***No plagiarism*** It must be less than 30% match on authenticity report.***PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS ASSIGNMENT IF YOU CANNOT MEET THE DEALINE OF 1:00 PM ON 3/28/2018 CST.***Assignment: Conducting a
Is Distributed Leadership in HEI Environments the Answer to the
Innovation Conundrum?
Ana Martins 1, Isabel Martins 2, Taahir Ahmed Akbar Vajeth 3 and Orlando Pereira 4
1Graduate School of Business and Leadership, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
2School of Management, IT and Governance, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
3University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
4University of Minho, Portugal
Abstract: The purpose of this research is to determine whether students at HEIs nurture distributed leadership skills and
higher-level skills to promote knowledge creation, sharing and distribution. Critical reflection of extant literature shows that
a culture of innovation is fundamental for organisational sustainability in the current globalised world. New age
competencies improve cognitive thinking models in organisations and enable these to develop their collective, interactive
and participative learning capabilities. New age leadership behaviours are concurrent with innovation results in diverse ways.
Moreover, the essential premise that dissimilar leadership behaviours support different aspects of organizational learning
highlight the importance of the leadership self-efficacy construct and its association with learning to promote high levels of
employee engagement and satisfaction resulting in high levels of organizational performance. The pragmatic paradigm
methodology used in this study is buttressed with the quantitative method of primary data collection. This tool was
distributed to a sample of university students based in the Southern Anatolian region of Turkey, from both under and
postgraduate Business degree programmes. Currently the results are being analysed and the discussion of these will bring
on conclusions and implications for further research.
Keywords: distributed leadership, HEIs, innovation, knowledge creation, learning, performance
1. Introduction
In the current volatile business environment, organisations need individuals who are capable to make swift
decisions. It is perceived that leadership influences innovative results. In the light of the above, education plays
a vital role in equipping graduates from higher education institutions (HEIs) with soft skills that enable these
individuals to achieve positive outcomes in the leadership process from the organisation to society at large.
Leadership behaviours have a significant impact on innovation outcomes. Contemporary organisations are
flatter as compared to the traditional hierarchy approach. These modern organisations require knowledge
workers to be more autonomous, to be involved relational activities with and through individuals with a whole
new skills set including the potential for distributed leadership. The nature of contemporary work and tasks are
less repetitive thus providing an environment for innovation and creativity. Self-efficacy is considered as the
essential component for prepared organizational learning. This construct affords a solid theoretical context and
highlights the importance of tacit knowledge which entails a capacity to share complex knowledge. This study
presents a reflection on whether learning and innovation depend on leadership efficacy, regarding those skills
necessary for knowledge sharing and performance. Furthermore, the debate will also reflect on the construct
of transformational leadership which is associated with exploratory innovation while transactional leadership is
associated with exploitative innovation. This study entails the research question of whether there a significant
finding in self-reported ratings of leadership styles in students in HEIs who are working towards a bache lor’s
degree in Management and also in comparison with students who earned an Undergraduate degree. The
purpose of the study is to find out the leadership style among the sample of university students. Students were
required to provide their self-reported responses. This paper includes an introduction, a reflection of the
constructs of self-efficacy and innovation, soft skills, learning, exploration and distributed leadership. The study
also includes the presentation and analysis of the self-reported findings obtained from the responses arising
from the sample of undergraduate students about their leadership style.
Ana Martins et al.
2. Self-efficacy and innovation
Recent studies on organizational learning show a strong link between the constructs of self -efficacy and
organizational learning. The perception of self-efficacy is a key component in the social learning theory (Bandura,
1977; 1977a; 1986). Self-efficacy is viewed as a value judgment on the quality of an individual’s performance
whilst carrying out actions in given situations (Bandura, 1982). In turn, self-efficacy is influenced by an
individual’s past performance both through observing others carrying out similar actions as well as through the
individual’s independent cognitive processing. Thus, self-efficacy is a key strategic element in achieving high
levels of performance (Bandura, 1986). Furthermore, self-efficacy theory provides a conceptual framework that
has been used by various schools of thought to understand individuals’ behaviour in relation to organizational
performance.
