A633.9.3RB_SeabournBeau

 Well now that we’ve reached the end of the course, I can honestly say that there is no successful future in oligarchy organized models. I say that because things are changing to fast, things aren’t how they use to be and how can one leader have all of the answers? I think it has become quite clear that the bottom or the organization has most of the problem solving abilities and ideas already, the top needs to embrace that and create a working environment to foster that growth. Old leadership models will have their place, they’ll be used in organizations who cannot adapt, who cannot accept change and that will end up closed. Adaptability and growth are the driving forces behind any organization today. Not only do leaders need to embrace change, they have to understand that there is power in interlinking creativity. Yes, someone can still be the in-charge. The way to do that is through suggestion, drive, flexibility and idea motivation. Our reading said “from an organizational level, 360 degree feedback processes seem to be growing” (Obolensky, 2014). If getting feedback is so important now, how can an oligarchy model still be successful? When feedback is received, it cannot be dictated to be changed by one person. The change has to occur as a whole organization, through the entire organization.

Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future. 

I see complex adaptive leadership being the new way of business. We cannot allow one person to dictate the direction of one organization anymore. Personally, I cannot even begin to think how I though that was okay nine weeks ago. That operating procedure is based on people never being wrong and leaders having all the answers. I now know that opportunity stems from interaction and information sharing across the company. Organizations can no longer place their eggs all in one leaders basket. We saw how that worked out for Home Depot when they resorted to a one man takeover. One piece of advice I found helpful this week is “Once you've got your plan in place, stick to it while being mindful that flexibility is sometimes necessary. You may find that different circumstances require a change in approach. Similarly, as individuals develop and mature in their roles, they are likely to require less handholding and more degrees of freedom” (Bvywate, 2012). That is the essential thing that we have to remember as leaders, flexibility and adaptability. Long gone are the days when one person was in charge and things are only done their way. Successfulness now comes from information sharing, coaching, adapting, listening and leading/following.

  

What impact will they have on your future strategy?

In my suture endeavors, I plan to encompass this philosophy in everything I do. Are there times where as the leader I’ll want to be correct? Most likely. I tend to have some control issues when it come to my role as a leader but when I look at the benefit of communication and complex systems, the benefits outweigh the need to be selfish. As a new leader I want to embrace change while keeping the culture of the organization in tact. What can sometimes happen is, new leaders get to zealous and loose their ability to connect to the workforce. They tend to forget where they came from. This also increases tension, decreases information sharing and allows an oligarchy model to creep back in. We have to be able to adapt and change based on the needs of our organization. I look forward to taking this information with me as I continue in my work. Complex adaptive leadership practices, here I come.

  

References

Bywate, L. (2012, April 1). The Flexible Leader: An Adaptable Approach to Managing Your Team. Retrieved October 6, 2015, from https://www.wjmassoc.com/insight/the-flexible-leader/

  

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate

A633.8.3RB_SeabournBeau

Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?

I think there are a couple of things that a good coach can due to assist their clientele. First, they can explore the situations in depth through a question and answer session. Based on the results of that session they can make recommendations grounded in realities and using goal setting. Second, I think a good coach can look at a matter with a fresh set of eyes and initiate an objective to determine what restraints are holding the client back. Based on their findings, they can give direction and advice from a third party perspective. One source said this about coaching in the organization, “A company that is intentional about integrating a coaching culture as a comprehensive and enterprise-wide approach has the potential to move its entire workforce toward peak performance” (Greene, 2012). With that being said, organizations who are using a coach can accept that they need help and get insight to what changes and direction they should take.

Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy? 

I personally feel like using a coach gives a competitive advantage to the organization. By using or gaining a coach, they organization is saying “we need a fresh set of eyes on the issues here and we could use an outside perspective on the matter”. Strategically, they could also help identify some things that leadership might not have. Using the GROW model, they could identify areas of weakness, find out the goals and offer solutions to obtain those goals. Often times what happens is, companies (like people) become complacent and comfortable. They have lost the long term sight and direction of their organization. A coach can really help them get back on track. One source says “Coaching is used to increase management competencies and practices that facilitate the planning process can have a positive impact in making strategy development and implementation achievable with confidence, efficiency, and full use of organizational resources” (SIOP, 2013). All of those factors lead to strategic monetary gains for the organization. With long term planning, goals, and understanding in place, the organization is then set to thrive.

