1. INTRODUCTION:

An organization's competitive advantage creates more value to its customers than its rivals (Porter, 1985; Branden burger and Stuart,1996). Leadership is decisive to the success or failure of an organization. An effective strategic plan creation and implementation, to realize strategic organizational objectives requires adopting virtues that will entice leadership to motivate their employees to put in their best efforts to enhance implementation practices Gentry, et al. (2014).

According to Thompson and Strickland (2013), strategy implementation is done in two stages (implementation and execution).  Organization top leadership shall devise and put in place a carefully formulated strategy, later the management of an organization plays a vital role in strategy execution, it's an ongoing effort, optimizing the competence iteratively and showing quantitatively measurable growth in realigning organizational long and short term targets..

Germano (2010) argued that leadership directly influences the success and failure of an organisation. Ale Ebrahim, Rashid et.al., (2012) thought that Leadership is the interface between strategic implementation and the organisation's objectives. However, a lack of effective leadership has been attributed to the ineffective implementation of the strategy (Beer,2000; Hbreniak, 2008; Sila,2016). According to Schmidt (2005), leader behaviours influence the objectives of strategies by a different action.

STUDY OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS:

The efficient implementation of the strategy is a vital necessity for any company continuity as said by Kaplan and Norton (2001), or at least to survive in the volatility, uncertainty, complex, and ambiguity (VUCA) environment. Strategy implementation requires a well-devised strategy, leadership, and employee’s ability to execute on that strategy.

This study assesses how a leader's behaviour affects the success of strategy formulation and implementation. The objective of this study is to unearth the apparent influence of leaders’ behaviour on the strategy formulation and implementation procedure at IHLs in Nilai, Malaysia.

Research Question: what is the perceived influence of leaders’ behaviour on the successful strategy formulation and implementation procedure at IHL’s in Nilai, Malaysia?

To address this research objective, the following Sub research questions are defined. Through these sub research questions, we try to provide an answer to the study objectives.

Sub research question 1: What are the attributes of a successful strategy formulation and implementation procedure?

Sub research question 2: What is the behaviour of a successful leader?

Sub research question 3: How various leaders' behaviours influence strategy formulation and implementation at IHL’s in Nilai, Malaysia?

1.2 STUDY AIM:

A clear insight into the influence of various leaders' behaviour on the successful strategy formulation and implementation in the IHLs context is lacking in pre-existing knowledge.

 1.3 STUDY STRATEGY:

 This research is carried out in two different phases, the first phase of this research is the assessment of existing knowledge. It is necessary to recognize the observed influence of leaders' behaviour on successful strategy formulation and implementation procedure. There exists a vast knowledge in the discipline of strategy formulation and implementation. To understand the first two sub research objectives, a knowledge exploration is performed. Here first we are exploring the existing knowledge in strategy formulation and implementation in various disciplines. Later thorough exploration is performed to understand various aspects of a leader's behaviour and their perceived influence on strategy formulation and implementation procedure.

The second phase of the research is quantitative research. Sub question 3 assesses how leadership behaviour influences the strategy formulation and implementation procedures.

1.4 THESIS FRAMEWORK:

          This report is structured into five (5) main sections, each section concentrates on an aspect of the study, and it is further segmented into smaller subsections to facilitate convenient flow.

The first section is the introduction that encompasses the introduction to the research, research objectives and questions, research aim, research strategy, and report outline.

Section Two (2) answers research questions 1 and 2, respectively. It provides a conceptual framework to find the solution to our research objective. It includes a comprehensive exploration of existing knowledge in the field of leaders’ behaviours, strategy formulation, and strategy implementation procedures.

Section Three (3) covers the design of the research methodology, that includes framing of hypotheses to test research objectives, designing of research questionnaire, determination of data gathering mechanism, determination of appropriate sample size, respondent selection criteria, and data analyses to be done to address the research objectives. 

Section Four (4) is the interpretation of results of section 3, to answer the research question 3 as specified by the data.

 The Last section lists out the important observations of the research, the conclusion of the research, inadequacies of the research and consequences of the research.

2 STRATEGY FORMULATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND LEADERSHIP:

The main objective of this section is to understand sub research questions 1 and 2.