Self-efficacy is considered as the essential ingredient for structured organizational learning. This construct
provides a solid theoretical context and highlights the importance of tacit knowledge because it leads to analysis
and reflection. This can be regarded as a capacity to share complex knowledge and therefore self-efficacy may
well provide useful information on how people can share tacit knowledge. However, perceptions of self-efficacy
are created through a ‘judgemental’ process. Therefore, individual performance is influenced both by
environmental and individual factors (Bandura, 1977). Anderson et al. (2008) corroborate that learning and
innovation depend on leadership efficacy, while Mumford et al. (2002) highlight the characteristics of the leader.
Anderson et al. (2008) further demonstrate that leadership efficacy arises from unconventional and challenging
behaviours. Thus, Mumford et al. (2002) concur that innovation is created both from technical and business
capacities and experience as well as from creative thinking skills. There is a very close link between innovation,
learning, entrepreneurship, creativity, leadership and knowledge creation cycles. “Learning, therefore, arises in
this context as a correlation of innovation challenges” (Martins, et al., 2015, pp. 242-243). Explicit knowledge
lies beside these processes and is the result of the joint efforts between explicit and tacit knowledge. Moreover,
“the contemporary world does not adhere to fortuitous situations and innovation does not result from isolated
geniuses but instead from activists inherent in organizations” (Martins, et al., 2016, pp. 159).
Among various strategic variable lies individual competencies which lead and diffuse new technologies. This
variable is considered the cornerstone in the current knowledge economy despite extant literature regarding
qualifications and competencies as analogous when indeed these are different constructs. According to Vieira
& Luz (2005), competencies influence qualifications and employees are perceived to take on more responsibility
and roles. Employees need to broaden their qualifications and competencies in order to perform their
responsibilities effectively. Competencies are directly related to the profession; qualifications are related to the
specific function in the workplace. However, according to Paiva (2007), the competencies construct is dynamic
in nature in contrast to qualifications which are static in time and space. Moreover, the notion of qualifications
is static and directly related to organisations that are bureaucratic, hierarchical and limited in flexibility. In view
of this, Fleury & Fleury (2001), corroborate that qualifications are directly related to the particular role and/or
the knowledge the person holds. Competencies have a much wider spectrum compared to qualifications and
embrace relationships with others. Boyatzis (1982) maintains that competencies can be considered as
characteristics and skills inherent to individuals which demonstrate these in specific actions to reveal that which
the individual is capable of doing. This perspective clarifies the distinction between competencies and
qualifications.
Anderson et al. (2008) further corroborate that those leadership self-efficacy beliefs solely related to effective
leadership could support learning and development programs albeit these dependent on the specific needs of
the leader or function. In this regard, these authors developed the taxonomy to demonstrate a cognitive,
multidimensional belief structure wherein managers perceive their individual skills in order to perform their
leadership responsibilities. However, according to Bandura (1997), intelligence, personality and other self-
assessments may be viewed independently from self-efficacy. In fact, Anderson et al. (2008) reveal the
importance of an all-encompassing and well-defined taxonomy of leadership self-efficacy in their study by
including and expanding on effective leadership. Moreover, self-efficacy can be a mediator in the relationship
between persuasion and pre-defined goals, as well as a way to define goals and performance at the individual
level (Bandura, & Locke, 2003). However, that self-efficacy which is related to knowledge sharing, should predict
the behaviour of that actual sharing. For this reason, a high level of self-efficacy, regarding those skills necessary
for knowledge sharing and performance, may result in the exploration of individual goals, as well as in a
collective effort, persistence, satisfaction and performance (Bandura, 1977). Such positive results energize self-
Ana Martins et al.
beliefs, which may further result in higher levels of performance arising from reflecting on one’s own self -
efficacy. This double loop learning, which is part of the self-efficacy model, is also prevalent in the knowledge
sharing activities at the individual level (Jashapara, 2003). In relation to the task-centred dimension, it refers to
behaviour that the leader organizes and defines regarding the relationships in groups aiming at goal attainment
and performance behaviours. People-centred or subordinate consideration relates to behaviour that leaders
reveal to indicate friendship, trust, respect, and warmth with regard to employees. This leadership style is in
tune with humanised and interactive behaviours (Martins, et. al., 2017a).
