經過對凱洛格布朗路特公司（簡稱KBR）對它旗下一個業務部門，即“政府和基礎設施”部門的深度分析后，開始進行一個叫做“艾倫比和康諾特”的項目。該項目的主要目的是為了改善英國駐軍士兵居住和工作地點的環境。為了更好地執行這個項目，KBR公司開始了和國防服務有限公司（以下簡稱ADSL）的聯合經營，這也使得這個項目吸引了許多讓的關注。

我們很容易就能表述出來在這個案例學習中我們得到的關于領導風格的成果，但是要把成果分析清楚卻是很復雜的。原因在于ADSL公司里每個管理人員的權威性和工作角色的責任感存在很大的差異，因此無法用相同的權重去衡量它們。多年以來人們廣泛地運用各種角度去研究他們的領導力，以及嘗試把這種研究建立在學術基礎上。以下這些都是被廣泛運用的基本領導力模式

獨裁的（非常經典的一種方式，管理人員掌握權力并且制定決策）

官僚的（機構的管理通過書面資料、流程、政策，或者強制執行某些規則）

民主的（管理人員在決策制定的過程中與他人進行商議，參考他人的意見）

放任的（放任自由，提供極少或者根本不提供指引）

After critically analyzing of Kellogg, Brown & Root Company (KBR) and one of its business unit, Government and Infrastructure (G&I), which was delivering project called Allenby/Connaught. The key intend of this project is to get better the living and working locations for British soldiers at garrisons. To execute this project KBR formed a joint venture with Aspire Defence Service Limited (ADSL) which is the center of attention of this project.

 

The leadership style in the case study is simple to state but complicate to explain because the degree of authority and responsibility of job roles in ADSL is differ from one another and it cannot be measured on identical scale. Though over the years, leadership has been studied widely in an assorted perspective and academic fundamentals. For example, basic style of leadership
 

- Autocratic (classical approach, manager holds the authority and makes the decisions)

 

- Bureaucratic (manages by the book, procedure, policy, enforcing rules)

 

- Democratic (manager consults, informs, shares decision making, reference needed)

 

- Laissez Faire (hands off, provides little or no direction)
 

Doyle, M. E. & Smith, M. K. (2001), David A. Van Seters & Richard, H. G. Field (1990) stated in literature that leadership theories consists and developed on 'generations' of theory or on different era's such as:

 

- Trait theory (Personality Era)

 

- Style theory (Behavior Era

 

- Contingency theory (Situation Era)

 

- Charismatic theory (Transformational Era)

 

- Transactional theory (Transactional Era)

 

- Theory Z & Mckinsey 7's framework (Culture Era)

 

There are many further leadership theories which is very much familiar in academia such as Servant leadership, Task-Oriented leadership, People-Oriented or Relations-Oriented leadership, etc.

 

Despite all theories and limited but diverse roles described in ADSL brought our attention to some extent machine bureaucracy and divisionlised because the standard of work process and output become the key coordinating mechanism for instance each new employee at ADSL have to meet certain standards during their probationary period

 

However some roles such as carpenter who have freedom to make his own judgment to do the job referred to laissez fair style of leadership.

 

Whereas David Gubby as an Asset manager and Dan Webb as an Estate General Manager viewed as Professional bureaucracy or bureaucratic leadership.

 

Deborah Marsh on high level position of Strategic Development Director at ADSL, Her leadership style is to influence others at work.

 

There has always been an enormous debate about what makes an effective leader. People use terms such as charisma, loyalty and integrity in an attempt to define the qualities of a successful leader however sometimes it would be unsuccessful if someone attempts to define a particular set of qualities that would fit all leaders. Porter L. & McLaughlin, G. (2006) believed that there is no approved or define set of components that contain the context for leader behavior, or other types of behavior, occurring within an organizational. According to Clark Reed, it is more appropriate to think of effective leadership in terms of 'Results' - a good leader gets trust, loyalty and consistently good performance from their employees and 'Behaviour' - what they do to achieve those results. Drucker, P. (2004) stated that the only thing you can say about a leader is that a leader is somebody who has followers. In the view of Ben Brink (2002) leadership frequently presumes that one guides other, however it is about guiding oneself for the advantages of others.