Sub Question 1: What are the attributes of an effective strategy formulation and implementation procedure?

Sub Question 2: What is the behaviour of a successful leader?

2.1 LEADERSHIP:

2.1.1 LEADERSHIP PARADIGM:

        The necessity for robust and efficient managerial leadership is ever increasing, as we currently have a world population of more than 10 billion, and its total economy is greater than USD 86 trillion, complemented by unparalleled and precipitous ecological and social change. The intrinsic drive to address enduring public and ecological issues calls for similarly convoluted and flexible leadership Pink (2006), leadership paradigms are shown in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7. Leadership Paradigms.

Source: Own Illustration.

2.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS STUDY:

The principal objective of this study is to understand the influence of leaders' behaviour on the successful strategy formulation and implementation. Therefore, a leader's behaviour is examined to ascertain the effect of leaders' behaviour on the success of strategic planning. We start this study with the assumption that the leadership style can influence the effectiveness of strategy formulation and strategy implementation either favourably or adversely,

Figure 2.8. Conceptual Model.

Source: Own illustration.

2.2.1 Directive leader’s behaviour:

Hypothesis DLSA: Directive class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy formulation process.          

Hypothesis DLSB: Directive class of leaders’ behaviour influences the strategy implementation process.

2.2.2 Supportive leaders’ behaviour:         

Hypothesis SLSA: A supportive class of leaders’ behaviour influences the strategy formulation process.          

Hypothesis SLSB: Supportive class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy implementation process.

2.2.3. Participative leaders’ behaviour:        

Hypothesis PLSA: A participative class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy formulation process.          

 Hypothesis PLSB: A participative class of leaders’ behaviour influences the strategy implementation process.

2.2.4 Achievement-oriented leadership behaviour:          

Hypothesis ALSA: An achievement-oriented class of leaders’ behaviour influences the strategy formulation process.

Hypothesis ALSB: An achievement-oriented class of leaders’ behaviour influences the strategy implementation process.

Theoretical model:

Figure 2.9. Theoretical model perceived influence of leaders’ behaviour on strategic management.

Source: Own illustration.

3: METHODOLOGY

            Quantitative research had been conducted. This session will specify the way the research work is designed, the determination of population, sampling strategy and sample selection, primary data gathering approach, and data analytics chosen.

3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH:

            The main objective of this study is to understand what the influence of leaders’ behaviour on the successful strategy formulation and implementation procedure of IHL’s in Nilai is, Malaysia. Mainly, the choice of quantitative versus qualitative methodology to be done depends on the study objective. A qualitative study objective is to explain a trend or suggest a hypothesis. In contrast, a quantitative study objective is to describe reasons and make prognostications (Bryman, et.al., 2007). Concerning the aim of this research objective and circumstances, we used the quantitative method.

3.2 SOURCE OF DATA:

          This research was collected primary data by using online and hard copy well-structured questionnaire from administrative academicians’ of IHLs in and around Nilai, there are Four(4) IHLs in and around Nilai, they are Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia(USIM), Nilai University(NILAI), INTI University(INTI), and Manipal international university(MIU).

3.3 ONLINE MAIL AND HARDCOPY QUESTIONNAIRE:

            This questionnaire comprises two sections, section-1 consists question to assess the leaders, behavioural class, here leaders behaviour classified into one of the Four(4) following classes directive, supportive, participative or achievement-oriented, section-2 consists question to assess participant influence on strategy formulation and implementation as perceived by the individual participant.  Both these sections together consist of a total of 49 questions (refer appendix E).

3.3.1 LEADER BEHAVIOUR:

            To assess a leader class of behaviour we employed the path-goal leadership questionnaire conceived by Indvik (1988). This questionnaire was the culmination of earlier works done by House and Dessler (1974), it is further improved by House (1977) the questionnaire used is the ultimate form of the work of House (1977), Fulk and Wendler (1982). It is consisting 20 questions, where answers are provided based on how frequently each option is true as per respondent behaviour on a seven-point Likert scale here label and its associated numerical values are as follow 0(don't know), 1(never), 2(Hardly), 3(Seldom), 4(occasional), 5(often), 6(Usually), and 7(Always).