How can it make a difference in an organization?

Well at the current time we do not have anything in place at all. So to be honest, anything we do is a step in the right direction. Often times when controllers have been in a facility for awhile, they become complacent and under motivated. Their daily job is to show up and work for their eight hours and go home. There isn’t any specific reward for going out of your way to be a good controller and your boss isn’t likely to motivate you do go and better yourself. Like I’ve mentioned in the past, there isn’t really anywhere for anyone to progress to unless they are leaving the company. Once a person makes the manager level (if they even want to), there isn’t anywhere but the home office to advance to. So that really does limit the amount of motivation anyone might have. So based on the reading there needs to be a focus on people before anything else can begin. “This means there is an opportunity or need to develop people both in terms of their ability as well as in terms of relationship with them” (Obolensky, 2014).

What does this mean to you and your organization?

What this means to my organization is that we need to care a little bit more about the everyday controllers. How can we keep employees motivated when they do the same thing everyday at the same place? Generally speaking, each airport deals with the same type of traffic and the same users. There really isn’t any incentive right now to go outside anyone’s comfort zone to improve. I agree that organization’s can solve their own problems and that they can deal with their employees. However, I feel as though sometimes the organization has no idea that it has an issue or that it might need a coach to help it reach its best potential. We haven’t even reached the point of realizing out issues or understanding the possible options moving forward. This means that we have a long way to go before we are successful in maintaining and keeping employees engaged. This is important especially in long term planning and success for the organization.

References

Greene, B. (2012, December 12). The Power of a Coaching Culture on Organizational Performance. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.cpiworld.com/knowledge-center/white-papers/the-power-of-a-coaching-culture-on-organizational-performance

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

SIOP. (2013, September 14). Linking Coaching with Business Strategy. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.siop.org/workplace/coaching/linking_coaching_with_business_s.aspx

A633.7.3RB_SeabournBeau

Each time I take an assessment, I think I know exactly what the outcome is going to be based on my interpretation of myself. What ends of happening is I get gainful insight that opens my eyes to what is actually taking place. This week was no different. After taking the assessment I scored seven (7) points in “involve”, five (5) points in “tell”, and two (2) points in each “devolve” and “sell”. The results were a little revealing in that I spend to much time trying to make suggestions and trying to lead my team to initiate contact with me to much. According to our reading, a person in the strategy three (S3) category is used when “either when the leader does not know or choose to hold back to allow others to discover the solution. A variety of involve strategies exist ranging from asking an individual “what do you think?” to running small teams focused on problems” (Obolensky, 2014). I find myself a fit in that category because I think it is appropriate to let people problem solve on their own. By allowing them to explore and have some leniency, they become more independent and assertive. 

Has your thinking changed over the course of the past six weeks, if so; why, and, if not; why?

My thinking has changed over the last six weeks for sure. The first thing I see that has changed is that I am thinking about how complex leadership actually applies to a successful workplace. Do we have to have a single leader in a hierarchal structure in today’s market? I would now argue no. Prior to this class I still had a slight notion that people need to be told what to do and they need to know when to do it. I would still argue in some cases that is applicable but for employees to be successful, independent and assertive, they need some space and room to work. They don’t need a million people to answer to and they don’t need a direct supervisor in all situations. This plays well into my strategy 3 case. What I have to do however is actually make sure that when I ask for input from others, that they have the correct skill set to answer my questions. Sometimes I find myself trying to have a very in depth conversation with people who do not care or have no idea what I’m talking about.

