage people irr a 1’lositivc
leadership way. Other leade rs.tre nol knolvn.
Level 5 Yes, Branson seeks the limelight .rncl is therefore not a level 5 leader. Not
clear whether he attributes t-tristakes to hirlself and success to others’
Other people are not cliscussed in the case.
Narcissistic ‘ Yes, Branson appears to be a t:onsfruclivenarcissistic lt”ader r,vho is vl’ell
balanced and has a positive sense clf self-esteer.r.t. He radlates a sense of
positive vitality and empathy. Other inclividuals are not mentionecl in
detail.
tMx It is unclear frottt the case, but no eviclence of in-grclups or out-g()ulls is
preser.rted. The practice of grttup-widc scctlndtlcnl speaks ag;rinst lht:
dominance of in-groups.
Socio- lt is unclear honr the staff perceive their leaders.
cognitive
Part ll – Analytical tools and frameworks
Fiedler’s
model
House’s
path-goal
theory
Top
echelon
Learning
Situational
leadership
Culture
Yes, Bransor-t ancl other leaders exercise moclerate corrtrcil and .rre
relationship oriented.
Yes, leaders are to enlpower sta{f and help renlove obstacles even thrtugh
errploye-es are largely self-tnanaei ng.
Yes, the case tells us that the top teanr is snr:rll, unbureaucr;rtic, tale’r.rlecl,
flexible, advisory, and’farrily’ancl teatl clriented. There is no itrfornratiotr
about the c.lynamics of the top lean’t or personal characterisLics of ntost
menrbers.
Yes, strategic on-the-job learning is eviclent.
It is unclear from thc case. (This transactional leadership tttol ctluld bc
I useful for developing staff ir-r any firnr.)
Yes, there is a strong, vl,idely shared culture.
Follower theories
First, it is important to consider the follolt,er requirements in rclatiot-t to the four
paradigms. Given the visionary nature of the Virgin Group, the followers seem tt’r
fit well in terms of sharing the group vision, initiating ideas, collaborating in
teams and being self-managing. In addition, employees are expected to fit into a
passionate, challenging and entrepreneurial environment with low bureaucracv
and few levels of management.
Next, we apply three follower framelt orks, the results of u’hich are sumnrarised
in Table 2.11: Kellermalr’s follower typology, persoualised versus socialisetl
visionarv followers and followers’ need for supervision. But first, Kellerman’s five
levels of follower involvement are summarised in Table 2.10.
Normallv, Kellerman’s five follower types based on level of engagement would be
applied to individual employees. However, Table 2.10 shows the results of
applying it across an organisatior-r. [t is clear that the Virgin Group tries to recruit
and retain a rvorkforce that is mainly in the activist category, with at least one
positive diehard (its founder).
Why do people follow visionary leadership at Virgin? Ilichard Branson cau be
described as a visionar), leader and some staff rn’ould admire him and want to be
part of his organisation because of him, that is, for personalised n-rotives. Othcrs
would be attracted by socialised motives of wanting to be Part of an
entrepreneurial enterprise that improves the world for customers. Both
personalised and socialised motives could equallir well aPPl.Y to some of Virgirr’s
employees.
The case suggests that followers r,vith a low neecl for supenrision are preferred .rt
Virgir-r, particularlv given thc minimal lavers of managcmcnt in that organisation.
Diagnosing Leadership in Clobal Organisations
Table 2.10 Kellerman’s (2007) follower typologies applied to the Virgin Croup
completely detached from leaders and the j No
organisation :
barely aware of what is going on around :
them
care little for their leaders :
not particularly responsive to their leaders.
Bystanders
Isolates r
T
I
I
I
I
Participants
Diehards
a
I
!
I
a
I
!
I
i
disengaged from their leaders, groups and
the organisation
observe but do not pafticipatc
deliberately stand on the sidelines
offer little resistance clr active support.
engaged in some ways
try to make an impact
may clearly support or oppose their leaders
and organisations
will invest some of their own time and
energy in what they-belSS:1.
work hard either for or against their leaders
are eager, energetic and errgaged when
supportive
feel strongly about their leaders and
organisations and act accordingly
are heavily invested in people and
processes.
are rare
all-consuming dedication to someone or
something they
believe in
willing to endanger their own health and
wellbeing for their cause
No
I
T
Yes
(those working for
their leaders)
No
(except for Branson
himselfl
i . can be a strong asset or a dangerous liability