3. The dynamic link between soft skills, learning and exploration
The notion that soft skills can be taught and learned in an academic environment has heralded the surge of
varied leadership education programmes (Brungardt, 2011; Brungardt, et al, 2006; Daft, 2002). According to
Mumford et al (2000), their skills-based model of leader performance considers skills and knowledge as directly
influencing leader performance contrary to traits. Furthermore, soft skills empower leaders to develop goals
and remove obstacles. These soft skills include social skills such as social judgment and decision-making,
persuasion and negotiation skills. In the contemporary post-industrial information era, leaders require skills that
facilitate them to act and perform on a distributed network. This enables organisations to adapt speedily to new
technologies and fluctuating complicated dynamic and competitive settings. The range of soft skills
encompasses emotional and spiritual as elements which multiply individuals’ skills and competencies. However,
in the organisation, emotions depend on a pool of existing capital, at the level of human, structural and relational
capitals, as Thomson (2000) postulates. “HEIs should walk the talk and their curricula should place greater
emphasis on developing graduates with soft, transferrable higher order skills that support these values to ensure
graduates are capable to channel their talent in the organization and ensure its positive sp illovers onto the
economy. Furthermore, this balanced creative attunement will indeed enable organizations to capitalize on
these graduates, talented human capital”, Martins, et al. (2017a, pp. 227-228).
Concurrently, developing emotional intelligence in the organisation leads to individual qualities and behaviours
which influence effective organisational performance. Thus, “emotional capital is the additive which has
multiplying properties”, Pereira (2008:215). In view of this, a new entrepreneurial university context emerges
related to its role to ensure sustainable growth. These situations assert a specific learning culture which is
independent from being or not involved in organisations. Nemanich & Vera (2009) substantiate that a learning
culture arises from transformational leadership because these leadership behaviours give rise to innovation.
Moreover, transformational leadership is concomitant to exploratory innovation while transactional leadership
is associated with exploitative innovation. Entrepreneurial thinking is nurtured as routines and institutionalized
mind-sets are questioned. Furthermore, where transformational behaviours inspire organizational members to
challenge institutionalized learning and adopt generative and exploratory thinking processes (Sosik et al., 1997),
transactional behaviours rely on maintaining current competencies, products, and services (Jansen et al, 2004).
Laužackas et al. (2009) posit that entrepreneurial actions in the innovation domain, consider competency
development within a particular perspective identifying four different competency levels, namely, at the
individual and group and encompass societal, national, international and scientific domains. Laužackas et al.
(2009, pp. 804) further consider that “qualification was mainly understood as a set of rather narrowly specialised
knowledge, skills and abilities acquired once and for all, in the initial vocational education institutions, defining
the occupation of the person throughout his whole life”. Nevertheless, these authors further corroborate that
learning processes in a particular social and geographical context, were separated from planning processes
directly associated with labour force mobility due to its incompatibility with centralized human reso urce
planning processes. Laužackas et al. (2009) further maintain that, according to this Soviet perspective, the
planning concept was more adequate and acceptable because it defined both the characteristics and qualities
of the particular group, as opposed to individuals and their performance.
According to Civelli (1997), in recent years, competencies are highly valued because of the dominant paradigm
in which factors such as, the body of knowledge, including skills, experience, organisational roles, as well as
organisational status, were all considered security factors for the individual. However, currently the reality is the
opposite, because education and training should give rise to formal qualifications and a personal skill set.
According to Fallows & Steven (2000), this results from the fact that current markets are not only dependent on
specific skills and knowledge but also on proactive skills such as problem-solving, autonomous work, among
other qualities which positively influence individual performance. These authors further substantiate that
Ana Martins et al.
higher education needs to take on a strategic role and the great majority of factors applying pressure on
universities arise from the system itself. These factors are outlined below, namely,
The rise in internationalisation and the misalignment with graduate qualifications, which stems from the
change in knowledge parameters, resulting from market needs;
Acknowledging the importance of academic curricula to introduce diverse and transferrable characteristics
in the presupposition that internationalization is not compatible with those academic curricula that ignore
such change;
Sudden changes in the world labour market, whose technological remodelling produces relevance to both
experience and day to day practices.
The European Commission (1995) in this complex and changing context, considers that the current learning
society demands a redefinition of personal, organisational and societal objectives. This is mainly due to
internationalisation processes which directly influence the current society; as a result of shifting borders
between countries, cultures and civilisations, where technology influences learning and development. This
perspective of the current reality implies the taking of responsibility on behalf of academia as a whole, including
those students who reveal an awareness about their responsibilities as learner s. Furthermore, society in the
future should know how to invest in intelligence, which is a fundamental characteristic in a society based on
teaching and learning, and which also appeals to uphold each individual’s participation in creating their own
qualifications, as the European Commission supports. Furthermore, our current society is based on three
shockwaves, namely, (i) information society shockwave; (ii) globalisation shockwave; (iii) scientific and technical
shockwave which demands attention and strengthening of soft skills. Improving the learning culture is focused
on the dynamic process underlying soft skills, learning and exploration.