Secondly, I like to tell people. I find it hard not to, to be honest. Yes, people are hired for their expertise and there credentials but how else can we expect someone to fit into the culture that is already in place in the workplace? I get ahead of myself in the sense that I take on the role of the person who is responsible for making sure their transitions happens correctly. As a leader, I think we have to allow people to learn and give credible feedback. How else can we ever learn from our shortcomings if we do not allow the workers ot give us feedback on what is actually happening? I want to encourage feedback lines and encourage outside the box thinking, not force my way on subordinates. One source says “Feedback is the cheapest, most powerful, yet, most under used management tool that we have at our disposal. Feedback is powerful as it helps people get on track, it serves as a guide to assist people to know how they and others perceive their performance” (Lang, 2015). In my case, I think that was true until this class. I didn’t fully understand that in complex circumstances, feedback is vital. I look forward to using my freshly gained knowledge.

What is the significance of this in the context of your future leadership goals and objectives?

My objective as a leader is to understand my role in the organization, apply my skill set to the situation and get as much feedback from the user (no matter who it is) about how things are operating. I also think that it is important to adapt to the culture that I am in or placed in. Once I get to a different facility in the leadership role, I’ll have to tread lightly but ultimately adjust the culture or procedures to a more effective operating procedure as I see fit and inline with what I’ve learned thus far. Sometimes there are employees in the facilities that have been there awhile and that do not like change. Being a new leader, I have to consider their needs but look out for the organization for long term success. I read an article this week about facilitating change and helping new employees adapt. They stated “Through teaching and training of all employees communicate the expected cultural change and the resultant change in values and goals.  Communicate in large settings, small groups, and one-to-one, if need be” (Shedd, 2011). I think that fits right into my style of leadership and S2 and S3. That is probably why those areas stood out this week. Although I still have some learning to do, this class has already helped me see the future in complex adaptive leadership techniques.

References

Lang, F. (2015). The Importance of Feedback | Why Is Feedback Important? Retrieved September 25, 2015, from http://www.fullcirclefeedback.com.au/resources/360-degree-feedback/360-power-of/

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership is embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower

Shedd, D. (2011, April 19). 9 Keys To Driving Cultural Change. Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/9-keys-to-driving-cultural-change-2011-4

A633.6.5RB_SeabournBeau

 Considering all of readings in this module and the learning exercises regarding upward and downward leadership; reflect on the diagram (figure 9.5; p.152) "the vicious circle for leaders".  Does this happen in your organization?  What are the effects on the organization? Create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization.

The impact of upward and downward leadership practices need to be understood in each organization so the best leadership practices can be implemented. This week we looked at the impact of followership and how be a good follower, can lead to be a good leader. For example, “followership sides of the equation is as important as the leadership side. The two combine into a dynamic which can get better results in a more sustained way than typical oligarchic approach” (Obolensky, 2014). As a follower there is a balance of asking for feedback and taking initiative. Employees need to take action while making sure it is the direction of the organization.

In the “circle of leaders” we see a rotation of behavior that is never ending. When I think about my organization, I do not think that the entire circle applies to us, we are immune to it because of the scope of work we do. There are so sections however that do apply to us and that in turn create our own little revolution of feedback to leader response. First, in our company, everyone is a trained expert so there is little low skill demonstration at the qualified employee level. There is generally not to much concern either at the middle manager level/ air traffic manager level because they know that the staff is trained for their environment. When issues arise, it revolves around the manager taking to much of a hands on approach toward employees. This can happen in different forms such as scheduling, micro-managing staff, constant oversight, and to much feedback. Just like the circle indicates when this happens, the controller’s confidence does decrease. That can really jump start the circle into an un-needed spin. Here’s an example: a qualified air traffic controller comes into work and begins to work the traffic. At some point the ATM comes up to the tower and begins to watch the evolutions (which is standard generally). Then instead of giving constructive feedback, the manager says something to the effect of “well you should have done…this…or that”. This really makes the controller feel under appreciated and under qualified thus starting the circle. The circle breaks down because in our organization there is no need to ask for advice from the leader because we all hold the same knowledge and qualifications. It was mostly the boss taking the wrong approach toward an employee. One source said this about feedback, “Feedback becomes a gift of someone investing in the recipient’s career” (Phoel, 2009). In my example, that is really not helpful toward that person’s career.

