LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP: CLASSICAL APPROACHES AND CONTEMPORARY CONTEXTS

The purpose of this research paper is to develop a theoretical framework of leadership behaviours and attributes which are unanimously endorsed. The model investigates a set of independent variables encompassing leadership behaviours. Leadership behaviours examined this research include task oriented, charismatic, visionary, team oriented, servant leadership and authentic. The literature review examines prior research studies on various aspects of leadership dimensions. A theoretical model clarifying the significance and establishing justification of selection of the abovementioned leadership behaviours and prior support for universal endorsement for some these dimensions e.g. Charismatic and Transformational leadership. Planned Methodology, measurement, empirical testing and application of the theoretical model is investigated where qualitative and quantitative approaches could be applied. A quantitative approach is employed to design a survey questionnaire to identify the appropriate conceptualisation of integrated leadership attributes and behaviour items. Higher Education, Banking, Insurance and telecommunication industries are potential industries that could be targeted and investigated in this research study. The competitive advantage of the theoretical model is characterised by the combination and integration of various characteristics and attributes of leadership which have elements of contradiction and consistency. The model argues that in spite of the divergence between different leadership attributes, they transcend national and organisational borders and maintain their importance in rather different contemporary contexts.


Introduction
To succeed in today's global economy, multinational and transnational organisations need strong leadership that can transcend time, place, geography, race and all factors that belong to the global environment.The need for leadership has become inevitable in a world of globalisation and technology.The imperative to globalise is accelerating, and as businesses rely more and more on global strategies, there is requirement for a greater number of global leadership (Morrison 2000).Globalisation at industry, business, or individual level is concerned with overcoming national differences and embracing the best practices around the world (Morrison International Centre for Entrepreneurship Research 2000).Need for sustainable development raises need for leadership oriented to sustainable entrepreneurship, which in its turn is conditioned by many intertwined factors characteristic emerging in different contexts (Bhati, Manimala 2011;Laužikas, Mokšeckienė 2013;Wahl, Prause 2013;Litvaj, Poniščiaková 2014;Figurska 2014;Hoffmann, Prause 2015;Giessen 2015;Šimberová et al. 2015;Ignatavičius et al. 2015;Goyal, Sergi 2015;Endrijaitis, Alonderis 2015;Bilevičienė, Bilevičiūtė 2015;Smaliukienė 2014;Tvaronavičienė et al. 2014;Raudeliūnienė et al. 2014;Vasiliūnaitė 2014;Baikovs, Zariņš 2014;Balkienė 2013;Mačiulis, Tvaronavičienė 2013;Vosylius et al. 2013;Laužikas, Dailydaitė 2013;Fuschi and Tvaronavičienė 2014 ).
Nevertheless, globalisation remains major motivator for the search for universally endorsed leadership behaviours.The need for awareness and knowledge of effective managerial leadership behaviours which enhances visions and missions for the organisation, effective communication and team building for managers, has become an increasingly important discipline in organisational pure as well as practical research.Challenges associated with stressful work environment, information overload, technological advancement and connectivity, battle for analytical and managerial talent and increasing ethical dilemmas have been among important factors stimulating the need for effective managers, who acquire effective leadership qualities and behaviours that could transcend cultural, geographical, political, racial and national aspects.The purpose of this research paper is to develop a model of leadership behaviours and attributes which can be effective across cultures and organisations.The research suggests a theoretical framework investigating the effect of leadership behaviours and attributes on leader acceptance and leader effectiveness.The second section provides an overview on the prior literature on leadership behaviours, contingencies models, influence and relationships approaches to leadership, servant leadership and authentic leadership.The third section presents research conceptual framework of developed model of leadership effectiveness.The fourth section presents a set of research independent and dependent variables.The fifth section illustrates methodology design, questionnaire theoretical development, measurement scale, pilot rest and reliability test constructed in the study.The sixth section presents research limitation and the seventh section presents research future recommendation.