4. Distributed leadership and the vibrant nexus with skills development
According to Spillane (2005), distributed leadership is essentially about leadership practice. Furthermore,
MacBeath (2005) substantiates that distributed leadership is founded on trust and encompasses a mutual
response of other individuals’ leadership potential. Distributed leadership encourages consultation and
consensus instead of command and control. These characteristics challenge traditional organisational models.
According to Currie & Lockett (2011), distributed leadership was first suggested by Gibb (1954), but was latent
until Brown & Hosking (1986) come upon it once again. Distributed leadership is based on three main principles,
namely, (i), leadership is regarded a blossoming feature of a group or network of interacting individuals; (ii) there
is accessibility to the boundaries of leadership (i.e. who has a role both within and beyond the organisation);
and (iii) that varieties of expertise are distributed across the many, as opposed to the few. Therefore, distributed
leadership is represented as dynamic, relational, inclusive, collaborative and context specific. Distributed
leadership requires a system perspective that transcends organisational levels, roles and boundaries.
For Harris & Chapman (2002) distributed leadership is a traditional organisational theory framework which
entails a series of tasks. While Spillane et al. (2001: 25) espouse a contrasting approach, as ‘the execution of
leadership tasks is often distributed among multiple leaders’. Spillane et al. (2001) further claim that distributed
leadership is the process of thinking and acting in a particular situation, its progress is centred on the perception
of individual practitioners and their theories in use (Argyris & Schon 1978). Therefore, leadership in education
institutions is regarded as thinking and acting in a particular situation to support teaching and learning.
In fact, in the perpetually changing and information profuse society, individuals perform more demanding and
responsible roles. In view of this, education will not only be concerned with acquiring knowledge but also with
developing individual, social and professional competencies in order to activate, adapt and integrate knowledge
that students hold. Moreover, in order to improve performance, students should be intelligent and creative in
using their competencies, as Blanco et al. (2012) buttress. In this way, as competencies go beyond knowledge
and know how, leadership can indeed be related to an educational system, to the social and work environment
as well as to competency and skills building. Indeed, Hawkins & Winter (1996: 9) corroborate that students
should be trained and guided towards,
Improving their self-consciousness,
Informed decision making about what, how and where to study;
Acquiring and build up relevant workplace experience;
Ana Martins et al.
Developing workplace competencies;
Reflecting on the learning process and its outcomes;
Intensifying group and networking
Exploring alternative career options
Acquiring practical skills on Negotiating
Learning to do things in a different way
Not panicking because the individual cannot be perfect.
According to Martins et al. (2017a, pp. 215), “distributed leadership is characterized as purposeful, relational,
inclusive, shared and circumstantial. In the HE sector, contribution is expected from all stakeholders, namely,
academics, administrative, professional staff, members of the university council, govern ment policy makers as
well as parents, students and the local community. Complex, changing and interdependent environments
benefit from distributed leadership. To date, research tends to reveal that distributed leadership is essentially
an ideal, a rhetorical device that both organizations and individuals can strive for in the HE sector”. Hence the
concern of this study is to ascertain how the sample of undergraduate students self-report their leadership style.
Furthermore, those HE competencies that are related to soft skills include these domains, namely, social skills,
leadership, team and group work, stress management, emotional intelligence, among others (Pereira, 2013a,
b). When learning processes are centred on the student, the individual feels a degr ee of autonomy and is
motivated in searching for knowledge by committing to the learning process. In this situation, the faculty
member plays a strategic role to support the student by opening doors to the world of alternatives, of paths and
methodologies which will support to organise the information manual in line with proposed objectives.
In this complex world, prolific in information (Pereira, 2013b), one may inquire whether knowledge or
competency creation is more important to achieve augmented levels of performance in professional activities.
In reality, in the current knowledge economy, it seems apparent that formal and informal knowledge, as well as
interpersonal relationships, attitudes, values and emotional capital are all an integral part of the similar
construct. This construct is significantly higher that higher than the sum of its parts because it is a complex
network of interactions which do indeed multiply knowledge once well achieved (Pereira, 2013a; 2013b).