3.4. DATA ANALYSIS:

            Data analysis is done by using SPSS, descriptive statistics (Mean and Standard deviation) are calculated for all the questions. Furthermore, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) is calculated among the predictive (Independent) and responsive (Dependent) variables its value ranges from -1 to +1.

            Multiple linear regression is performed to find out the relationship between leader behaviour class and effectiveness of strategy formulation and its implementation. Here, in this case, the independent variables are a mean score of the individual participants' leader behaviour class which are directive, participative, supportive and achievement-oriented and dependent variables are the effectiveness of strategy formulation(SEF1_N), strategy implementation(SEF2_N), mean score of individual participant strategy generation(SGMEAN, Section-C of the questionnaire) and mean score of the individual participant strategy execution(SEMEAN, Section-D of the questionnaire).

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

          Research objective: what is the perceived influence of leaders’ behaviour on the successful strategy formulation and implementation procedure at IHL’s in Nilai, Malaysia? To find this Likert scale based objective questionnaire is developed, a survey is done to know the causes for efficient strategy formulation and implementation at IHL’s in Nilai.     

4.1. MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS:

            Multiple linear regression was performed to assess the effect of leader behaviour on the strategy formulation and implementation process. Four leader behaviour classes are entered into the independent variable box and dependent variables(SEF1_N, SEF2_N, SGMEAN, and SEMEAN) entered one at a time to dependent variable box, to verify the multiple regression assumptions regression analysis is configured as follow, to test multicollinearity we checked collinearity diagnostics, Durbin Watson(value close to two(2) indicates variables are independent), Variance Inflation Factor(VIF)(VIF>10, indicates multicollinearity ), and Tolerance(Less than 0.2 indicates Multicollinearity ). To verify the homoscedasticity, we drawn scatterplot between ZPRED(X-axis) VS ZRESID(Y-axis) shape of the plot shall not be a cone or funnel (that indicates the homoscedasticity), to identify the outlier we used cook's(value more than 1 indicates outlier) and Mahala Nobis distance (value more than 10 indicates outlier ), finally to assess the statistical significance of the model ANOVA is calculated (if p > 0.05 model is statistically insignificant)

4.1.1 Effectiveness of Strategy formulation process:

            To understand the influence of leaders-behaviour class on strategy formulation, we used two explicit dependent variables, first one “How effective is your University in answering the fundamental questions about strategy and identity that will lead your University to long-term success?”( SEF1_N) and second is the average score of the individual respondent over the Strategy generation section(section-C) of the questionnaire)(SGMEAN).

            For a comprehensive understanding of the effect of independent variables on these dependent variables (SEF1_N & SGMEAN), we build three (3) regression models for each DV as shown in the below Figure 4.2, in total, we build six (6) models.

Figure 4.2. Regression models. (Source own illustration)

Regression Model-1 used the method “entry”; this method input all IV’s into regression analysis at once.

Model-2  used the method backward, this method will enter all independent variables into the model initially, later at each iteration it removes the most insignificant independent variable(IV) to evaluate the influence of other independent variables(IV’s)on the dependent variable(DV), this method proceeds in this way until it removes all insignificant independent variables, thus the ultimate model consists Y-coefficient(constant) and significant independent variables only.

Model-3 forces the regression line to be drawn from the horizon by setting the Y-intercept(constant) value to zero (0).

4.1.1.1 Assessment of the leader’s behaviour class influence on Strategy formulation using SEF1_N(Model-1):

            We are using only Model-1(method=entry) for the assessment of the influence of the leader's behaviour class on strategy formulation, for the Model-2&3 please refer appendix-F. Following Table 4.6A show the Model-1 summary, total variance in DV(SEF1_N) that can be explained by the IV's collectively is 34.5%, though it is small, the regression model is statistically significant F(4,56)=7.379, P<.001, R²=.345, please refer Table 4.6B.