Prior Research on Leadership
The Literature review is organised in two parts which are exploration of various contingency models of leadership behaviours, meaning and conceptualisation of a set leadership attributes.
Early studies explored leaders' behaviours at the purpose of learning the significant differences between traits and behaviours and means of understanding behavioural leadership styles and how they can be applied in different situations (Hersey and Blanchard 1982).A major study on leadership behaviours was constructed in Ohio State University by Stogdill and Coons (1957).The study identified two leadership behaviours under examination, which are initiating structure and consideration.Initiating structure describes the extent to which a leader is task oriented, and direct subordinates activities towards goal accomplishment.Consideration describes the extent to which a leader cares about subordinates and their emotional needs, exercises listening and establishes good relation and trust.University of Michigan also examined two leadership behavioural dimensions which corresponded to the Ohio State university study.A study constructed by Taylor and Bowers (1972) identified Job centred and employee centred dimensions of leadership.Also a study conducted by Blake and Mouton (1985) identified two behavioural dimensions which are concern for production and concern for people.The above-mentioned theories gave bases for task and relationship oriented leadership behaviours.Contingency theories of leadership also built on Behaviour leadership theories.In addition contingent factors including followers and situation where integrated in the study (Hersey and Blanchard 1982;Fiedler 1967) Influence leadership theories can be characterised by the immergence and significance of charismatic, transformational and coalitional leadership (Daft 2011).This current research examines the nature and significance charismatic and transformational leaderships as dimensions of leadership.The development of leadership research realised by the evolution from behavioural theories which examined the behavioural aspects of the leader, to contingency theories which examined factors related to the organisational environment as the followers, task structure or formal position of the leader, then evolved to influence theories which investigated the personal qualities of the leader, ability to influence and establish relationship rather than relying on contingency factors as formal position.
There is considerable literature on leadership in organisations which investigated the significance of visionary, charismatic and transformational leadership for organisational success and effectiveness (Tichy and Divanna 1986;Bennis and Nanus 1985;Cogner and Kanungo 1998;Yammarino et al. 1993;Kouses and Posner 1995;Cogner 1999).
According to Cogner and Kanungo (1998) vision in organisations is examined as second component which comprise charismatic leadership in organisations.Vision communicates an image of the future which is attractive and reliable and emphasise better situation than the present (Tichy and Divanna, 986;Nanus 1992).Vision is defined as a set of idealized future goals developed by the leader which represent purpose and values shared by followers who embrace ideology of the leader (Strange and Mumford 2005;House 1999;Boal and Brynson 1988;Collins and Porras 1997;Ergeneli et al. 2007).Strange and Mumford (2002) distinguishes two styles of visionary leadership: ideological which emphasizes personal values and standards to be maintained; and charismatic which stresses social needs and change requirements.According to Zaccaro and Banks ( 2004) vision in organisations is predictor of business competitive advantage and strategic flexibility.Kotter (1996) emphasizes the importance of developing vision and strategy and answers the question why vision is essential in organizations.Communicating vision, however, requires clarity, and simplicity of the message.According to Kelly (2000) organizational communication is defined as "the process by which information is exchanged and understood by two or more people, usually with the intent to motivate or influence behaviour" (p.92).According to Cogner and Kanungo (1998) a charismatic leader must engage in extraordinary acts that are perceived by followers as engaging in great personal risk, cost and energy.Also charismatic leaders are perceived to be knowledgeable and experts in their areas of influence.
According to Bass (1997) transformational leadership is universally effective across cultures.Global managers need universally valid leadership theories that could transcend cultures.Transformational leaders build a connection with their followers which motivates both followers and leaders through four dimensions of transformational leadership.They are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Maslin-Wicks 2007;Bass 1985).Bass (1998) distinguishes between authentic and pseudo-transformational leaders.Pseudo-transformational leaders utilize transformational methods but they lack the moral authority of authentic transformational leadership.Authentic transformational leaders advance progress through a common good and they achieve this aim through morally defensible means.
According to Yammarino et al. (1993) transformational leaders are more charismatic and inspiring in the eyes of their subordinates.Charismatic leaders have influence and inspire loyalty to the organization.According to Cogner and Kanungo (1998) a charismatic leader must engage in extraordinary acts that are perceived by followers as engaging in great personal risk, cost and energy.Also charismatic leaders are perceived to be knowledgeable and experts in their areas of influence.There is a distinction between influence leadership theories and team leadership.Team oriented leadership is dimension that is explored in the literature of leadership (Zaccaro et al. 2001;Salas et al. (1992Salas et al. ( , 2005) ) defines the concept of team as a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact, dynamically, interdependently and adaptively toward a common and valued goal, mission, specific roles and functions, who have limited life span of membership.A team is composed of some number of relatively independent individuals who are connected together in a work activity and each have their own needs, goals and expected outcomes that motivate their behaviour (Day et al. 2004;Tolle 1988;Salas et al. 1992Salas et al. , 2004;;Cannon-Bowers et al. 1993).House et al. (2004) defines team-oriented leadership behaviour as a variable which emphasizes effective teambuilding and accomplishment of common goals among team members.
Whereas charismatic and transformational leadership theories emphasize relationships and personal qualities of leader, team leadership stress on building collective behaviour and identity and team effectiveness.The earlier definitions and manifestations on transformational, visionary and charismatic leadership lead to the argument that these dimensions and attributes are not the same.According to Daft (2011) whereas transformational leadership seeks to increase follower engagement and empowerment, charismatic leadership typically demand both awe and submission of followers.
According to Greenleaf (1970) servant leadership is a human feeling with a tendency to serve, then a conscious choice that brings one to aspire to lead.Servant leaders put the needs of their subordinates before their needs and emphasise their efforts on helping subordinates to grow and reach their maximum potential achieving organisational and career success (Greenleaf 1977).Graham (1991) pointed out significant characteristics of servant leadership including humility, relational power, autonomy and relational development of followers.Spears (1995) identified ten traits of servant leadership which are listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualisation, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of people, and community building.Farling et al. (1999) designed a model of servant leadership where a process comprising of vision, service, credibility and influence are constructs under examination.Liden et al. (2008) examined the conceptualisation of operational definition of servant leadership as a construct identifying nine dimensions including emotional healing, creating value for the community, having conceptual skills, empowering others, helping subordinates to succeed, putting subordinates first, behaving ethically, relationship orientation and servant-hood.Mittal and Dorfman (2012) identified six dimensions of servant leadership including egalitarianism, moral integrity, empowering and developing others, empathy, humility and creating value for the community.Avolio and Gardner (2005) presented a framework of authentic leadership where the research argues that through increased self-awareness, self-regulation and positive modelling authentic leaders create an impact on followers' authenticity.Authentic leaders are described as those individual who are deeply aware of their attitudes and are perceived by others as conscious of their own and others strengths, weakness, knowledge and values (Avolio et al. 2004).
Another distinction could be clarified between authentic leaders and visionary leaders, in the sense that whereas visionary leadership emphasise leader's ability of inspiring an ideal prediction of a future which is better than the current present, authentic leadership reflects on leader's selfawareness, integrity, truth with themselves and congruence between declared and actual attitude (Trilling 1972).
Whereas authentic leadership emphasises self-awareness in one's feelings understanding one's unique talents, strengths and values, charismatic leadership emphasise having an image of knowledge and expertise to achieve influence.However the question that could be posed here is how could a charismatic leader inspire fire that ignites followers' energy, inspire and motivate people to do more than they would normally do, despite obstacles and personal sacrifice, speak emotionally about putting themselves on the line, without having self-awareness, an internal moral perspective and authenticity?If the answer to this question implies that charismatic leader should possess all the latter characteristics one could then question what the significance of authentic leadership is.Avolio and Gardner (2005) answer such an argument by emphasizing that authentic leadership as an approach developing fully functioned and self-actualized individual.