: to their leaders because of their extreme
. dedication.
The results for all follower approaches are summarised in Table 2.11.
Table 2.11 Summary of follower theories applied to the Virgin Croup
Do Virgin followers fit the theory?
1. Avery-Bergsteiner
follower types
Yes, followers are expected to initiate ideas, collaborate in
teams and self-manage towards a shared vision.
Part ll – Analytical tools and frameworks
2. Kellerman types
3. Howell and Shamir’s
reasons for visionary
followership
i 4. Need for
] supervision
1 Yes, activists are preferred, but Richard Branson is likely to be
I r”9i:”P19 –
I Yes, both personalisecl ancl socialised reasons can be relevant
I here.
Yes, the need for supervision is expected to be low
Substitutes for leaders and managers
Substitutes for leaders are widely evident at Virgin because of its characteristic
management approach. Rather than relying on managers, the group’s philosophy
is to provide a clear vision and set of values to guide en’rployee behaviour, thereby
requiring fewer management controls. In addition, people work in teams that can
rabte 212 substitutes.’ ,”ro:i:.it Ti_”ig:* ‘”
,h”_]I*I 9::p__
Substitutes I Strongly i Somewhat Not
evident evident evident
t
I
I
1. Clear vision
2. Shared values
3. Specified goals
4. Access to information about progress
5. Feedback mechanisms
7.
i:rl-TiFi”s wglfrorce
Professional codes of conduct
8. Widespread skills training for staff ;”
j e. Closely knit work teams t
1″, o, pro.”arr”,
11. Computer or other systems for
managing work processes
l-”-l’:9:*-:-‘-:-y:tT-:-gYid-erines
13. Peer pressure
i I +. Dtront culfural norms
i*** . …
support the members. Staff members know the company goals and cultural
expectations. Employees have many opportunities to share in-formation, irrcluding
when seconded to new product and other teams, thereby reducing the need for
managers to control. A clear set of guidelines is in place for determining and
evaluating future projects. With a lean management sttucture, it is essential that
substitutes for leaders and managers are built into the system. Table 2.12
Diagnosing Leadership in Global Organisations
summarises the extent to which substitutes for leaders and managers are evident
from the Virgin case.
Power and politics
Power varies between different individuals and groups at Virgin. Founder and
chairman Branson is strongly associated with many forms of power, as the left
Table 2.13 Sources of power among leaders at the Virgin Croup
Sources of Branson’s power Sources of other Ieaders’ power
i appears that he does not rely on it. 1 appears that they do not rely on it.
‘l Legitintate or position poner-strong: this
; derives from his role or position, although it
t. Coercive power-Strong: this goes with
I Branson’s position.
;– –
1. Reward power-strong: Branson has many
I opportunities to reward people.
l- ——** ****
i Ownership power-strong: this is clearly a
i strong source of power for Branson.
i Referent power-strong: Branson is very
I widely aclrnired and this would be a strong
, source of power for him.
‘, Legitimate or position power-Strong:
i derives from their roles or positions, but it
Coercive power-strong: potential with
own followers; weak towards upper
“I.’,”_19:’:’
Rewa rd p owe r-Stron g: many
opportunities to reward people.
Own ersh i p power-W eak: privately held
firm.
Referen t power-Variable : depends on
individuals.
i Opportunity power-Strong: he values : Opportunity power-strong: the group
, values being in the right place at the right
j time to find <-rpportunities that others miss.
j being in the right place at the right titne t<-r
I find opportunities that others miss.
i Relationsh ip power-Strong: Branson
i associates with powerful others, which
i
*:.:19″”:vsr
:-T “l i : : v:-r-:v: r “
!. Networks and coalitions-strong: Branson
I has extensive networks, starting with the
] people involved in the Elders and Carbon
] War Room endeavours.
1 Relationship powet-Yariable: depends orr
i whom they associate with in addition to
; Branson.
-t
1 Networks and coalitions-strong: part of
; the culture is to use networks and
; partnershiPs.
i lnformation power-strong: the threads of I n fonna tion power-Y ariable : i ndivid ual
the organisation would converge on the differences.
chairman and owner.
Expertise power-Weak: Branson relies on ‘, Expertise power-strong: for most people.
others with expertise instead. :
Part ll – Analytical tools and frameworks
: Netnorks anc/ ccta\ition-e-Strong: Branson
; has extensive networks, starting lvith the
I people involvecl in the Elclers ancl Carbor-r