 

 

There are no collective set of pieces that contains perfect culture for their worker performance and overall organizational performance, nevertheless after careful scrutinize from the appropriate literature (Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. 2005, Osborn, R.N. et al., 2002) suggested the following vital sources of organizational culture which might affects on organizations:

 

* People / Composition

 

* Processes

 

* Mission / Goal / Purpose

 

* Organizational hierarchy / Structure

 

* Organization stability / State / Condition

 

* Trust and Honesty

 

* Power / Authority

 

* Time

 

* Communication style

 

* Reward systems

 

* Etc.

 

Gillingham H. & Robert, B. (2006) confirmed that people are the most central and complex element in an organization. According to Gundry, J. & Metes, G. (1996) people behaviors is often manipulated by their beliefs, values, attitudes, and the organization culture. Gillingham H. & Robert, B. (2006) stated that it is complicated to get people to do things in a different way because people can simply fall back on defensive routines. A state of willingness require from individuals to get people to modify the way that they do things (Yeh, Y. et al., 2006). It is time to remember what a company really is: a social organization designed to connect people in the attainment of a valuable and meaningful purpose and how important it is for the organizations to know what they know, not only what they owns.

 

Many of our modern business icons also consider as world best leaders for e.g. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton, Ricardo Semler, Richard Branson, Fred Smith, etc. How did they proceed from theory to action and maybe their genius cannot be codified (David Newkirk, 2007).

 

§ Let's take an example of SEMCO, Brazil's most famous, highly unusual and successful company. SEMCO demonstrate that practice of strategy is an art, not science. For the 20 years Ricardo Semler, CEO of SEMCO attempts to define its business and he said, once you say what business you are in, you put your employees into a mental straitjacket. You make border lines around their thinking and, worst of all, you hand them a handy excuse for ignoring new opportunities but we are not in that business (Ricardo Semler, 2000). SEMCO does not have a mission statement, its own rulebook or any written policies. It does not have an organization chart, a human resources department or even, these days, a headquarters. Ricardo Semler celebrated as a role model of a Chief Executive who breaks all the conventional rules and succeeds massively. It seems that the way he works, letting his employees decide what they do, where and when they do it, and even how they get paid, is too upside-down for most managers. (Charles Handy, BBC English). So does Ricardo Semler have a theory of management? Well, sort of, for example, grant people the freedom to do what they want. Sometimes Ricardo Semler redefines his role, since the organization really running itself. He now sees himself as the questioner, challenger and catalyst, as the person who asks basic questions and encourages people to bring things down to the simplest level, to apply commonsense to complicated issues. It is more artistic than scientific; the scientific, technical part is basically less important stress by Ricardo Semler, (2004.)

 

Chen, C. & Huang, J. (2007) described organizational culture as shared value, beliefs, and work atmospheres that could have considerable impacts on the behaviors of employees. According to Yeh, Y. et al., (2006) culture is the combination of value, core belief, behavior model, and emblem. Culture is normally reflected in the form of organization's corporate structure, management and leadership style, learning from experience, norms, and practices, trust, rewards and recognition, networks and community of practices etc (DeLong, DW. & Fahey, L. 2004, Al-Hawamdeh, S. 2003). Culture can play a role for organizational learning and every organization's culture is an independent entity different than any other organization. Culture is not only intangible and illusive, but it can also be observed at multiple levels in an organization.

 

Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (2000) stated that employee often assumes that the people in top of 'organizational hierarchy / structure' have greater knowledge and expertise and this difference amongst individual may be seen as a barrier. Employees on different hierarchical or designations frequently struggle to share knowledge between these levels, as they feel they may have much or more knowledge on a particular subject but not consulted or totally ignored because of their position in organization. Furthermore Webb, S. (1998) revealed that managers often try to avoid consult subordinates because they might 'fear for losing face'. If skills are greatly diverse within professional areas and/or within ranks, it might obstruct the tools and practice through the knowledge is shared between levels.