Moreover, academic curricula should not only focus on technical skills but also on soft skills in order to effectively
support organizations to adapt to the current times. HEIs should also be concerned with fostering the capability
to ascertain whether a humane perspective dominates where all individuals participate and have common goals,
where graduates are capable of becoming leaders imbued with skills that include the awareness of spiritual
capital, attitudes, commitment and empathy (Martins et.al., 2017, pp.:168).
5. Methods and analysis
5.1 Setting and data collection
This exploratory study was conducted using the survey research method. The purpose of survey research is to
gather data from groups of people by utilizing questionnaires (Ary et al., 2002). Furthermore, Gall et al. (2003:
223) corroborate that “the purpose of a survey is to use questionnaires or interviews to collect data from a
sample that has been selected to represent a population to which the findings of the dat a analysis can be
generalized”. The T-P Leadership Questionnaire was distributed to a sample of undergraduate university
students based in the Southern Anatolian region of Turkey. This instrument measures two dimensions pertinent
to leadership behaviour, namely, (i) task oriented leadership style which is linked to initiating structure as well
as (ii) people oriented leadership style which is associated with consideration. The questionnaire has 35 items
and is based on the managerial grid concept developed by Blake & Mouton (1964). The purposive sample
included both undergraduate Business Degree programme comprising a total of N=25 students. The valid
responses received where N=13. Students completed the questionnaire via an online link derived from
KwikSurveys.com. This study entails the research question of whether there a significant finding in self-reported
ratings of leadership styles in students in HEI who are working towards a bachelor’s degree in Management and
also in comparison with students who earned an Undergraduate degree. The purpose of the study is to find out
the leadership style among the sample of university students. Students were required to provide their self-
reported responses.
Ana Martins et al.
5.2 Analysis and discussion
The purpose of this study was to find out the leadership style of the sample of university students. From the
responses obtained, the analysis of the results reveal that 18% of the respondents fall into the category of P -
Concern for people. While, 44 % exposed T- Concern for Task. The fact that task-centred behaviour was pre-
eminent seems to denote that respondents self-report a significantly higher predisposition towards using
autocratic leadership style focusing on higher productivity. This also reveals a greater connection in influencing
behaviour with the task-centred rather than with the people. The results further seem to indicate that there is
a less dominating self-reporting of people-centred behaviour which is concerned with feelings, two-way
communication, and which would be more strongly receptive towards laissez-faire and distributed leadership
styles thus resulting in increased morale. Furthermore, these findings tend to suggest that these students are
more concerned with productivity (completing their degrees) revealing a partial connection with developing
their interpersonal relationships.
In fact, organisations look for incumbents with competencies that have not be explicitly stated in the curricula.
These competencies include various domains, namely, social skills, leadership, team and group work, stress
management, emotional intelligence, among others (Pereira, 2013a, b). When learning processes are centred
on the student, the individual feels a degree of autonomy and is motivated in searching for knowledge by
committing to the learning process. In this situation, the faculty member plays a strategic role to support the
student by opening doors to the world of alternatives, of paths and methodologies which will support to organise
the prospectus in line with proposed objectives. In this complex world prolific in information (Pereira, 2013b),
one may inquire whether knowledge or competency creation is more important to achieve augmented levels of
performance in professional activities. In reality, in the current knowledge economy, it seems apparent that
formal and informal knowledge, as well as interpersonal relationships, attitudes, values and emotional capital
are all an integral part of the similar construct. This construct is significantly higher than the sum of its parts,
because it is a complex network of interactions which do indeed multiply knowledge once well achieved (Pereira,
2013a; 2013b). This knowledge goes beyond traditional academic knowledge and supports the student to make
decisions in various spheres, i.e., professional, personal and/ or social during the individuals’ life. The urgent
need is also perceived for universities to reflect on their strategies in order to enable a more flexible approach.
The university should focus on a new social and economic paradigm enabling the HEI to be an environment for
creation and social transformation. There is an urgent need for this to occur given the fact that current society
looks for diverse competencies which tend to be less technical, specific and instrumental. Instead, these
competencies take on a more generic role which is multidisciplinary, harmonious and humanistic in nature.
5.3 Future research directions
Recommendations and Implications
Universities should consider a thorough review of the curriculum with possible program me changes. Students
should be encouraged from across all majors to consider the importance of humane perceptions and soft skills.