Table 4.6A
Model Summary, (N=61, Method=Enter)
Model		R	R Square		Adjusted R Square		Std. Error of the Estimate
1		.588	.345		.298		.40744

Table 4.6B
ANOVA (N=61, Method=Enter)
Model				Sum of Squares		df		Mean Square	F		Sig.
1	Regression			4.900		4		1.225	7.379		.000
	Residual		9.297		56		.166

            Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the prediction of DV from IV’s, the results of multiple linear regression revealed that directive style is statistically significant to the model, whereas other IV’s are statistically insignificant, please consider Sig(P-value) from the coefficients table i.e. Table 4.6C

Table 4.6C
Coefficients (N=61, Method=Entry)
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	1.9	.517		3.672	.001
	Directive_Mean	.268	.099	.42	2.707	.009
	Suportive_Mean	-.015	.09	-.023	-.17	.866
	Participative_mean	.119	.081	.203	1.466	.148
	AchieOri_Mean	.054	.085	.097	.63	.532

           

The Table-4.6C shows that directive leader is having positive coefficient (.268), as we assumed and its effect is significant(p=.009) on the successful strategy formulation, and hence the formulated hypothesis

 ” Hypothesis DLSA: A Directive class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy formulation process.”, cannot be rejected.

Supportive leaders more concern about the wellbeing of the employees, they may not act tough and hence lose focus on the strategic objectives of the organisation, and hence we assumed the negative correlation between the supportive leader and strategy formulation, the results show the negative correlation(-.015) consolidating our assumption, however, this effect is not statistically significant(p=.866, ns), thus hypothesis

 “Hypothesis SLSA: A supportive class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy formulation process." could not be accepted.

Participative leaders we assumed positive influence, the results show a positive coefficient(.119), but its effect is insignificant(p=.148, ns), thus formulated hypothesis “Hypothesis PLSA: A participative class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy formulation process." could not be accepted.

We assumed a positive influence on strategy formulation by Achievement-oriented leader, thus we formulated the hypothesis “Hypothesis ALSA: An achievement-oriented class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy formulation process." Results show that achievement-oriented leaders had a positive influence (.054) on DV, however, this effect is not statistically significant (p=.532, ns), thus the hypothesis could not be accepted.

4.1.1.2 Assessment of the leader’s behaviour class influence on Strategy formulation using SGMEAN (Model-1):

            For dependent variable SGMEAN(Implicit) also we constructed three (3) regression models as we did for the SEF1_N(please refer section 4.3.1.1), We are using only Model-1(method=entry) for the assessment of the influence of leader's behaviour class on strategy formulation, for the Model-2&3 please refer appendix-G. Following Table 4.7A  show the Model-1 summary, total variance in DV(SGMEAN) that can be explained by the IV's collectively is 24.8%, though this value is small, the overall regression model was statistically significant F(4,56)=4.62, P=.003(significant), R²=.248, please refer Table 4.7B.

Table 4.7A
Model Summary, (N=61, Method=Enter)
Model		R	R Square		Adjusted R Square		Std. Error of the Estimate
1		.498	.248		.194		.235

Table 4.7B
ANOVA (N=61, Method=Enter)
Model				Sum of Squares		df	Mean Square	F		Sig.
1	Regression			1.017		4	.254	4.62		.003
	Residual			3.083		56	.055

            Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the prediction of DV from IV’s, the results of multiple linear regression revealed that directive style is statistically significant to the model, whereas other IV’s are statistically insignificant, please consider Sig(P-value) from the coefficients table i.e. Table 4.7C

Table 4.7C
Coefficients, (N=61, Method=Entry)
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	3.28	.298		11.01	0
	Directive_Mean	.122	.057	.355	2.135	.037
	Suportive_Mean	.045	.052	.127	.868	.389
	Participative_Mean	.046	.047	.146	.985	.329
	AchieOri_Mean	-.007	.049	-.025	-.15	.881

            Significance values for the independent variables in Table 4.7C are the same as the significance value of Table 4.6C, thus assessment of formulated hypothesis due to SGMEAN is the same as that of SEF1_N(please refer to section 4.3.1.1), though there is polarisation difference in supportive(we assumed negative influence but results show insignificant positive influence) and achievement-oriented(we assumed positive influence but results show insignificant negative influence) behaviour classes.