\,Var Roorl cn(ledr,,r.rr s.
, lnionnation potver-strong: thc threacls ol i, lnfornatictn potver-Variable: inclividual
, the organisation r,voulcl converge on the. : clifferences.
I chairman arrcl ou,ncr.
t–.–
‘i Experti.se pnu,”r-wiJi, B’;,l;;.:i;;; : Expertise pc-tr.er-Strong: for rnost people. i
Sustainable leadership practices
Using Aver)/ and Bergsteiner’s+l sustainable leadership criteria in Table 2.L4, we
see that the Virgin Group rneets the honeybee criteria very well. In the ieft column
of Table 2.14, the 23 sustainable criteria are listed. In the centre column, the
honel,bsg practice or philosophy is clesclibed and in the right column, practices iu
the Virgir-r Croup havc been extractcd frorn the case. lVe have used different fonts
to indicate the r-natch with thc honel,bgg philosophy. Norrnal font inclicates a good
match basecl on the case information, rvhe,reas bold lnealrs that the infolmation
rvas unclear on that clement in the case.
i Netn orks ancl coalitictn-s-Strong: part of the
i culture is to use netit,orks ancl partnetshiqrs.
2. labour relations
Retaining staff
Succession
.planning-,
Valuing staff
CEO anrl
top teanr
Develops e\/eryone
cr;n tin uously
Sccl<s coopcration
Vali-res long te nure al all
icvels
Pronrcrtes irorr lviihi n
rr ltc: cr’t’r 1t.:siblc
Concernecl about
i” o yr/
” i, oi
“‘,
ri,r s,”, o,i
“, i, 1:, p o ii u,, i t,:
“-
i’
ancl can s/art nen, bu-sirtesses vvitltin the ;
group bul the casc is unc/ear on lraining ,
rt14tr trlttrtiti,::
No evic/cncc prasuttccl on altituc/es to .
ttnit-tn-; or t,. llt,lht’r rtnlttns lru ittvoltet/
irt-rhe 14riin C1y1t
No evidenc’t, prcsentec/ ctn levels of staff .
lun)ut L’t’.
A rleclarr’rlqr,al.
Peoplc allpeclr to be valuecl arrcl treatecl
rvell. l
.).
4.
:).
c’q7loy999. l,y9ljare
6. CI-O rvorks as lo[) lcanr
nrenr[rc.r or spcaker
,CEO is certainly a nreclia hero [tut
cxe.rciscs clr) e nlf)o\\/e r.ing lcaclership l
: style rviih ciecisiorrs clcvolvecl to rhe
incliviclual conrpanies; hearlcluarters is
kepr srrall ancl takes an arclvisory rclle; tro’
, infornralion is avaiia[rle aboul horv the
srnall top teanr [unctions or. lvho rtrakes
the iinal clccisions; lreing orvrret of rtralry .
oi lhe conrp.rtties, Bratrsorr coulcl act ,
alone if he chose to. :
51
9.
10.
11.
Diagnosing Leadership in Global Organisations
7. Ethical behaviour ‘Doing the right thing’ as
an cxpJicit core virlue
8. Long- or short- Prefcrs the long-ternr o'”,er
term perspective the short-tcrnr
Organisational Change is an evolvinS ancl
change consiclerecl process
Financial markets Seeks nraxinrunt
orientation inclepenclence frorl others
Responsibility for Protects the environrnent
environment
12. Corporate social Values people ancl the
responsibility cornrnurrity
(CSR)
13. Stakeholders Evervone nratte rs
14. Vision’s role in Shared vielv of future is
the business essential, strategic tool
H igher-level practices
15. Decision-making Consonsr-ral ancl clevr.rh,ecl
16. Self-management 1 Staff are nrostly selfnranagr
ng
Teanrs are cxtensive ancl
,enrltowered
An enabling, r,viclely
sharerl culture
1..
, 17. Team orientation
1– —– —–
,18. Culture
No eviclcnce ol unc,thical behaviour;
CroLr,;r rtrlues sociaI resltorrsibiIity,
respr-rns ible clrirI king ;rncl rc.s1tonsible
ga rr r bJirrrr.
Brarrsorr’s philosolthy is to t.rke a longterrl
vielv anrl bcar losscs alone thc rva1,
if neerl be, r…ther than [;e clriven b1,
sht.r rt-te rnt co ncc.nrs.
Clr,rnge r.an bc ralticl Ilut establislring
nerv l;usinesses is carefully consiclerccl.
Long-terr.rr retention of valr-res ancl firnt’s
nr.-r nzrgerncnt 1th iIosophy.
lr4ostly Privatel;, helcl, incleperrclence
fronr the financial nrarkels is valr-recl [t),
Br.tr.tson rvho frequerrtly clelists his
conrpanies to r-ggqi1 thls ir15][email protected],
r Activcly conce rnecl about the
sustainabilit;, of the ltlanet, atterllttinu
‘ to nrake its air travcl .rs sLrstainable as
Engagecl in a range of socially
responsible activities that cliffer betu,een
Sroup corlrpanres.
Values wellness ancl hapltiness of .rll
stakeholclers inclucling cuslonrers,
9r L19f etg | _1 ltll 9_!!_”, : :
isubsidiaries of the Croup, sector teanls
i – . ],,,911g”–,lill”L,” “
t pi l:-el ll,1! 1’11 9ll- -,
, Has a strong, clear vision; consistent 40-
, year-olcl suite <lf values apart fronr trvo
1 recently adclecl ones.
lAppears to lte clevolvecl to emporverecl
‘ernployees for operations ancl talentecl
people steer ne\v venlurcs. ,
I Enrployecs are encouragecl to be selfi
rnanaging ancl are enrporverecl to act
I)u]tl] f9* rrana[j_errent-contro,ls. – ,-
, Tearrrvork ancl collaboration are