As far as a new circle for our organization, I think there are a couple things we can do to make things better. First, we can allow for constructive feedback to be received when there is a actual need for it. So if the controller is confused or actually does something incorrect, then we can look at giving some feedback. Second, when the feedback does occur, we need to eliminate any type of confidence issues taking place. There is no need to have the employee question themselves. Last, when there are questions or concerns exposed, the employees should converse and meet amongst themselves and leave management out of the loop until they have to. This would have to be a joint task, you cannot have one employee tattling on the rest of the controllers. Everyone must be on board and agree to the procedures. One source gave this option to organizations for communication, “Companies should identify all of the various options available to them and then, based on the type of communication, decide which communication tools--or combination of communication tools--will be most effective and appropriate given the specific communication goal and audience” (Richards, 2013). In this case, employees can effectively communicate through any open discussion technology they like. Just as long as the management/leadership is not aware of the issues.

Obviously this is not a good circle to be caught in. The circle just keeps going and going until something is done to remedy the issue. It does not matter what type of organization you’re in, something can always be done to help foster more effective upward and downward leadership. In our case, we can take the middle manager out of the equation until it is absolutely needed and avoid the concern from the home office. The more issues that are handled by the level at which they occur, the better. A thought that the reading mentioned that I’m still thinking a lot about is “the leadership we all like is often not the leadership we need” (Obolensky, 2014).  Perhaps there is some way to get stringent leadership through interaction without demoralizing the employees and making the manager feel useless. We just have to find that happy medium here.

References

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, (2nd Edition). London: Gower / Ashgate.

Phoel, C. (2009, April 27). Feedback That Works. Retrieved September 17, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2009/04/feedback-that-works/

Richards, L. (2013, April 3). Effective Employee Communication. Retrieved September 18, 2015, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effective-employee-communication-691.html

A633.5.3RB_SeabournBeau

Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory, include the implications that this has on strategy.

Video Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

Until this week, I really had a hard time seeing how this all might play out in the practical application in my organization. Currently, we are made up of a corporate office and the personnel there that are responsible for being “that leader’ in this exercise. What I’ve found to be interesting is that in some ways we need the structure but in most applications we do not. The reading describes leadership this way this week “many leaders do not fully understand the concept of allowing others to take the lead” (Obolensky, 2014). I think that is true from the corporate level down to where we are. Most of the leaders there, I think, have forgotten what it is like to deal with all of the side distractions and personal issues associated with being in the schedule platform we are and to deal with the constant change in hours.

The chaos theory was hard for me to visualize happening in practical understanding until this week. After watching the video, I’ve come to understand two things. First, initially things will be crazy and people will have to adjust to their surroundings. Second, although it took a small amount of time, everything seemed to work itself out relatively quickly. I relate that directly to the work place. If things are crazy or chaotic for a small time, it is worth the rewards of fluidity and communication lines improving. After watching the video, I see the actual leadership role being the actual guy who laid out the activity to the group. He simply told them what to do and they did it. In my organization, that is sort of how things work but there is a lot of oversight and skepticism. I feel as though if one thing went wrong and we were at fault, we would have to fear the repercussions.  I understand that fear is coupled with intention and unawareness (Obolonesky, 2014) but I wonder how much fear can really derail the willingness of a participant.

When a lot of change occurs there is growing pains. I took away from this exercise though that growing pains will resolve themselves overtime and everything will fix itself. That is the point of the process anyhow. One source talked about changes in the workplace this way “The first thing managers must appreciate before considering any change initiative is how change affects employees – both how readily they will accept the change and the emotional 'pain' that always accompanies change” (Group, 2015). I think that is something important to understand. People are resistant to change but if they knew the outcomes, they’d be more willing to cooperate in the process. Lastly, one source mentioned that “Being open-minded means you have a willingness to listen to other ideas and opinions and consider the possibility that you are wrong or may change your own perspective” (Kokemuller, 2012). I perceive that if everyone in the organization from top to bottom really took on the task of moving into a chaotic approach, everything would work itself out and be a lot more effective and beneficial to the organization.