4.1.2 Effectiveness of Strategy Implementation process:

            To understand the influence of leaders-behaviour class on strategy implementation we considered two dependent variables, the first one "How effective is University at keeping the University on track in executing its strategy?”( SEF2_N) and second is the average  score of the individual respondent over Strategy implementation section(section-D) of the questionnaire(SEMEAN(implicit))

            Similarly, as we did in section 4.3.1.1, for a comprehensive understanding of the effect of independent variables on these dependent variables (SEF2_N & SEMEAN) we build three (3) regression models for each DV. as shown in the previous Figure 4.1, in total here also we build six (6) more models.

4.1.2.1 Assessment of the leader’s behaviour class influence on Strategy Implementation by using SEF2_N(Model-1):

            We are using only Model-1(method=entry) for the assessment of the influence of the leader's behaviour class on strategy implementation, for the Model-2&3 please refer appendix-H. Following Table4.8A  show the Model-1 summary, total variance in DV(SEF2_N) that can be explained by the IV’s collectively is 34.3%, though it is small, the overall regression model was statistically significant F(4,56)=7.311, P<.001, R²=.343, please refer Table 4.8B.

Table 4.8A
Model Summary, (N=61, Method=Enter)
Model		R	R Square		Adjusted R Square			Std. Error of the Estimate
1		.586	.343		.296			.429

Table 4.8B
ANOVA (N=61, Method=Enter)
Model				Sum of Squares		df			Mean Square	F		Sig.
1	Regression			5.399		4			1.350	7.311		.000
	Residual			10.399		56			.185

            Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the prediction of DV from IV’s, the results of multiple linear regression revealed that directive style is statistically significant to the model, whereas other IV’s are statistically insignificant, please consider Sig(P-value) from the coefficients table i.e. Table 4.8C

Table 4.8C
Coefficients (N=61, Method=Entry)
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	1.783	.546		3.267	.002
	Directive_Mean	.256	.104	.380	2.448	.018
	Suportive_Mean	-.072	.095	-.104	-.760	.450
	Participative_Mean	.098	.086	.160	1.149	.255
	AchieOri_Mean	.155	.090	.265	1.722	.091

            The Table 4.8C shows that directive behaviour is having positive coefficient (.256) it’s in contrast to our assumption(that drawn from corporate millennials in organisational settings), and its effect is significant(p=.018) on successfully implementing the strategy, and hence the formulated hypothesis “Hypothesis DLSB: Directive class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy implementation process.”, cannot be rejected.

            Thus, directive leaders have a positive influence on the successful implementation of the strategy, this contradicts our assumption, reasons for this contradiction can be explained by the source of our data, we collected data from educational institutions here the participants' mindset may be different from corporate millennials.

            We assumed a positive influence on the strategy implementation by the supportive leader but results show insignificant (p=.45, ns), negative influence (-.072) and hence the formulated hypothesis “Hypothesis SLSB: Supportive class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy implementation process.” cannot be accepted.

            We assumed a positive influence by the participative leader on the strategy implementation, the results show the positive influence(.098) as expected, however, it’s not statistically significant(p=.255, ns) and hence the formulated hypothesis “Hypothesis PLSB: A participative class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy implementation process.”  cannot be accepted.

            For achievement-oriented leaders, we assumed a positive influence on the strategy implementation, the results show the positive influence(.155) as we assumed, however, it's not statistically significant(p=.091, ns) and hence the formulated hypothesis “Hypothesis ALSB: An achievement-oriented class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy implementation process."  could not be accepted.

4.1.2.2 Assessment of the leader’s behaviour class influence on Strategy Implementation by using SEMEAN (Implicit)(Model-1):

            As we did for all other DVs, for this DV also we constructed three(3) models, but we are using only Model-1(method=entry) for the assessment of the influence of the leader's behaviour class on strategy implementation, for the Model-2&3 please refer to appendix-I. Following Table4.9A  show the Model-1 summary, total variance in DV(SEMEAN) that can be explained by the IV’s collectively is 39.9%, though it is small, the overall regression model was statistically significant F(4,56)=9.285, P<.001, R²=.399, please refer Table 4.9B.