: encouragecl i ncl udi ng betrveer.r
i Farrily fclcusecl, collaborative artcl
‘ sharing, entrellreneurial, innovative ancl
rfun, culture allpears to be rviclely sharecl ,
, ancl enables people to be innovative. l
Part ll – Analytical tools and frameworks
19. Knowledge
sharing and
retention
Spreacls throughout the
organisat ion
Extencls across rnenrbers of the group
rvho share icleas ancl interests, inclucling
on new trenturcs.
21. lnnovation
22. Slalt engagement
Strortg, systerric, strategic
innovation eviclent at all
levels
Values enrotionally
cor.r’rnritted staff ancl the
resu lting conr rr itnrent
Errbeciclecl in the culture
20. Trust j High trust through I Enrplclyees are trustecl lvith nerv
i relationships and goochvill i ventures ancl to aclhere to corporate
:
😕 :ff ,tl iff i,Ll# l,xl ii;,i?:I,!”J:”
Key performance drivers
iHighly inrrovative in proclucG and
, services, uses cor.tti r.t uous i t.n provetrtent
, and will not be dictated to by traclitiorr.
‘ Engagenrenl is encouragecl throLrgh
‘ er.r.rpor,vernrent, fun, folksy larrguage,
foru: r-rn peo.plc.
I Quality is a core value ertcour.rgecl via
‘ ir.rnovatior.r and feeclback. Conti nuous
, improvernent frrr crrstor.rrers is a strong
r for:us.
Oul arrall.sis suggests that the Virgir-r Group matches the honeybee leadership
philosophl, on 20 practices, rvith three someu,hat unclear (indicatecl in bold t),pe).
On no elements does the group appear to follolv non-sustainable practices. This is
not surprising for an enterprise that is predominantly privately held and u,here its
founder is actir.ely involved. Consiclerable eviderrce suggests that famil1.
businesses or listed firms still managed b), their founders tend to operate orr
honevtree principles, perform bettel ancl be more sustair-rable than uran1, people
expect.++
Clearly, u,e har.e based the case on publicly available information supplied b), the
Virgin Group. Given the incleperrdence that the subsidiaries havc. in nranaging
their ort,n .rffaits, the culture and leadership practices could vary betn,een the
busitresses. Iiolveve’r, the purpose of this exercise u,as to sholv hor.t, cr Compan|
coulcl be anai1,5sd using sustainable leadershil-r crite’ria.
Figure 2.4 slrorvs the applicatiorr of the sustainable leadership pl,ramid to the
\zirgin Group. At a glance, the 20 practices clearly e.r,ider-rt in the casc arc visible
on the p’ryrarnid, as a1’e the pe.rformance outcomes. Clearll, thc Croup has a strong
brar-rd and reputation. Its busirress purpose is to create satisfiecl customers
particular’ly .”t,herc competitors unclerperform. Financial perfonlauce is clifficult
to assess in privatell, held colppanics, as is ilrrrestor returl’l tt,heLe there is oply orle
main shareholder (Branson). Hou,e\rer, the Vilgirr Group cloes appear to be
stliving for long-term stakeholder value through its neu, r,alue of pron’roting the
happiness ar-rd lvell-being of its st”rkeholders.
o,”g1qrIg tgga:.j!1p I tl.llt ofgqlt”t,glf
Figure 2.4 Sustainablc leadcrship pyramid applicd to thc Virgirr Croup
Sustornability
S lraie!lic,
syrlcrnirj
innovoticrl
Statl
enqcgeftrcri C”luol y
Brond ond Iepuloiiorl
(lri5lorncr solisIocIon
finoncroi pcrloilnoncc
I ong tcrrn shorerlrolcitr vo uC
Lonll lDrr| sl(:Jkeholclcr,/cluil
Performonce oulcomes
Key performonce drivers
Higher-level proctices
Devo ved
o ncl
consensuoi
rl c cisio n
mokinq
Sclf
monoqernefl
Tcem
or enlclior
I nobling
cullurc
Knowrc(l(,lal
r a-.le ntio n
o0d -(horin(l
lruil
(O Horry Bergsteiner
rtrl, ,ljf’n
-{ nL:. i| , ,,’r”,, ‘:o n I .iir..r,;i I St(r,’ horiur
[,rqr rr”‘rr,r.irrr I . :;ll]i.,,, I ‘r::.pr:r ,t:r iv i (rn[) ou’ r,
“lU'<Ll: i : I
CEO onci
lop 1cotrl
lc0de! shif)
Dcvol()pin!)
F)L-ople
continuously
I onll lcxnr
rcl tentiorl
o I -(to If
Foundoiion proctices
Part ll – Analytical tools and frameworks
Summary
This sectiou applies virtuall), all the fratlelvorks and tools covered in this book to
analyse the Virgin case, highlighting different aspects of leadership in this
visionary organisation. Some theories and models focus on the characteristics of
Richard Branson, others look at lorl,er level leaders and follon,ers. Yet other tools
reveal the wal,leadership stems from the systerns and processes rvithin the Virgin
Group. We have examined leadership at four levels of the firm, highlighting
different kir-rds of consideration at each ier,el. Finally, Virgin adc-lresses rnost of the
sustainable leadership critc.ria that distinguish honeybee and locust leaclership
pirilosophies.
h-r Part III, y,ou rvill fir-rd more cases to examine tl’rrough these leaclership lenses.