Research Conceptual framework
The purpose of the research is to develop a theoretical model examining the effect of universal leadership behaviors and dimensions and social culture on leader acceptance and effectiveness.The model investigates an integrated theoretical framework of leadership behaviors that could be applied at a universal paradigm.The first stage of the theoretical model examines a set of outstanding leadership behaviors and dimensions.The model functions in a mechanism where the fulfilment of the previous level introduces to the importance of the next level.The model functions in a sequential mechanism where the first basic needs and components of leadership effectiveness is based on role perception and task orientation.Ability to demonstrate excellent role perception and clarify and task structure is the first component of leader ability and effectiveness.The satisfaction and fulfilment of task orientation will lead to need for effective communication to be exercised by the leader.Effective communication is the second level of the universal leadership effectiveness.It represents individual leader ability of creating a common ground with followers and exercise advocating and persuasive behavior.The third level of leadership effectiveness model represents the significance of charismatic, visionary and transformational behavior.Charismatic leadership inspires the hearts of followers resulting in motivation and influence.Transformational leadership is also an influence component which has an impact on followers including inspiration, motivation, individual consideration and transformation.The influence component of leadership effectiveness emphasizes personal qualities of leader and relationship with followers.The fourth level of represents the importance of teambuilding, team collective identity for leadership effectiveness.Team oriented leadership behavior is an approach which stimulates a collective identity and behavior of the team.The fifth level of the theoretical model is service.Servant leadership as a component of the model stresses leader's modesty, humility and self-sacrifice.The final and top tier in this theoretical model is self-actualization (Figure 1).Authentic leadership addresses the minds of followers developing self-awareness and self-actualization.The theoretical model investigates creating balance between self enhancement and self-transcendence, internal as well as external approaches to leaders.Leader acceptance reflects recognition of the leader by followers.Leaders who are accepted by their followers will exercise better influence and recognition.Leader acceptance will be employed as an interviewing variable which has an effect on leader effectiveness.Leader effectiveness reflects an interaction between organization and leader behaviors and attributes.There is also a relationship between leader acceptance and effectiveness.Increased acceptance will result in increased effectiveness of the leader (Figure 2).