Table 4.9A
Model Summary, (N=61, Method=Enter)
Model		R	R Square		Adjusted R Square		Std. Error of the Estimate
1		.631	.399		.356		.315

Table 4.9B
ANOVA (N=61, Method=Enter)
Model				Sum of Squares		df	Mean Square	F		Sig.
1	Regression			3.686		4	.922	9.285		.000
	Residual			5.558		56	.099

Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the prediction of DV from IV's, the results of multiple linear regression revealed that directive and participative leaders behaviour is statistically significant to the model, whereas other IV's are statistically insignificant, please consider Sig(P-value) from the coefficients table i.e. Table 4.9C

Table 4.9C
Coefficients, (N=61, Method=Entry)
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	2.993	.400		7.482	.000
	Directive_Mean	.249	.077	.483	3.250	.002
	Suportive_Mean	-.118	.070	-.221	-1.692	.096
	Participative_Mean	.129	.063	.273	2.052	.045
	AchieOri_Mean	.009	.066	.020	.134	.894

Assessment of the all formulated hypothesis, in this case, is same as that of the section 4.1.2.1, except participative leader, we assumed positive influence by participative leader on implementation of strategy as we expected influence is affirmative (.129) and it is significant(p=.045), thus formulated hypothesis “Hypothesis PLSB: A participative class of leaders’ behaviour influence the strategy implementation process."  cannot be rejected. It means a participative leader has a positive influence on successfully implementing the strategy. 

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

This section specifies the impact of this study on strategic management and leadership behaviour paradigms.

5.1. IMPORTANT FINDINGS:

Table 5.1 is the compendium of the assumptions we made about the influence of the various leader’s behaviour classes on strategy formulation and implementation procedures after a comprehensive literature survey.

Table 5.1
Consolidated Coefficients (assumed)
Leader Behaviour	Strategy Formulation		Strategy Implementation
Directive	Positive		Negative
Supportive	Negative		Positive
Participative	Positive		Positive
AchieOri	Positive		Positive

After analysing the data, we observed the following influences 

Table 5.2
Consolidated Coefficients (Observed)
	Strategy Formulation		Strategy Implementation
Leader Behaviour	SEF1_N	SGMEAN	SEF2_N	SEMEAN
Directive	0.268	0.122	0.256	0.249
Supportive	-0.015	0.045	-0.072	-0.118
Participative	0.119	0.046	0.098	0.129
AchieOri	0.054	-0.007	0.155	0.009

Finding1: directive leaders assumed to have a negative influence on strategy implementation, but it observed that in fact, they have positive influence though its effect is insignificant.

Finding2: supportive leaders assumed to have a positive influence on strategy implementation, but data analysis shows that they have an insignificant negative effect on the implementation process.

5.2. THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES:

            This research study was conducted in the academic institutions, participants are administrative academicians, dominant leadership styles are supportive(49%) and achievement-oriented(31%) these facts reflect the basic nature of the academicians, in the assessment of influencing leadership behaviour over the effectiveness of the strategy formulation and implementation it was observed that directive leader are influential, this reflects the fact that majority of the academicians are process-oriented, altruistic, amiable, and amicable and hence they need a directive leader to guide them.

6 REFERENCES

Ale Ebrahim, N., Ahmed, S., Abdul Rashid, S. H., & Taha, Z. (2012). Technology Use in the Virtual R&D Teams. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5(1), 9-14.

Akinyemi, J., & Dutton, E. (n.d.) How to be great at executing strategy: bridging the strategy execution gap. Retrieved July 1, 2016.

ANSOFF, H. Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. ISBN 00-7002-111-2.

Awan, R., Zaidi N.R., & Bigger S. (2008). Relationships between higher education leaders and subordinates in Pakistan: A Path-Goal Approach. Bulletin of Education and Research, 30(2), 29-44. 

BARNEY, J. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten years retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management. 2001, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, pp. 643-650. ISSN 0149-2063.

Bass, B.M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: The Free Press. 

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palo Alto CA.

Becher, J. (2005). Operational alignment: Bridging the gap between strategy and execution. Business Performance Management, 2011.

Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R.A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning. Sloan Business Review: 29-40.

BARNARD, C. The function of the executive. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1938. ISBN 067432-800-0.

Bernard, L.L. (1926). An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.

Berson, Y., Avolia, B. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunications firm. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 625-646.