Today’s employers expect graduates to be equipped with a set of technical and soft skills so as to interact closely
and effectively in diverse teams. Limitations of the survey research method used in this study are associated
with the notion that, when individuals self-report their own behaviours, they may tend to reflect positively on
their personal knowledge, attitudes. Additionally, using only one survey instrument to measure soft skills is
limiting. Furthermore, analysing only one university makes it difficult to generalise to a broader population.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study can add to the rapidly growing body of research in the field of distributed leadership.
This study produced interesting results. It is perceived that HEIs should develop graduates with a skill set in tune
with industry requirements. Leadership plays a significant role in developing organisations and society.
Currently, individual competencies are diverse in nature in order to effectively be in tune with the labour market.
Higher education as such no longer guarantees effective performance nor does it elevate the individuals,
organisations, regions performance according to the desired intensity. Not only the role specific and technical
competencies, but also emotional competencies, relational, inter and intrapersonal as wel l as social
competencies all play vital roles in performance and in energising a competitive edge.
Ana Martins et al.
Therefore, higher education is considered as the lever for changing the individual’s attitudes and behaviour ,
resulting in positive levels of organisational performance. However, the university should indeed harness
individual development as well as good citizen practices, an imperative for the new economic and social order.
It should also promote the development of competencies to consolidate the individual’s personality and to
promote social cohesion. In this context, the university fosters an environment that promotes creative and
entrepreneurial freedom. In the event that the university thwarts this environment, the university may be seen
as impeding social and economic inclusion and cohesion. This may also hinder the path towards humanisation
of the organisation and the economy as well. Indeed, the university should contribute to a policy of sustainable
development starting from within. Moreover, universities are viewed as privileged contexts promoting new
paradigms, creativity and new knowledge. This further encourages innovation. This reflection also reveals the
need to intensify multidisciplinary competencies because intangibles are taking on the main role in social and
economic development. Without this perspective, development cannot be sustained which leads to further
problems being raised with negative outcomes on the dynamic innovation processes. Moreover, HEI should
provide curricula that not only focus on technical skills but also on soft skills in order to effectively support
organizations to adapt to the current times. The students’ self-reported findings reveal there is an urgent need
for HEIs to foster curricula with a humane perspective so that graduates are capable of becoming leaders,
imbued with skills and competencies that include the awareness of spiritual capital, attitudes, commitment and
empathy. These soft skills are concomitant with stimulating creativity and innovation, harmonising distributed
leadership skills and promoting improved performance and organisational sustainability.
References
Anderson, David, A., Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D. and Jackson, D. N. 2008. A leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and its
relation to effective leadership’. The Leadership Quarterly, (19)5, pp. 595–608.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. and Razavieh, A. 2002. Introduction to research in education. 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Wadsworth Group.
Bandura, A. and Locke, E. A. 2003. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited’. Journal of Applied Psychology, (88), pp.
87-99.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. 1982. Teoría del aprendizaje social. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. 1977a. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, (84), pp. 191-215.
Blake, R. and Mouton, J. 1964. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf.
Blanco, P., Jové, M. C. and Reverter. J. 2012. Paradigma estratégico para el desarrollo de habilidades competenciales.
Estudio descriptivo sobre la variabilidad en la percepción de habilidades competenciales de 40 alumnos de educación
física en fase de formación inicial. Educación XX1, (15)2, pp. 231-248.
Boyatzis, R. 1982. The Competent Manager - A Model for Effective Performance. John Wiley & Sons, New York: NY.
Brown, M.H. and Hosking, D.M. 1986. Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organization in social
movements. Human Relations, (39)1, pp. 65-79.
Brungardt, C. 2011. The Intersection Between Soft Skill Development and Leadership Education. Journal of Leadership
Education, (10) 1, pp. 1-22.
Brungardt, C. L., Greenleaf, J. L., Brungardt, C. J. and Arensforf, J. R. 2006. Majoring in leadership: A review of
undergraduate leadership degree programs. The Journal of Leadership Educators, (5) No. 1, pp. 4-24.
Civelli, F. F. 1997. New competences, new organizations in a developing world. Industrial and Commercial Training, (29)7,
pp. 226–229.
Currie, G. and Lockett, A. 2011. Distributing Leadership in Health and Social Care: Concertive, Conjoint or Collective?
International Journal of Management Reviews, (13), pp. 286–300.