Methodology Design
The planned Research methodology for empirical implication and testing of the model could employ both qualitative and quantitative approaches.A qualitative approach could also be applied through conducting

Task Orientation
Leader Effectiveness Leader Acceptance

Team
Leadership Behaviors individual in-depth Interviews, expert interviews, expert panels, focus groups and one-on-one Behavioural event interviews (Gutierrez et al. 2012).
The Universal Leadership behaviors plan is to apply a quantitative approach collecting primary data through self administered questionnaire.The methodology of research is developed through the design of a self administered questionnaire which is to be distributed through post mail.The measurement scale employed in the questionnaire design is Likert scale.The target industry and unit of analysis are significant questions to be investigated.Higher education, Banking, Insurance, and telecommunication, as well as private, public and family owned business form equivalent ranges of industries could be very interesting sectors to investigate at a cross cultural approach.
Leadership behaviours and Social Culture Questionnaire is based and originated from prior leadership and social culture research (Cogner and Kanungo 1998;Kouzes and Posner 1995;Strange and Mumford 2002;Kotter 1996;Munter 2000;House et al. 2004;Mittal and Dorfman 2012).The leadership section of the questionnaire comprises a set of 46 items measuring perception of leadership behaviours that could be applied at a universal approach.
According to Cooper and Schindler (2011) constructing a measurement scale requires several factors which influence reliability, validity and practicality of the scale.These factors include response type, data properties, number of dimensions, balanced or unbalanced, forced or unforced, number of scale points and rater error.The rating scale is employed through the application of five points likert scale, which was selected to measure respondents' attitude and degree of agreement or disagreement with the statements constructed in the questionnaire.According to Cooper and Schindler (2011) the advantages of the likert scale include simplicity and reliability.The scale produces interval data.Back Translation was constructed as the scale was originally constructed in English.According to Brislin (1970), it is advisable to conduct back translation in cross cultural research, where the scale designed and distributed in more than one language.
A pilot test study was constricted to test the reliability, validity, practicality of the scale and to detect any weaknesses in the instrument.According to Cooper and Schindler (2011) a pilot test is conducted to detect any weakness in design and instrumentation and to provide proxy Data for selection of a probability sample.A convenience sample was selected from Higher Education industry in Syria.The questionnaire survey was distributed to one private and one public Higher Education institutions.The total number of collected questionnaires is 68 responses.Only 56 of the questionnaires were employable due to lack of reliability in responses.
Reliability, validity and practicality test will be conducted to identify the number of factors that can be used to represent relationships among the research variables of the study.According to Cooper and Schindler (2011) a factor analysis if a general term for several specific computational techniques, which have the objective of reducing to a manageable number may variables that belong together and have overlapping measurement characteristics.Cronbach alpha test will be conducted to provide a measure of the internal consistency of the scales.Internal consistency describes the extent to which all the items in attest measures the same construct and are connected to the interrelatedness of the items within the scale (Tavakol and Dennick 2011).Cronbach alpha Reliability test shows optimal reliability ranging from 0.80 to 0.93 which is to be considered an excellent indication.Future research should consider is the examination of a probability sample and larger sample size.Factor analysis should be constructed to test the validity of the scale (Table 1).

Conclusions
The research paper examines a theoretical framework of leadership behaviours and effectiveness at a universal context.It investigates the relationship between leadership and effectiveness.The model scrutinizes a culture universal approach.The research suggests a quantitative approach for empirical testing.The importance of the research is in the potential proposition of the investigated leadership behaviours and their application across different cultures' as well as industries and businesses.Servant and authentic leadership can suggest further investigation, development and contribution to leadership research across culture.

Fig. 1 .
Fig.1.Developed Theoretical model of Universal Leadership Effectiveness Hierarchy Source: author

Table 1 .
Cronbach alpha reliability test (n=56) The first limitation of the research study, is the lack of empirical testing of the model.Empirical testing of the theoretical framework should be constructed selecting a sample which preferably represent different business sectors and industries in one cultural context and in a cross cultural contexts, investigating samples from different nations and borders.The question of culture measurement is also a critical question to be investigated in this aspect.If current leadership model is to be examined in a cross cultural context, consequently measurement of culture and its different dimensions is needed in this context.The second limitation of the research study is related to lack of qualitative approaches in testing the leadership effectiveness model.Qualitative approach including individual depth interviews, focus groups and observation could employed in future studies to test the model and support results obtained from quantitative approaches.A methodological approach that would combine qualitative and quantitative methods is very advisable in this context to test the theoretical model.Future research of the Universal Leadership Effectiveness could employ the application and empirical testing of the model at a cross cultural approach.An empirical testing could include samples selected from different regions representing Western, Middle Eastern, European and Ocean Pacific regions.Future research could also investigate a contingency model of leadership and culture examining leadership behaviors that could be applied in specific cultures.A cross cultural sample could be selected from different regions taking in consideration harmonizing the target industry and unit of analysis of the research.It would be advisable to employ qualitative and quantitative approaches in future research studies.