References

Group, F. (2015). How to manage organisational change. Retrieved September 11, 2015, from http://www.fortunegroup.com.au/managing-change-in-the-workplace

Kokemuller, N. (2012). Is it Important to Be Open Minded in the Workplace? Retrieved September 9, 2015, from http://work.chron.com/important-open-minded-workplace-6124.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

A633.4.3RB_SeabournBeau

Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and other readings, why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  List three reasons that support or refute this position. If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes?  What are the implications on strategy?  

The reading and exercise were interesting to say the least. The shift in leadership is happening because there has to be more fluidity in the organization and communication has to flow through the organization to each member without breakdowns occurring. For the exercise portion, I selected 40% as the number of ideas that came from the top. To be honest, I was giving them more credit then I though I should but I assumed that there was a lot more interaction taking place then there actually is. I interpret that to mean that I’m somewhere in the middle management think process and not entirely seasoned. The reading states “generally speaking, they know that they do not know. However they cannot say that they do not know” (Obolensky, 2014). That in and of itself is an issue. In the more fluid flowing organizations, openness and transparency allow for assistance and problem solving to occur instantaneously. When the higher ups in a hierarchal structure do not know and don’t disclose they do not know, they are preventing any type of progressions from happening through arrogance.

In my organization, this is not happening although I don’t think that is intentional. Ideas can and do flow from the bottom upward and there are new systems in place that allow lower level employees to share insights on procedures and organizational policy. I however am not a huge fan of that because you never know if YOUR idea was heard. There are a few reasons that are preventing this from happening in our organization.

1. The FAA dictates what procedures we follow and sets precedent for any scheduling and hours employees can work. Their oversight puts limitations on our leaders and prevents them from implementing new and creative ideas that might help solve some safety issues.

2. There hasn’t been a need for major changes from controller to the upper echelon. What I mean is, the company perceives that each individual facility is operating as required and things are okay if they don’t hear from them. If there isn’t any issues, why should they change? The communication lines are not open from bottom to top in that regard which creates the issue.

3. The people who are in charge now, like being in charge and they have a slight God perception of themselves. It seems that anytime anyone wants to achieve anything at the ground floor, it has to go to corporate. When that happens, there needs to be some sort of “need” for the change other than some idea someone had. Ideas and insight are often not heard because they weren’t thought of at the top level; that ties into point number two.

As far as strategy goes, we are in a quarterly fight right now to try and keep our budgeting and funding in place from the government. During the sequester, one of the major things that was considered was de-funding the private control towers. The idea was absurd, they politicians were playing soccer with us and using us as a bargaining chip. It is hard to form a strategy for a long term plan when there are short term issues. One source states “Scenarios facilitated dialogue in which managers’ assumptions could safely be revealed and challenged. They enabled consideration of unexpected developments” (Wilikingston, 2013). I reference that because there are multiple scenarios that could be affecting the strategic direction our organization takes in the next couple of years. We have to plan a strategy on the unexpected and try and formulate different agendas determined by financial oversight committees. 

Conclusively, I feel that ideas taken from the ground floor levels can really make a large impact through the organization. I think that is why early unions were so effective. They were the voice of the lower level employees. One source states however that “Government data show that labor unions have become less of a factor in the overall U.S. economy in recent decades – most notably in the private sector” (Labor, 2011))”. What I take that to mean is that more and more companies are becoming fluid and dynamic to meet employee needs and market necessity.

References

Labor Unions Seen as Good for Workers, Not U.S. Competitiveness. (2011, February 17). Retrieved September 3, 2015, from http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/17/labor-unions-seen-as-good-for-workers-not-u-s-competitiveness/ 

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and             uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

Wilikingston, A. (2013, May 1). Living in the Futures. Retrieved September 3, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2013/05/living-in-the-futures

A633.3.3RB_SeabournBeau

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

To understand this task, we must take a look at both companies and determine what differences there might be in them and then apply that to a third party organization. I’ll then look into my own organization and try to make reasonable comparisons and try to determine the best course of action for us moving forward.