European Commission (EC). 1995. Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society, Available on the internet at
http://www.cec.lu/en/comm(dg22/dg22.html, Accessed on 23/10/11
Fallows, S. and Steven, C. 2000. Building employability skills into the higher education curriculum: a university-wide
initiative. Education & Training, (42), 2, pp. 75-82.
Fleury, M. T. L. and Fleury, A. 2001b. Construindo o Conceito de Competência. Revista de Administração Contemporânea
(RAC), Edição Especial, pp. 183-196.
Gall, M., Gall, J. and Borg, W. 2003. Educational research: An introduction. (7th ed.). Boston: Allen and Bacon.
Gibb, C. A. 1954. Leadership. In G. Lindzey, ed. Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 877–917), Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Harris, A. and Chapman, C. 2002. Democratic leadership for school improvement in challenging contexts. Paper presented
to the International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement, Copenhagen.
Hawkins, P. and Winter, J. 1996. The self-reliant graduate and the SME. Education & Training, (38)4, pp. 3-9.
Jansen, J.J.P., Vera, D. and Crossan, M. 2009. Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of
environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, (20), pp. 5–18
Ana Martins et al.
Jashapara, A. 2003. Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning organization. The Learning
Organization, (10), pp. 31-50.
Laužackas, R., Tūtlys, V. and Spūdyte, I. 2009. Evolution of competence concept in Lithuania: from VET reform to
development of National Qualifications System. Journal of European Industrial Training, (33) 8/9, pp. 800-816.
MacBeath, J. 2005. Leadership as distributed: a matter of practice. School Leadership and Management, (25), 4, pp. 349-66.
Martins, A., Martins, I. and Pereira, O. 2017a. Feedback and Feedforward Dynamics: Nexus of Organizational Learning and
Leadership Self-efficacy, In Victor, C. X. Wang, ed., Encyclopaedia of Strategic Leadership and Management (pp. 208-
233). IGI Global.
Martins, A., Martins, I. and Pereira, O. 2017b. Embracing Innovation and Creativity Through the Capacity of Unlearning. In
de Pablos, Patricia Ordóñez and Tennyson, Robert D., eds. Handbook of Research on Human Resources Strategies for
the New Millennial Workforce (pp. 128-147). IGI Global.
Martins, A., Lopes, A., Martins, I. and Petiz, O. 2015. Paths to success: leveraging culture, leadership, and learning
strategies. In Erbe, N. and Normore, A., eds. Cross-Cultural Collaboration and Leadership in Modern
Organizations (pp. 236-254). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J. M. 2002. Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and
relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, (13) 6, pp. 705-750.
Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Jacobs, T.O. and Fleishman, E.A. 2000. Leadership Skills for a changing world:
Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, (11) 1, pp. 11-35.
Nemanich, L. A. and Vera, D. 2009. Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition’. The
Leadership Quarterly, (20), pp. 19−33.
Paiva, K.C. M. 2007. Gestão de Competências e a Profissão Docente: um estudo em universidades no Estado de Minas
Gerais, Tese-Administração, UFMG: Brasil.
Pereira, O. P. 2015. VET: Strategic approach for economic, organizational and personal development in EU countries.
Revista Galega de Economia, (24)2, pp. 111-124.
Pereira, O. P 2013a. Metacompetencies: How Important For Organizations? Analysis Of A Survey In Portugal. Regional and
Sectoral Economic Studies, (13)2, pp. 73-88.
Pereira, O. P 2013b. Soft skills: from university to the work environment. Analysis of a Survey of Graduates in Portugal.
Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, (13) 1, pp. 105-118.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J. and Kahai, S. S. 1997. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness
in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, (82), pp. 89–103.
Spillane, J. P. 2005. Distributed Leadership. The Educational Forum, (69), Winter, pp. 143-150.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J.B. 2001. Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, (36)1, pp. 3-34.
Sternberg, R. J. and Hedlund, J. 2002. Practical Intelligence, G, and Work Psychology. Human Performance, (15)1/2, pp.
143–160.
Thomson, K. 2000. El capital emocional. Madrid: Ed. Esic.
Vieira, A. and Luz, T.R. 2005. Do saber aos saberes: Comparando as noções de qualificação e deCompetência. O&S, (12) 33,
pp. 93-108.
Copyright
ofProceedings ofthe European Conference onManagement, Leadership&
Governance
isthe property ofAcademic Conferences &Publishing International Ltd.andits
content
maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the
copyright
holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail
articles
forindividual use.