Leadership & Motivation
This exercise is intended to enable you to learn a great deal about leadership in practice, and to help develop your own leadership potential. You are required to

submit a 3,500words assignment on your leadership and/or motivation experiences, reflecting on and incorporating material covered in this subject and showing

applications of it to your own leadership behavior and experiences.
The emphasis of the assignment must be on the analysis, rather than on just describing the situation. Linkages to course materials, theories, models and literature

must be clear and extensive, and sources must be referenced (including any URLs and acknowledging sources of any graphics). The assignment must show both understanding

of the relevant theoretical material from the course and its applications to the real world. To be eligible for a high grade, the assignment needs to be analytical,

critical of the theories and concepts where appropriate, well researched, and clearly showing linkages between theories and models to the leadership and motivation

events being discussed.
Choice of leadership events: The choice of leadership events to analyze in this assignment is wide ranging, and could apply to your past, present or future. Examples,

which should all, use the models, concepts and other materials from this subject during the analysis:
TOPIC:  you are moving into a new position, you might choose to develop a leadership plan for yourself using materials from leadership theiories. From a IT firm

management to prorperty development project management position.
Assessment criteria include:
•    Range of leadership & motivation topics addressed
•    Depth of analysis rather than description
•    Clear linkages between course material and applications
•    Demonstration of understanding of how to apply research and theory
•    Showing linkages between different theories and research outcomes and your topic
•    Clear writing style and expression (typos & poor grammar lose marks)
•    Critical or original thinking
•    Appropriate referencing of sources
•    Coherent argumentation supporting your conclusion
•    Excutive Summery + Drawing conclusions
•    Overall presentation.
Using 02_case_sample.pdf for framework and theories sample
Using Following frameworks/theories to rewrite attached writing (01_Leadership_Plan.docx):
•    Leadership paradigms
•    Levels of leaderships
•    Bergsteiner’s levels and leadership paradigms matrix
•    Selected leadership theories and approaches
•    Follower theories
•    Power and politics
•    Substitutes for leadership and management Sustainable leadership practices.

 PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