First let’s look at St. Luke’s Complex Adaptive System (CAS).  St. Luke’s Website states “We are a top 10 independent creative agency, owned and run by our management team. What sets us apart is our ability to help clients set powerful new agendas in their market. Any good creative agency can provide you with a good campaign. We will help you set a new agenda” (St. Luke’s, 2015). What this tells me is that they are very complex, fluid, and adapting to the needs of the marketplace. In our reading this week, we learned that cross functioning organizations are becoming more and more popular and effective. What happens is, reaction times grow and more information is being shared at a higher rate throughout the organization because there are multiple lines open for communication. It appears that St. Luke’s utilizes that aspect of business and applies it to their daily work.

Next we have to look at Morning Star and their Complex Adaptive System.  Morning Star is in the food industry and they produce tomato products. Their website spells out their CAS this way “an organization of self-managing professionals who initiate communication and coordination of their activities with fellow colleagues, customers, suppliers and fellow industry participants, absent directives from others” (Morning Star, 2015). The main difference here is that they allow employees to work together while being responsible for their actions to an organizational leader or someone above them at all times. What actually happens is, employees are responsible to themselves and they are responsible for creating different opportunities and motivations for themselves. That is unique because in other systems, organizations set the precedent for that type of stuff. They are actually allowing the employee to enable one another and themselves.

I found a company called Connecticut Spring and Stamping this week. Their website describes them this way, “Family values have been at our core since 1939, and we share a sense of pride in CSS with each new generation. Our commitment to training for the CSS family enables us to deliver topflight products far more efficiently because our employees are able to seamlessly interact and collaborate across all our departments” (Connecticut, 2015). Because departments interact uniquely, they are allowing the flow of information and the interaction of employees to manifest. According to the book reading, “there will be a need for a more fluid structure and so the next stage of evolution occurs” (Obolensky, 2014). Here teams are constant but they fit the need of the organization. They go onto say that “As a family managed company, we treat our team like family and hold a vested interest in the professional and personal success of our employees. Each and every team member brings a depth of unparalleled knowledge and experience that we share every day across all our locations with the help of our 27 Self Directed Work Teams (SDWT) and trained team facilitators” (Connecticut, 2015). It seems as though they are heading in the correct direction and they’ve been successful for all these years because of their willingness to adapt and overcome.

For my current company, I think we have a unique mixture incorporating both organizations talked about above. At the lowest level, the controller level, each employee is responsible for creativity and they are hired for their ability to do the job. They are also responsible to themselves and in some cases, the tower team they are working with. Because of the job, things are instantaneous, the “market” is always changing and controllers have to be able to adapt to those changes spontaneously. In our additional reading this week, one source states “Like all forms of complexity, strategy is poised on the border between perfect order and total chaos, between absolute efficiency and blind experimentation, between autocracy and complete ad hocracy” (Hamel, 1998). If I had to describe air traffic control in itself, it is living chaotically and using experimentation based on past experiences to initiate complex control patterns. On one hand, we are operating in a complex environment everyday while on another, we are responsible to our self and to the company. It is a goofy thing to balance. Organizationally, I feel as though we still operate in a Silo functioning environment. Everything is directed by either our company or the FAA in a directive manner. What comes from the top goes and there is little feedback reception from the actual controller level. Because of that, retention levels are low and our organization has to constantly worry about replacing people at each facility. When the FAA hires, we loose people and we gain people when FAA employees retire. The problem is, those retired FAA controllers will eventually leave again and the circle continues.  Until we open communication lines from the bottom up and become more fluid, these issues will not change. Issues at the lower levels are hardly ever responded to unless they are operationally significant to air traffic control.

References

Connecticut Spring and Stamping. About Us. (2015). Retrieved August 30, 2015, from http://www.ctspring.com/who-we-are/about-us

Hamel, G. (1998, Winter98). Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. Sloan Management Review. pp. 7-14.

Morning Star; Self-Management. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2015, from http://morningstarco.com/index.cgi?Page=Self-Management

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

St. Luke’s: Who we are | St. Lukes. (2015). Retrieved August 29, 2015, from http://stlukes.co.uk/who-we-are/